Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 073

Thursday, June 3 1999

• Re: Tav l'meysav
• Re: using government services
• Daf Yomi
• MB
• Re: Tav l'meysav
• Re: MB
• Re: Tefillah--concentration
• Revealing confidential medical information
• Re: HASIVA (Leaning) at the Seder
• Re: Bagdad to Kaifeng: 10th Century (fwd)
• Daf yomi and egg-laying times
• Re: Daf yomi and egg-laying times
• Re: Daf yomi and egg-laying times
• Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
• Re: Avodah V3 #72
• Re: Daf yomi and egg-laying times
• Re: Avodah V3 #72
• Re: using government services
• Last time for Kiddush Levana

<<
Let's take one: tav lemeesisav tan du melemsiav armelo?
>>

Regarding this and R. Rackman's belief that it no longer applies, I had a 
lengthy discussion with one of R. Rackman's family members before last year's 
Feminism conference, where I was asked to present my position against the 
Rackman court.

We were discussing the idea of kidushey ta'us, and I stated that if a woman 
walked out of her marriage at the very first instance of abuse and refused to 
return, then there might possibly be a small amount of wiggle room to 
possibly consider using kidushey ta'us as one of many mitigating factors 
against a husband who refuses to give a get.  (Have I put enough 
qualifications in that sentence, or should I add more to show how little I 
think it is a valid possibility?)

What the woman responded was, "How can she just walk out?  What will she do 
about her kids, about finding a place for herself?"  To which I responded, 
"Thank you for reaffirming the concept of tav l'meysav!"  That is exactly the 
argument of the g'mara, a woman would rather personal suffering for whatever 
reason, than going out alone into the world.  The g'mara does not give a 
reason for the woman's thinking, just that it is a woman's feeling that it is 
better at times to be in a miserable arrangement than be out to fend alone.  
Of course, once she has made arrangements, she will leave her husband.  But 
then she is not alone.  And when she made the choice to go back to her 
husband, we can no longer make the claim of ta'us to over turn the marriage.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<< Perhaps not directly, but surely they use state-subsidized 
 services(transportation, social, defense,food subsidies.....). I guess my 
 point is that if you really don't want to grant a government legitimacy, and 
 you have the ability not to live under that government's jurisdiction, 
 shouldn't you take advantage of that right? >>

I recall when studying for Yadin Yadin that one of the ways to overthrow a 
king is to refuse to use the currency he issues.  Maybe this is why the 
charedi world was so heavily involved in the black market currency transfer.  
They would only use dollars and not shekalim :)

EDT

Eli Turkel:
>> The Gemara doesn't explain how they knew this fact to such completecertainty 
that is is impossible even when facts seem to indicate otherwise. Physical 
observation is not likely to be 100% accurate. I find it hard to believe that 
the is a sinaitic tradition about when hens deliver eggs.<<

W/o knowing the sugyo, can a "rove" or a chazako be involved here?

Rich Wolpoe

> 
> That is, the Yeshivishe Velt's devotion ot the MB is that it tends to be 
> exclusive of the entire range of poskim.  It seems that the yeshiva world has 
> been  so MB-centric,  that it ignories the lomdus of the Aruch hashulchan the 
> Caf haHaim and  other contemporary poskim.  Without any denigration fo the MB, 
> we'd like to see halocho and psak be more "well-rounded".
> 
On the other hand others have claimed that the MB is the end of the era like
the Shulchan Arukh and no one can disagree with it today (at least in the
Ashkenazi world). Like the SA there is a generation or two that fights the
acceptance until it is universal.
Chazon Ish, R. Feinstein, R. Soloveichik and other similar individuals disagree
on occassion with the MB. I wonder how many rabbis from the next generation
will be willing to do so.

Eli Turkel

--- EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> We were discussing the idea of kidushey ta'us, and I stated that if
> a woman 
> walked out of her marriage at the very first instance of abuse and
> refused to 
> return, then there might possibly be a small amount of wiggle room
> to 
> possibly consider using kidushey ta'us as one of many mitigating
> factors 
> against a husband who refuses to give a get.  (Have I put enough 
> qualifications in that sentence, or should I add more to show how
> little I 
> think it is a valid possibility?)

