Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 189

Monday, March 15 1999

• Pi
• Re:Nusach Ari
• Re: literalness of aggadita
• **About** WIN A HOLIDAY
• Apple for brocha
• Re: literalness of aggadita
• Morah'dike Ma'aseh
• viruses
• Getting a godole
• Doing and Understanding
• More on 420 and Purim, etc.
• Re: Heirarchy of authority
• Re: Chazal & Science
• Chazal and Authority
• Re: Chazal & Science
• Arguing on Earlier Doros
• Re: viruses
• Re: Heirarchy of authority
• Re: Getting a godole
• Avodah V2 #188 -Reply
• Re: Avodah V2 #188
• [Fwd: : Fw: Tehillim- Major Major Tehillim Call!!!!!!!!!!!!]

I'm sure someone from Chazal must have noticed this, but Sir Isaac Newton
points out an interesting Gematria WRT the value for pi given in Milachim
I 7:23.

The word for diameter "qav" is written "qvh". The gematria of the two words
are 106 and 111.
	3 * 111 / 106 = 3.14150943396226
which is actually the fractional approximation of pi possible with 3 digits.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-99: Cohen, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 303:25-31
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 49b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Shmuel-II 15

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Technically, all Nusach Sefard siddurim of eastern european origin claim
descent from the ari (and the ari influenced much of what we take to be
Nusach Ashkenaz in its present form as well). 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I am aware that the Shaar HaKollel was written to explain why R'Shneur
Zalman differed with other Nusach Sefard and Ashkenaz siddurim.  I am
also interested in knowing if there are any other studies published that
explain the differences among the nuschaos.  

One category of major changes tht R' SZ made, in accordance with Sefardi
siddurim, was to make sure that the phrase in long brochos "somuch
l'chasima" was "domeh l'chasima", which Nusach Ashkenaz apparently
doesn't worry about.   Examples include the endings of "Yotzer Or",
"Maariv Aravim", "Bonei Yerushalayim".   I have never seen a detailed
defense of Nusach Ashkenaz in these areas. 

Also noteworthy are the instances where R'SZ's nusach stands out is where
he differs with standard "Nusach Sefard" by eliminating phrases they
insert.  One of the most famous examples is "U'Metzapim l'yeshua" which
according to Sefardi siddurim is meant to be a Kavana and not a nusach
change.  R' SZ omits it.     

Any additional comments are welcome.
Raffy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

<<
REDT! I am surprised at you - see the Maharsha, Maharal, Rashba and Ritva
there who all make the point that these Agaddatas are not literal!
>>

But, RYGB you miss the point.  Chazal did not tell us that information.
Rishonim did.  BIG difference. No?

EDT

For what it's worth: I got the e-mail from a relative who is reliable and
would not harm me. Since then, at one point, all my e-mails that had not
been transferred to separate files were deleted.  I do not attribute this to
the supposed "virus," which Micha can confirm whether or not it would be
possible to convey virus by e-mail, but rather to a bug in MS's Outlook
Express. The whole thing promises trip to Disney for 4 to each of first
15,000 people to e-mail 13 people and submit something to MS (I forget what
and don't care to go to deleted files). I think it's just a way for MS to
collect e-mail addresses and your registry numbers and codes that accompany
them (more from Micha I'm sure if he's inclined--please no mesubin jokes!).

I believe that the story and the vort are recorded in one of the maggid
books by R' Pesach Krohn.

On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> But, RYGB you miss the point.  Chazal did not tell us that information. 
> Rishonim did.  BIG difference. No? 
>

No, REDT! Perhaps vis-a-vis themselves it made a difference whether a
Rishon or an Amora said something - but, from our perspective they are
all seraphim, ofanim v'chayos ha'kodesh asher kol divreihem yesodam
b'harerei kodesh!

(To put it colloquially: They didn't make stuff up!)

YGB

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

Did you all see the great story R' Meiselman relates in Tradition about
the woman who came to his uncle asking to wear a tallis in Shul?
Brilliant!

YGB

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

This is a computer myth.  there is no such thing as opening an email letter
and having your hard drive erased.  it simply can't happen.
Please DO NOT pass on the message!!

