Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 062

Monday, May 24 1999

• Virtual BM
• more catch up and a new question
• Nusach stirah
• [none]
• voting
• Halocho al pi Arachaeology
• Re: Ma'akeh
• Re: Lashon Hara
• Yom HaShoah Footnote
• Re: Halocho al pi Arachaeology
• Re: Yom HaShoah Footnote
• Re: hallel on Yom Haatzmaut
• Re: hallel on Yom Haatzmaut
• Re: Avodah V3 #61-israeli elections
• Re: Rambam's ikkarim
• Accurracy of distance from Bagdad to Kaifeng, Circa 900 CE

>n a message dated 5/23/99 7:00:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
>office@etzion.org.il writes:
>
><< Dear Subscriber,
> 
> This  week is inter-session in the VBM.  The summer session
> will begin next week.
> 
> 
> NEW COURSES FOR THE SUMMER:
> 
> YHE-Kings
> Jewish Political Theory, by Rav Mosheh Lichtenstein.
> This is a repeat of the shiur offered in 97-98.
> 
	I got this syllabus separately from the Yeshiva,  read it on the screen
and deleted it.  I then printed out Avodah for further review (a' la
subway) and found that 9 pages of the syllabus had printed within Avodah.
 Please,  next time,  just the header and a way to get the rest.  Thank
you

Gershon

Chana Luntz wrote:

One thing to note in this discussion is that the person who is most
frequently quoted as the standardbearer against the concept of Kollel
and being supported by others in order to learn, namely the Rambam,
himself had a Y/Z arrangement with his brother David, until his brother
drowned while on a business voyage, forcing the Rambam to then support
himself by way of a medicial practice.  The Rambam was incredibly close
to this brother, a letter between them is on display at the Israel
Museum and it is literally heartbreaking, as it was the last
communcation between them before the brother drowned, and it is full of
such affection.

In fact, the Rambam writes in a tshuva (after the event) that much of
the property that went down in the ship belonged to him.  I think the
proper reading of this relationship (and of the Rambam's understanding
of Y/Z) is that the Rambam was a silent partner and R. David did the
actual labor.  I'm too lazy to look up the detailed prerogatives of a
Talmid Chacham according to the Rambam right now, but he does list
several leniencies for this type of venture (NB the Rambam was the older
brother and would have inherited more).

The new question: I noticed in the Yad Malachi over Yom Tov that he
cites several authorities prohibiting post-Talmudic halachic drash of
psukim.  We all know that the Rambam disagreed (see his tshuva about
tcheiles).  Did other rishonim make such drashos?

David Riceman

OK, I've looked into the sources R' Brown suggested on changing of 
nusach, and I find myself in a stirah-position.  I don't see any
satisfactory resolution of the problem of what happens when a 
Lubavitcher davens by the amud in an Ashkenaz shul. 

The Ashkenazi sources, all based on OC 68, i.e. Mishnah Brurah,
Aruch haShulchan and Igros Moshe all say that minhag hamakom is
paramount, and the sha"tz must daven the local nusach.  Igros
Moshe goes so far as to say that the sha"tz must daven the silent
amidah in the local nusach even if it's not his normal nusach. 

Yet the Shulchan Aruch of the Baal haTanya says that minhag
avoteichem is paramount, such that one shouldn't deviate from his
own nusach.  So if he davens the local nusach, the Lubavitcher is
oveir by his own lights.  But if he davens the "nusach Ari", he is
oveir by the tzibur. 

The LOR is Lubavitch, so he's likely to incline towards the SABh"T.
The tzibur is 90% Ashkenaz.  Still, many Lubavitch rabbis serve
non-Lubavitch congregations.  Surely there must be precedents.  But
at present, I don't see any graceful way out of the stirah.

In my office minyan, we agreed amongst ourselves not to have a set
nusach - anyone can daven whatever they wish, so during Kedushah
you hear some people saying Nekadesh, and others say Naaritzach.
Is that the way out: to unseat the local minhag?