Why do you only look at the first instance of abuse?  From the little
amount that I studied these sorts of issues (such as battered women's
syndrome) in law school, it seems that psychologically there is often
a build-up over time.  Only after repeated abuse will the woman be
willing to leave her husband.  But at that point, why 
not say that she never truly accepted her husband's abuse, and that
she only now reached the "straw that broke the camel's back?"


> What the woman responded was, "How can she just walk out?  What
> will she do 
> about her kids, about finding a place for herself?"  To which I
> responded, 
> "Thank you for reaffirming the concept of tav l'meysav!"  That is
> exactly the 
> argument of the g'mara, a woman would rather personal suffering for
> whatever 
> reason, than going out alone into the world.  The g'mara does not
> give a 
> reason for the woman's thinking, just that it is a woman's feeling
> that it is 
> better at times to be in a miserable arrangement than be out to
> fend alone.  
> Of course, once she has made arrangements, she will leave her
> husband.  But 
> then she is not alone.  And when she made the choice to go back to
> her 
> husband, we can no longer make the claim of ta'us to over turn the
> marriage.
> 

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Eli Turkel writes:
: On the other hand others have claimed that the MB is the end of the era like
: the Shulchan Arukh and no one can disagree with it today (at least in the
: Ashkenazi world).

If so, this would be the first time such an era-ending code did not include the
entire spectrum of practical halachah. What about the other 3 turim?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Jun-99: Revi'i, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 322:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 89b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 2

In v3n73, Noah Witty writes:
:           taking a deep breath and reciting an entire bracha of shmone
: esraei aids concentration.  I tried it. I found it focuses the mind, though
: i suppose it does not allow the more leisurely state of mind that I imagine
: is necessary for multiple kavanos or for "flirting with G-d."

Perhaps it's a good alternative for those times when the mind is wandering.
One doesn't always have the yishuv hada'as to be able to keep your mind
on topic. In which case, trying for multiple kavanos could be counter
productive, as it just invites hesach hada'as.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Jun-99: Revi'i, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 322:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 89b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 2

Revealing confidential medical information is discussed in the NISHMAT
AVRAHAM Even Ha'Ezer Siman 2 s"k 1 and is permitted only under very
limited circumstances (PIKUACH NEFESH; informing chattan/kallah of serious
illness of potential spouse). The halachic ramifications of the medical
Hippocratic oath is discussed in the Sh"ut R. Akiva Eiger 29-30 and the
Tzitz Eliezer Chelek 13: 81. Apropos confidentiality, see the Shach on
Choshen Mishpat 28:1 (a person who has promised confidentiality and has to
give EDUT must first get the permission of the one who asked for secrecy).
So needless to say, it is halachically forbidden for any doctor to *talk shop*
with his wife about any patient he treated during the day.

Josh

Being lefthanded has nothing to do with HASIVA. He still would do it on
his *left* side. See my two posts in Mail Jewish for the reason
www.shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/volume 19/v19n16
www.shamash.org/listarchives/mail-jewish/colume 19/v19n43

Josh

The experts have spoken. I believe that the bottom line is viability for
my hypothesis.

YGB

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


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 1999 16:32:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Bruce Fetter <bruf@csd.uwm.edu>
To: Map History Discussion List <MAPHIST@HARVARDA.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Bagdad to Kaifeng: 10th Century                                   
Resent-Date: Wed, 2 Jun 1999 09:33:29 -0500 (CDT)
Resent-From: Bruce Fetter <bruf@csd.uwm.edu>
Resent-To: sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

	Ptolemy's <Geography> CE C2 locates China at 175-180 degrees east
of the Canary Islands, while Jerusalem is at 66 degrees east. That would
make China approximately eight hours east of Jerusalem. The Tanna'im are
more likely than Judah Ha-Levi to have had a Greek ms. of the Geography.
For the names, see Edward L. Stevenson (ed.), Claudius Ptolemy The
Geography (New York: Dover Publications, 1991.

**************************
Bruce Fetter             *
History Department, UW-M *
P.O. Box 413             *
Milwaukee, WI 53201      *
Telephone: (414) 229-5207*
FAX: (414) 229-2435      *
**************************

<< 
 2. Beitzah 7: The Gemara takes for granted that a hen will not lay a 
fertilized
    egg at night. This is used le-kulah that the egg was born before yomtov
    even when it is highly unlikely, eg the rooster is far away or across
    the river with only a rope bridge connecting the two sides.
 