Please refer to the following sites:
http://www.eliashim.com/vcenter/irina.html#WINHOL
http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html#holiday
http://ciac.llnl.gov/ciac/CIACHoaxes.html#holiday
http://www.europe.datafellows.com/news/hoax/holiday.htm

It is always advisable to check out a virus warning before passing on the
message.  Many (e.g. PENPALS, BUDWEISER, Jesus (no pun inteneded) are stam
lies.  There are real viruses being sent around (e.g. Happy.exe).  But the
real ones do not work by opening an email and destroying your computer.
Ein devar kezeh.  

The above sites also provide info on how viruses work, and information of
virus hoaxes.

>If you receive an email titled "WIN A HOLIDAY" DO NOT open it. It will
>erase everything on your hard drive. Forward this letter out to as many
>people as you can. This is a new, very malicious virus and not many
>people know about it. This information was announced yesterday morning
>from Microsoft; please share it with everyone that might access the
>internet.  Once again, pass this along to everyone in your address book
>so that this may be stopped.

In V2, no. 188, Mechy Frankel contrasts the attitude in the scientific
(or academic) world, where it is acceptable or even laudable

        "to question everything and anybody. Though it works out only
rarely, it's kind of a feather in one's cap to "knock off" a proposition
by an odom godole ... consider how wildly different such an attitude is
from the notion of respect for authority in a religious context where
authority usually implies acceptance and the notion of ecstasy at
getting" a godole is the aspiration only of risho'im."

While I accept and agree with the point made here, I would like to point
out the "flip-side" of this. I recall reading an Israeli hagiography
of Rav Shach a few years ago in which the author (whose name I can't
recall) tells of how a young yeshiva boy asked R. Shach a question
during his weekly shi'ur clalli in the Ponovich yeshiva that caused him
(R. Shach) to stop, think and then announce something like "The boy is
correct; the rest of the shi'ur is cancelled because it is not correct".
(As I recall, this is alleged to have occured more than once over the
years. In addition, there were cases where the questioner was quite a
"junior" member of the yeshiva.) I have attended and participated in a
large number of physics conferences and colloquia and I seen some quite
devastating criticism presented to the lecturer, but I have never seen
this kind of response, which apparently stems from a combination of a
truly sincere thirst for the truth coupled with the utmost humility. I
certainly hope the story is actually true, since it has made a great
impression on me and I recall it ever since.

Saul Stokar

Elie Ginzparg:
>>Can you please explain your position. Do you believe there is no benifit
in trying to understand and think about the mitzvos besides for the intent
to fulfill them. Are we not supposed to think about why we eat matzah on
pesach, why muktzah takes effect bein hashamashos and not some other time.
Is it not part of our avodas Hashem to think about HAshem and how he
relates to the world. Isn't aggadata and medrashim all about telling us
how the world really works, the emes world, the spiritual world. How is
this knowledge not part of our avodah on earth. We must understand as much
as we can by reading the works of chazal and later gedolim who did
understand these things. ..<<

Bepashtus LFAD we do the mitzvos with or without thinking to be mekayyem 
"Naase", IOW unquestioned obedience.

When we debate, analyze, meditate, contemplate, consider, etc. mitzvos, etc., 
then we are engaged in "Nishma".

2 separate dimensions of Avodas Hashem.  In Pekuddei, when it says Kaasher Tzivo
Hashem es Moshe, it is probably irrelevant at that point whether they 
comprehended the sublime significance of the Mishkon's accouterments.  What 
counted at that point was that they faithfully executed their assignments 
without deviation.

Once completed, experiencing the Avoda within the Mishkon induced realizations 
of how Hashem interfaces with us etc.  And that comes later.
Rich Wolpoe

An aricelt in the NJ jewish Standard recently questioned the historicity of the 
Megillo based upon the lack of sources for Ahcashveirosh.  Mitchell First 
Responded with a letter pointed out that Ahcashveirsosh was Xrexes and gave the 
etymology.

Several questions coalesced in my mind.  Some my serve to gie us a bit of 
insight...