    Jonathan Baker     |  Ehh, you Sivan Sinaitic revelation, you've
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  seen 'em all.

Subject: loshan harah

I previously wrote

>> In the recent israeli elections exit polls were conducted in several polls
>> to predict the results immediately after the poll closed.
>> It seems then in several of the charedi areas the polsters were given
>> false information, e.g. half the people voted for Lapid (anti-haredi).

I was questioned in private why this is not loshan ha-rah.
First, this was widely discussed in the Israeli news and as far as i
know repeating a statement that is widely known is not loshan ha-rah.

Just to clarify, there was an interview with one of the pollsters 
questioning why the exit polls were so inaccurate. She attributed
this to deliberiate lying as above. However, she strongly asserted
that as a generality she has no problems with the haredi community
in most polls as long as certain guidelines are followed (eg
the pollster is a male etc). She stressed that this was an exception to 
rule but that it was definely coordinated. I have verified the
information from a professor in our department who specializes in
poll taking.
They all stressed that we are talking about small groups and not
communities at large.

This leads to the question. How does one ask a question without giving
the facts. Of course, one should leave out names that are irrelevant.
However, certain facts seem to be important in phrasing the question.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

R YGB writes
<<
The very act of putting a ballot for a non-Orthodox party in the ballot
box is a ma'aseh issur.

This, because of the prohibition of minui melech and other mesimos that
are not from achicha - b'mitzvos.
>>

Nevertheless, most religious parties have backed various people for
PM over the years.
Of course, this part of the campaign of those who oppose voting in
Israeli elections.

Eli Turkel

David Riceman:>> It's not entirely hypothetical.  The Rambam changed his opinion
based on ancient tefillin he saw in Eretz Yisrael (I believe it's in the tshuva 
to Chachmei Lunel). <<

Shaul Wienreb:>>
From: "sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu" <sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu>
Subject: hallel on Yom Haatzmaut

I would like to give Reb Moshe Feldman a yasher Koach on his wonderful post
regarding the history of Chanukah and its comparison to Yom Haatzmaut.  I
sometimes really learn new things from this list, and this is one great
example.  While I do not personally say hallel on the fifth of iyar, I do
believe that the debate should be based on intellectually and factually honest
arguments, not on sevaros shel shtus.  Your post has emphasized that in order
to claim something about a historical fact, one must first research to the best
of one's ability to determine if in fact this is the truth. ...<

If the Rambam changed his shito legabei Tefillin based upon aracheaological 
evidence, then can we halachcially incorporate historical data as recorded in 
Maccabees, Josephus, etc. to mitgiate or modify our halachic parameters legabei 
Channuko, too?  And by inference Yom ha'atzmout, etc.

IOW, once you say halacho can be "trumped" by indepedent research outside the 
realm of Mesorah, where does one draw the line?

Can we dig up evidence to back-up tha the Sadduceean assumption legabei 
mimochoras Hashabbos was correct, and therefore Shavuos was actually Sunday and 
not Friday?

Or what happens if we find the minutes of Sanhedrin and show that Moavi v'lo 
moavis was voted down?  thne what?

Or do we assume at some point in time, that a halacho as paskend is binding even
if we subseqently demonstrate that it was based upon a historical 
mis-understanding or mis-application?

Rich Wolpoe 

In a message dated 5/23/99 12:39:12 PM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> I few weeks ago the topic of ma'akeh was discussed on the list.  It is 
>  interesting that although a beit haknesset is patur from ma'akeh, the beit 
>  hamikdash had a ma'akeh of 3 amot (Middot 4:6).  Don't have a good hesber 
>  yet...
>  
See Minchas Chinuch #546 who leaves with a Tzarich Eyun, the Mokor is the 
Sifri Dvorim 22:8, and see Mforshim there, also Ragitchover on Beis Habchiroh 
4:3 (also in the Tzofnas Paneiach on the Possuk) says that the Chiuv Maakeh 
is at building the Kdusho came later, see also Arichus in Lkutei Sichos vol. 
24 page 137.

Lulei Dmistafina (especialy to those who omit it from the Sifri) perhaps it 
is not M'din  
Maakeh, which would also answer the height (as the Minchas Chinuch asks this 
too).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

--- Eli Turkel  wrote:
> I was questioned in private why this is not loshan ha-rah.
> First, this was widely discussed in the Israeli news and as far as
> i know repeating a statement that is widely known is not loshan
> ha-rah.
>
Actually, this is the issue of whether we pasken like the Rambam in
Hilchot De'ot [7:5] who says that when X tells information about Y to
A, B, and C, then the information is now public and therefore there
is no possibility of lashon hara provided that X has no intention of
deliberately spreading the news.  As a result, B is now permitted to
tell D the information.  (I just gave a shiur on Shavuot night on
this issue, but I don't have the sources at my office, so I am
writing from memory.)

The Rambam is based on the Gemarah [Bava Batra] which says that
"b'apei tlat let ba mishmum lishna bisha."  There are two
interpretations of this Gemarah: 

(1) Tosfot: the issue is whether X is permitted to tell information
to A, B, and C; the Chofetz Chaim in his Be'er Mayim Chaim commentary
at the beginning of Sefer Chofetz Chaim (Ch. 1 paragraph 2 or 3 in
the main text) explains that the case is where X is making a neutral
statement that could have a negative meaning is certain contexts
(e.g. X says: " Y always has food in his house;" this could mean that
Y is a glutton or it could mean that Y is generous in hachnasat
orchim); by saying it in front of 3 people, X knows that word of his
statement will get back to Y so it must be that X intended the more
positive meaning of the statement.  The position of Tosfot is agreed
to by Rashi and Rabbenu Yona.

(2) Rambam, Rashbam, Smag (and possibly She'iltot): The case is: if X
tells information about Y to A, B, and C, then the information has
become public and therefore there is no possibility of lashon hara
provided that X has no intention of deliberately spreading the news. 
As a result, B is now permitted to tell D the information.

I would suggest, (based upon the Be'er Mayim Chaim ("BMC") but adding
a little) that the Rambam can be understood as follows:  BMC asks on
the Rambam: isn't this similar to a case where there are 9 thieves
prepared to rob an empty house and a potential 10th thief is debating
whether to join them.  He rationalizes that all the goods in the
house will be stolen, so the damage will be done anyway; if so, why
not join?  Of course, the reason is that he will still be doing an
act of g'zeilah.  Why isn't the case of the Rambam similar?  I would
answer that there are two issues in lashon hara: (a) the ma'aseh of
lo telech rachil and (b) the to'tza'ah (result)--negative information
has been spread.  In order to violate (a), one must intend to spread
the information, but (b) can be violated even without intent. 
However, in the case of the Rambam, where (b) will occur anyway,
there is no problem to speak lashon hara (provided there is no
intent).

Interestingly, the Chofetz Chaim wishes to be machmir and prefers
that one not accept the Rambam, especially since the CC believes that
there is a safek de'oraita.  I question this conclusion (which I
believe is typical of the CC in his magnum opus, the Mishnah Brurah).
 After all, while it is true that presumably the source of the Rambam
is the same gemarah as the source of Tosfot for a different din, this
does not necessarily prove that Tosfot would disagree with the
conclusion of the Rambam (especially since the s'varah I wrote above
seems reasonable).  Secondly, if one paskens against the Rambam, it
would be forbidden to read many articles in the newspapers (and in
fact, I was told by Rav Dovid Weinberger of Lawrence that the CC used
to rail against people buying newspapers).  This is a g'zeirah
she'ein ha'zibbur yachol la'amod bo and certainly very few people are
so machmir.  The end result is that people who read the CC on this
issue end up feeling that they will never be able to keep the laws of
Lashon Hara, so they might as well never try (apropos to this, read
the introduction to "Guard Your Tongue" about the businessman from
Warsaw).  I prefer to lower the standard of what is required so that
people can believe that they have a realistic chance of keeping the
laws.