1)  Ma nisthaano Bayis sheini?  shbechol Chanukos habayis, we have some kind of 
anniversay celebration?

Nissan 1 - Mishkon
Sukkos   - Bayis rishon
Channuko - Basyi Shein after the syrian occupation

But Adar 3 - (according to Exra VI) is NOT observed.

2) Xerxes follows Darius.  Therefore Bayyis Sheini was up and running.  Yet 
Chazal posit that Purim was before Bayis Sheini.

Hypothesis:

Chazal discount the Darius Baysi Sheini as not being the "real thing" yet. (I am
not sure when it DID become "official").

This explains the possiblity that the clock started for the 420 later than we 
think.  (maybe the last 420 years of Bayis Sheini are what really ccunted...)

This explains the lack of observence of any chanukas habayis anniversary (3 Adar
did not have the full significance of a Chanukas HaBayis)

Tis explains how Bayis Sheini was still not built wrt the dating of Megillas 
Esther. (physically there was aa Darius buidling, but the BhM was not quite 
right yet).

This might explain the lower level of Kedusho atrtributed to Bayis Sheini.  (IOW
it did not meat a certain threshold perhaps.)

This leaves unexplained:
The Gemoro and Seder Olam squeezing 13 Persian rulers into the space of 51 
years.

The fact that the entire Bayis sheini era is described as 420, and not like I am
saying that all that really counted was 420.

Rich Wolpoe

<<
 The general rule is that the ultimate authority is an open verse in the
Torah.
 Next in order is something learned from the 13 Midos or a diyuk. Next are
things
 described as asmachtos.  
>>

While this is clearly Rambam's point of view, Ramban and others argue
vehemently against it (as I seem to remember in Sefer HaMitzvos), elevating 13
Middos
 d'rashos to full d'oreisa status.

EDT

<<
Whether Chazal knew science like we know it now is debatable, but probably
irrelevant. Chazal were more interested in the spiritual world not the
physical world. 
They didn't need to know how the physical world worked because they controlled
things in the spiritual realm. It is only a function of our galus/low
spiritual level that we must spend our time understanding the far more simple
physical world, and we can only dream of truly undersanding how things really
work.  
>>

A few questions.  Just how did Chazal control the spiritual realm?  Also, why
do you assume Chazal had no interest in the physical world.  There might have
been some who felt the same as Rambam eventually codified that there is
importance, possibly even a mitzva, in understanding the physical world.  I do
not see Rambam's perspective as one based on a galus mentality.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

RYGB:>>I see I am being misunderstood. No matter, I will patiently explain 
again. I am not questioning that acceptance is the basis of Chazal's authority
over us. The questionis why we should feel compelled to continue this
acceptance.<<

I was debating the subject of minhogim etc.(particluarly Ashkenaz vs. Sefard) 
with my LOR.  I said how is it someone can change from Nekadesh to Nakdishoch?  
So he responded that Nakdishoch, too  has a solid basis, etc.  Then I said, so 
does that mean I can eat rice this Pesach?  That has a solid basis too?!

Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> A few questions.  Just how did Chazal control the spiritual realm?

See R' Tzadok, Tzidkas HaTzaddik siman 90. He explains the process. A much
more expanded explanation constitutes the first Sha'ar of the Nefesh
HaChaim.

YGB

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

CB:<<which leaves one to wonder how the Rosh felt that
given adequete rational proof he could argue on geonim despite his prophetic
inferiority, or how the principle of hilchisa kbas'ra'ah works when one takes
into account the spiritual yeridas hadoros -<<

Here's my shito based upon Dr. Agus and others, that the Mesorah from Maharam 
Mirothenburg, etc. goes back at least as far as the Geonic Era. This alternate 
udnerstadning was fundamental for the Rosh to be able to challenge the Geonim.  
Then the Rosh might expand or elaborate upon it.  The point is that there was a 
competing - and equally legit - POV wrt to udnerstanding TB in particular and 
halacha in general.

EG I cannot possibly be worthy of arguing (at least lemaase) with the BY/SA.  
BUT I can cite the Ramo and he WAS worthy.