Another place where people are under the (possible mis-) impression
that the laws of Lashon Hara are machmir is whether a husband may
tell any negative information about others to his wife.  The standard
answer is that a husband and wife are in no different position than
any two other people and that therefore they may not tell any lashon
hara to each other.  Yossi Prager told me that in a recent "press
conference," Rav Lichtenstein was m'supak with regard to this issue. 
Does anyone else have any information about it?

There is one case where I believe that one ought to be able to be
mekil: If a husband had a rotten day where the (frum) boss yelled at
him and he comes home to his wife and wishes to "let off some steam"
and calm down by telling her about the events of the day: I spoke to
Rav Elazar Mayer Teitz who was machmir, but I spoke to Rav Dovid
Weinberger (who is the official advisor on lashon hara issues to the
Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation) who was mekil.  The reason to be
mekil is by analogy to the din that one may speak "lashon hara" to
his psychotherapist.  The rationale in the latter case is that the
therapist doesn't believe the truth of the matter, only that his
patient thinks that (and for the therapist, all he needs to
understand is the mind of his patient); therefore provided that there
is to'elet, such speech is permitted.  Similarly, in the case of a
husband and wife, the wife doesn't necessarily have to believe the
truth of the matter (for all she knows, her husband is a schlemiel
and the boss had every right to yell at him); she merely intends to
provide the therapeutic benefit of letting her husband vent.  Has
anyone heard anything else on this topic?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

KAJ Newsletter vol 28 #16 05/27/98... (yes 1998)

"...Rav Gelley pointed out that ... Sivan has been dedicated to remember those 
who died... {during} Gezeiros Tach voTat.

After the Seond World War, the Rabbonim of Hungary rededicated 20 Sivvan to 
remember the Kedoshim who lost their lives during that period."

Rich Wolpoe

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> If the Rambam changed his shito legabei Tefillin based upon
> aracheaological 
> evidence, then can we halachcially incorporate historical data as
> recorded in 
> Maccabees, Josephus, etc. to mitgiate or modify our halachic
> parameters legabei 
> Channuko, too?  And by inference Yom ha'atzmout, etc.
> 
> IOW, once you say halacho can be "trumped" by indepedent research
> outside the 
> realm of Mesorah, where does one draw the line?

Perhaps one could distinguish between (1) Tefillin and (2) when
chazal/rabbinic authorities institute hallel on Chanukah/Yom
Ha'atma'ut:  In case (1) the issue is whether historical data can be
used to revise current practice.  In case (2) the issue is whether
historical data can be used to inform current rabbinic authorities in
deciding whether and how to make a certain takanah.  

In case (1), if one holds like the Chazon Ish (CI), then one would
take the position that historical realia is irrelevant to the
halachic process if the halachic process has ignored the realia.  In
case (2), we do not deal with the *development* of halacha.  The
issue of instituting hallel on a national basis has never arisen
since the time of Chanukah (the case of  community-oriented days of
hoda'a --such as discussed in Chatam Sofer--can be distinguished from
*national* days).  Therefore, we must  go back in history and
understand what went on in Chazal's minds when they instituted
Chanukah.  Considering that the only Talmudic sources on this matter
were written hundreds of years after the Maccabees (and under the
influence of the post-Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai view of Judaism,
which denigrated nationalistic aspirations, in contradistinction to
the Maccabee point of view; see also Rav Kook in Orot dealing with
how integral to Judaism nationalism was prior to the Churban; perhaps
R. Shalom Carmy could provide the source in R. Kook on this issue
since I learned this in 1985 and forgot the sources), it is possible
that even one who normally follows CI would be willing to allow
outside sources to inform us as to what really happened.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> KAJ Newsletter vol 28 #16 05/27/98... (yes 1998)
> 
> "...Rav Gelley pointed out that ... Sivan has been dedicated to
> remember those 
> who died... {during} Gezeiros Tach voTat.
> 
> After the Seond World War, the Rabbonim of Hungary rededicated 20
> Sivvan to 
> remember the Kedoshim who lost their lives during that period."
> 

This past Friday, Dr. Menachem Schmeltzer showed me selichot for the
20th of Sivan printed in Hungary after the Shoah.

He also pointed out (based on a shiur from Rabbi J. J. Schachter; Dr.
Schmeltzer also showed me an article corroborating this) that the
20th of Sivan was first established as a fast by Rabbeinu Tam in the
aftermath of the first Jewish blood libel.  The fast fell into disuse
and was revived in the time of Tach v'Tat.

So, I believe that there is a basis to revive the 20th of Sivan as a
fast day in memory of the kedoshim of the Shoah.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

On Sun, 23 May 1999, sweinr1@icarus.cc.uic.edu wrote:

> I would like to give Reb Moshe Feldman a yasher Koach on his wonderful post
> regarding the history of Chanukah and its comparison to Yom Haatzmaut.  I
Before you throw away psak din of a gadol based on what you read in an
e-mail post I advise you to read Torah Nation by Avigdor Miller which
describes the history of Channuka from a jewish historians point of view.
As you must know by now history is only as believable as the person who is
telling it over, and you cna be sure that the history presented by Rabbi
Feldman was presented with a slant. With out getting into many details any
history based on Josefus and other books written and/or accepted by the
greeks/romans need to be looked at very closely--something Rabbi Miller
does an excellant job of doing eiyen Sham
E.G.

--- Cheryl Maryles  wrote:
> Before you throw away psak din of a gadol based on what you read in
> an
> e-mail post 

With all due respect, I did not advocate throwing out Rav Ovadia
Yosef's psak.  I merely wrote that my posting was a "possible
response."  In fact, there are many poskim in Eretz Yisrael who
believe that Hallel should be said with a bracha.  I am merely
butressing their position.

>I advise you to read Torah Nation by Avigdor Miller
> which
> describes the history of Channuka from a jewish historians point of
> view.

Rabbi Avigdor Miller is not a historian.  His research is based on
secondary sources.  (Has he read Josephus in the original Greek?  My
father has.)  He no doubt provides an important perspective on
history, but that does not make him a historian any more than writing
a "History of the Jews" should make Paul Johnson a historian.  (BTW,
my father thinks that Johnson's work is an excellent introduction to
Jewish history, though Johnson himself admits that he is not a
professional historian.  My father is not fond of R. Berel Wein's
history.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com

>Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 11:06:36 +0300 (IDT)
>From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
>Subject: israeli elections
>
>   Working in Tel Aviv University, one of the bastions of secularism
>and anti-dati feelings in israel I wanted to give the readers an idea
>of the depth of hatred that exists here and there reasons.
>

First I want to congratulate you on an overall fine job of summarizing of
most of the key issues in conflict (perhaps dangerously so) in current
Israeli society.  I do however want to comment upon and disagree with some
of your interpretations


>2. Army service - My personal opinion is that this is less of an issue
>   then it seems. Very few secularists really want to see thousands of
>   charedim in the army. There are already complaints of too many
>   kipot serugot in the officer corp and the last thing they really
>   want are charedi officers. The one Charedi nachal group that exists
>   has all sorts of special "deals" and the army is not anxious to expand it.


I don't agree with your analysis here, particularly from perspective of one
outside the ivory tower of academia.  Based on my contacts and
conversations, I think many if not most hilonim and masortim and kipot
serugot very much want to see hareidim do army service or at least some
kind national service (except perhaps for the top 500-750 iluyim).  There
is tremendous resentment of many of my contemporaries - parents of soldiers
or soon-to-be soldiers - of the wholesale free pass automatically given
Yeshiva Bocherim.  This is particularly acute among parents of kids in
combat units, although many others resent the simple fact that their kids
have to interrupt their education for 1.5-3 years of army/national service
while others don't.