(On a different level, I think we can argue academically with almost anyone 
(Moshe exempted?) but halachically we are restricted). 

BTW, while I concede that Chazal post churban have Ruch haKoesh, I still don't 
see how it influences their authority over Halocho. 

Rich Wolpoe 

In order for a virus to infect your system, you have to run some kind of
software. For most people (the only exception I know of being AOL users),
this means that just opening an email is safe.

Emails can contain software as an attachment. This means that double-clicking
on an infected attachment would be dangerous. Also, you need to realize that
wordprocessor or spreadsheet files (or the like) could contain macros that
automatically run on start up. These can infect your word processor or
spreadsheet program. (From there, it's possible to get the rest of your system,
although no known MS Office virus has gotten that far. Yet.)

AOL, in its infinite "wisdom" allows the sender to mark certain attachments
as compressed packages, which it will automatically uncompress. This means
that a clever virus writer CAN write email that will run infected software
automatically (thinking it's uncompressing something) -- IF you use AOL to
read that email.

For the rest of us, don't double-click on an attachment unless you trust its
source.

Hope this helps,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 15-Mar-99: Levi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 303:32-304:6
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 50a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari I 13-16

EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> <<
>  The general rule is that the ultimate authority is an open verse in the
> Torah.  Next in order is something learned from the 13 Midos or a diyuk. Next
> are things  described as asmachtos.
> >>
>
> While this is clearly Rambam's point of view, Ramban and others argue
> vehemently against it (as I seem to remember in Sefer HaMitzvos), elevating 13
> Middos  d'rashos to full d'oreisa status.
>
> EDT

In general the Ramban and others are only asserting that what is learned from the
13 midos are considered doreissa. Your point is at best relevant concerning gezera
shaveh but not by the other midos. Gemora (Kerisas 5a) that a gezera shaveh should
not be viewed lightly because we learn capital punishment from it. It doesn't say
because it equivalent to an open verse.  On the other hand we find Ain Onshin min
hadin. We do not exact punishments based upon kal v'chomer. The rule of mutav
sheyihu shogagin does not apply to an open verse but it does apply to that which
is learned from a drasha. The Ran (Nedarim 8a) states that a shavua can apply to
something which is learned from a drasha but not to something openly in a verse -
even though they are both doreissa. Mushba v'omad m'har sinai does not apply to
something which is learned from a drasha. There are those who assert that the Taz'
rule -  that which is openly in the Torah can not be prohibited - does not apply
to gezera shaveh.

In sum. The gold standard of doreissa is an open verse. Something learned from
gezera Shaveh is a debate between Rambam and Ramban whether it is considered to be
equivalent to an open verse. Regarding the other drashos - they are sometimes
inferior to an open verse. The superiority of an open verse is not necessarily
tied to whether it is considered doreissa or not.

                                      Daniel Eidensohn

Dr. Saul Stokar wrote:

> In V2, no. 188, Mechy Frankel contrasts the attitude in the scientific
> (or academic) world, where it is acceptable or even laudable
>
>         "to question everything and anybody. Though it works out only
> rarely, it's kind of a feather in one's cap to "knock off" a proposition
> by an odom godole ... consider how wildly different such an attitude is
> from the notion of respect for authority in a religious context where
> authority usually implies acceptance and the notion of ecstasy at
> getting" a godole is the aspiration only of risho'im."
>
> While I accept and agree with the point made here, I would like to point
> out the "flip-side" of this. I recall reading an Israeli hagiography
> of Rav Shach a few years ago in which the author (whose name I can't
> recall) tells of how a young yeshiva boy asked R. Shach a question
> during his weekly shi'ur clalli in the Ponovich yeshiva that caused him
> (R. Shach) to stop, think and then announce something like "The boy is
> correct; the rest of the shi'ur is cancelled because it is not correct".
>