Many Hilonim can't understand why the Hareidim simply don't adopt & adapt
what they see has the honorable solution of Hesder Yeshivot, and why many
Hareidi political & religious leaders actually put down the Hesder Yeshivot.

All this has been exacerbated by the blatant lack of any expression of a
Heker Hatov vis a vis Tzahal from the Hareidi political & religious
leadership and even go so far as to denigrate the army.  Add to this that
many hilonim see the Hareidim advocate and vote for right wing political
views on the one hand, but on the other hand evade the "dirty work" of
patrolling, protecting, and fighting that such a position necessitates.

With regard to the fear of "too many" kippot in the Officer Corps, I think
that fear is restricted to a relatively small group of elitists, or former
elitists (i.e., the secular kibbutzniks) who are being displaced by the
dati officers.  I think most of you average hilonim on the stree either
have a lot of respect for the disproportionally large number of dati
officers, or are quite happy to have dati soldiers assume the role of
cannon fodder.

With regard to the ressurrection of the Hareidi Nahal unit (one existed
until about 1977 when the wholesale yeshiva exemption came into being) all
of the conscripts were yeshiva dropouts, having been kicked out of many
yeshivot (one admitted to being tossed out of 12 yeshivot).  According to
the Defence Ministry official (a very hiloni general in the reserves) who
spearheaded the Hareidi Nahal, the accomodations were not that difficult to
make (particularly in view of the overall positive experiance with the
Hesder units), and that they hope to double the number of conscripts in the
next group.


>   On the other hand some rabbanim (according to reports lead by R. S.
>   Auerbach) are fighting to eliminate the concept of the charedi nachal.
>   How this squares with the push of army service for charedim is another
>   PR problem. It is especially acute since Shas does not see this as
>   a fighting issue.
>

News reports today indicate that Shas is willing to work out drafting
yeshiva students as the price for joining the government.  Most of the Shas
leadership served in the army, several even as officers.

>3. Reform/Conservative movements - Again this is not an issue that concerns
>   the Israeli on the street - It is one that Meretz pushes.
>   On the other hand it seems clear that some sort of compromize along
>   the Neeman commission will this time be approved.
>

I think you are underestimating the resentment here too.  The Reform
movement is still small but is growing very rapidly, particularly among the
growing economic elite, and the academic elite.  As many Israelis spend
more and more time in the US and see that Reform and Conservative
communities can "work" (in their mind), why shouldn't they have them here?

In addition many hiloni couples when they decide to get married, often hop
off to Cyprus for a civil marriage, in order to avoid having to deal with
the Rabbanut (Statistic - the rabbanut performs the same absolute number of
marriages that it did in 1973, even though the population has tripled).
Most of the rabbanut has come to be dominated by Hareidi musmachim who have
been very successful in alienating very large chunks of the hiloni
population both for purposes of conducting weddings and even more so during
divorce proceedings in the batei din rabbaniyim.  The perception is that
the Conservative and Reform rabbinate are more "civilized", humane,
cultured, flexible, etc., so why not give them official standing?

There is more to be said, a lot more to be thought about, and much much
more to be done to correct these problems, but that will wait for another
time.

hg

.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

Perhaps, but I would like something more explicit!

On Wed, 19 May 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> To answer R' YGB's question, doesn't the Rambam in the Moreh III:51
> argue that it is one's yedi'ah of Hashem that is the cause of
> nitzchiyus?  If so, would it make a difference whether someone lacks
> that yedi'ah by choice or by circumstance? 
> 

YGB

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

....This is the crux of the point I need to prove for basis for my new
theory to underlie RABM's position. This is not an easy thing to research!
I have called a couple of libraries and got little help and not very many
ideas either. If any of you have any ideas as to how I might get some
answer to this question - pllease give me some guidance!

Thanks!

YGB

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

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


[ 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         ]