Rabbi Rakeffet told me the following story about a well known gadol. The
gadol was visiting a yeshiva  and was giving a drasha  when he noticed
someone in the back who apparently found it very boring. He walked to the
back and confronted the young man for being so arrogant as to not even pay
attention to the drasha. The young man look up and said "the Kletzker is a
gevalidge ilui but he has apparently overlooked an open mishna." That mishna
destroyed the whole drasha. The gadol fainted. When he came to, his first
words were "that bochur is going to be my son-in-law." and so it was.

the general rule for disagreement with authority - is stated by the Baal
HaMeor in his introduction to Berachos. The disagreement must be within the
guidelines of authority that have been established and accepted by the one
you wish to diagree with. Rav Hutner used to wear a special coat when he
gave a shiur clalli because of the intense debate which generally ensused
between him and his audience and he got very hot and excited. The Rosh noted
that one could disagree with the gaonim - iff there were solid proofs. Reb
Moshe was not upset by people disagreeing with him - as long as the person
had proofs. He was primarily upset by people who dismissed his rulings
without careful evaluation and study.see Even haEzer IV #18 page 40 in a
letter to Rabbi Shabbtsai Rappaport at the end " but my dear grandchild
don't refrain from writing chidushei Torah and even comments on my chidushim
whether printed or not. but it appears to me that all that I have written -
with G-d's help - are correct without contradictions from shas and poskim
and commentaries and if you find a contradictions you should examine it very
carefully. And if it is relevant to write please write and I hope to be able
to reply as to what I had intended. But of course it is not correct to say
that the I am always right but in fact all that I have written has been with
great effort to understand the Truth and therefore I hope that G-d - who
grants man intelligence - assists me.


                                 Daniel Eidensohn

Rabbi Bechhoffer wrote:

<<<
The Dor Revi'i is fascinating, but using him as a source is somehat
disingenuous. He was engaged in a polemic, and is writing as such, and in
no way can be construed to represent an objective dispassionate analysis -
not to mention, that you are pitting the DR against Rishonim, but that is
your perogative.
>>>

Well truth be told, the Dor Revi'i was, on occasion, willing to suggest that the
Rishonim had it wrong, but, of course, only if he was able to provide (what he
felt was) overwhelming proof to support his position.  But I'm not aware of
what Rishonim you are referring to other than the Ramban on BB 12 that you
have cited several times.  However, without having looked up the original (I
beg Daniel Eidensohn's pardon for this lapse), I would argue that the very
words that you believe support your position "yod'im ha'emes b'ruach
hakodesh she'b'kirbam" support the Dor Revi'i (or me whichever you prefer). 
Ruach hakodesh as normally understood does not come from within a person
(b'kirbo) but is "shoreh alav" from Heaven.  So when the Ramban explains
why a sage is greater than a prophet he is saying that, unlike the prophet,
who requires external ruach hakodesh to know the truth, the sage is able to
know the truth from his own internal ruach hakodesh, which, I take as the
Ramban's metaphorical term for the wisdom of the sage that enables him to
know what the prophet could only have known through actual ruach
hakodesh. If, as you argue, the ruach ha-kodesh of the sage is also derived
from Heaven, the Ramban does not explain why the sage is greater than the
prophet, only why the sage is as great as the prophet.
 <<<

(I do not disagree with much of what the DR is saying - in context.
Methinks he would be displeased by his great grandson's use of his words
to reach the conclusion in the paragraph below)
>>>

All I can say is that I hope that you are not relying on ruach hakodesh to
arrive at that conclusion.  In fact, I do worry about being an embarrassment
to the Dor Revi'i, but I trust that, as long as I am being sincere in what I write
and am m'khaven l'shem shamayim, that my inevitable lapses will be
received on high with understanding.  However, on this particular point, I
don't think I have to worry too much about the Dor Revi'i.  The Dor Revi'i,
after all, scandalized his rabbinical contemporaries when he once said, during
a speech defending Zionism from a religious point of view, that he hoped that
in the olam ha-emes he would be judged worthy to serve as a foot-stool for
Theodore Herzl.  

<<<
The net result, however, is the same, immaterial of the source. There is a
gaping divide between our respective attitudes vis-a-vis Chazal which,
while in practice leads to relatively minor nafka minos, as we both count
ourselves as practicing observant Jews, in theology is irreconcilable.>>>
>>>

Perhaps, but we can still be friends, can't we?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

Subject: intent of matza
> 
>  Do you believe there is no benifit
> in trying to understand and think about the mitzvos besides for the intent
> to fulfill them. Are we not supposed to think about why we eat matzah on
> pesach

Actually this is the wrong example. According to many, the statement of
Ramban Gamliel means that one is not yotzei the mitzva of matza
(at least on some level) without knowing the intent of the mitzva.
Rav Soloveitchik discusses the Rambam and Ramban at great length on
this halacha.

On the other hand there are the numerous stories of the rav who was
looking for a baal tokeah and asked each one what he thought about
while blowing the shofar. Each applicant discussed his deep 
thoughts and in the end the rav chose the one who said he concentrated
on doing the best possible tekiahs.

As to ruach hakodesh - I just in a new book the claim that the Steipler
Rav had ruach hakodesh because he  claimed that a jewish boy ready to
get married was really not Jewish. On the other hand I have heard that
Rav Moshe's family was insistent that all books about Rav Feinstein
stress his worldly behavior and not any miracles or ruach hakodesh.
I am not sure if that says anything about the relevant opinions of
these gedolim when they disagree.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Please read...

Thanks,

Joel

David.Leff@rnb.com wrote:
> 
> ---------------------- Forwarded by David Leff/Treasury Desk/Republic/US on
> 03/15/99 03:21 PM ---------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> Subject: : Fw: Tehillim- Major Major Tehillim Call!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> David,
> 
> My in-laws know the people, it is such a horrible story.....please pass on the
> name for Tehillim.
> 
> Thanks,
> Joanne
> ---------------------- Forwarded by Joanne Karfunkel/Treasury
> Department/Republic/US on 03/15/99 03:09 PM ---------------------------
> 
> jessica.mendelson@us.pwcglobal.com on 03/15/99 02:09:59 PM
> 
> 
> 
> Subject: : Fw: Tehillim- Major Major Tehillim Call!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> m>
> 
> ---
> 
> Everybody, I don't like sending out chain letters but this is important
> so
> PLEASE everybody send this out!! There is a friend of my sister's who had
> =
> a
> brain tumor and went through surgery. It was pronounced removed and
> nobody
> thought of this in about a year. Just recently we were informed that she
> w=
> as
> diagnosed with Cancer of the Brain. Radiation didn't work and now she is
> g=
> oing
> into surgery. She was married just a few months ago and she is a very
> youn=
> g
> girl. All I am asking of you is to not only send this mail to who you
> know=
>  but
> please, please say some tehillim for her and if you see yourself coming
> to=
>  say
> loshon hara, do something as small as holding yourself back in her zchus.
> Also, anyone who lives in Staten Island, can you please maybe attend a
> shi=
> ur
> and say it's in her zchus tomorrow morning, Sunday March 14th, at 10:30
> am=
>  at
> the Young Israel of Staten Island, 330 Forest Hill Road, Staten Island.
> He=
> r
> name is
> ALTA DEENA BRACHA bas GILA FREIDEL
> please do this for her!!
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Adam Yanofsky
> Staten Island, New York
> (718)698-6475
> 
> --part1_921430098_boundary--
> 
> --part2_921452656_boundary--
> 
> --part1_921452656_boundary--
> 
> --part0_921452656_boundary--
> 
> --------- End forwarded message ----------
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> Get secure free e-mail that you don't need Web access to use
> from Juno, the world's second largest online service.
> Download your free software at http://www.juno.com/getit.b.html.
> 
> ---End of forwarded mail from SHOSHANA G FALIK <sfalik@juno.com>
> 
> --
> Sara Elishis
> Goldman Sachs & Co.           Phone: (212) 357-8164
> Futures Services Systems      Pager: (917) 537-9315
> 85 Broad Street 30th Floor         Fax:   (212) 346-4267
> --
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.   If you received
>  this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any
> computer.

-- 

Joel
Margolies                                                                           
margol@ms.com   
W-212-761-1404

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]