     The Gemara doesn't explain how they knew this fact to such complete
     certainty that is is impossible even when facts seem to indicate
     otherwise. Physical observation is not likely to be 100% accurate.
     I find it hard to believe that the is a sinaitic tradition about when
     hens deliver eggs.
 
 >>

A (half-)frivolous suggestion: maybe in this case time of laying has something to do with time of observation: i.e., no one goes to gather eggs at night, therefore the egg in some sense is not "laid" then.  Cf.: a watched pot never boils.

Sholem Berger
bergez01@med.nyu.edu

Sholem Berger writes:
: A (half-)frivolous suggestion: maybe in this case time of laying has something
: to do with time of observation: i.e., no one goes to gather eggs at night,
: therefore the egg in some sense is not "laid" then.  Cf.: a watched pot never
: boils.

To make the argument sound even less frivolous (hopefully)... How different is
this than chazakah d'mei'ikara? There too we assume that an event occured no
earlier than necessary to produce the observed effects.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  2-Jun-99: Revi'i, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 322:2-8
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 89b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 2

In a message dated 6/2/99 3:46:32 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Sholem Berger writes:
>  : A (half-)frivolous suggestion: maybe in this case time of laying has 
> something
>  : to do with time of observation: i.e., no one goes to gather eggs at 
night,
>  : therefore the egg in some sense is not "laid" then.  Cf.: a watched pot 
> never
>  : boils.
>  
>  To make the argument sound even less frivolous (hopefully)... How 
different 
> is
>  this than chazakah d'mei'ikara? There too we assume that an event occured 
no
>  earlier than necessary to produce the observed effects.
>  

WADR the Gemoroh differentiates between Safnoh Daroh and thru a Zachar, it 
has nothing to do with when one checks for them, it has to do when the mating 
takes place, it is quite obvious that the Chachomim had extensive knowledge 
in this issue, as this is only one item of a whole Sugia in Bchoros.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Moshe Feldman writes: <<< I agree with you that MB did give halachic
advice.  Query whether this is the same as psak (where one chooses a
specific opinion and rejects others, rather than merely say that the best
way to act is the following).  Many halachic compendia published today
(e.g. the Chol HaMoed book by R. Francis) merely summarize halachot and
specifically say that they are not sifrei psak. >>>

First, I have not seen any such disclaimer in the Mishna Brurah. On the
contrary, it is chock full of phrases like "efshar l'hakel" ("it is
possible to be lenient") and "tzarich l'hachmir" ("one needs to be
strict"). I do not see how anyone could imagine that the MB is any less
of a psak sefer than the Shulchan Aruch itself.

Second, I do not understand how the disclaimers (such in the Chol Hamoed
book mentioned above) work in the first place. If these books were truly
intended as mere compendiums of source material, so that the reader could
more easily research specific questions on his own, then there would
never be a case of a simply stated halacha in the main text, and then
conflicting opinions mentioned in the footnotes. But such cases abound!

I have seen such "compendiums" cite a halacha in the main text, and the
footnote reads simply "Pashut" ("obviously") or "Ken nir'eh lee" ("So it
seems to me"). And then they claim not to be paskening? I don't get it.

Examples of the above can be posted easily. Just ask.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
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]

What is there is talk about after you read the Mishna?  

- - -CB<<

>>>See SA 121:2
    MB sk 5
Rich Wolpoe <<<

 I looked up the sources and fail to see what is so 'gefrailach'.  Can you 
enlighten me as to what I should have discovered other then a rehash of the 
gemara?  

In a message dated 6/2/99 4:57:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com 
writes:

<< 
 WADR the Gemoroh differentiates between Safnoh Daroh and thru a Zachar, it 
 has nothing to do with when one checks for them, it has to do when the 
mating 
 takes place, it is quite obvious that the Chachomim had extensive knowledge 
 in this issue, as this is only one item of a whole Sugia in Bchoros.
 
 Kol Tuv
 
 Yitzchok Zirkind
  >>
Interestingly thought the gemora by safnoh daroh specifically uses the term 
gmiri(implies to me a mesora, not a scientific study conclusion), which it 
doesn't do by evening egg laying. Coincidence??

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

> 
> > > From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> >
> > > I have certainly heard this said about the Mishnah Brurah.
> > 
> > ===> I regret if I was unclear.  I was SPECIFICALLY referring to
> > the
> > "Shemiras Halashon" works.  About those, I have not encountered
> > statements
> > that they were "overly machmir".
> > 
> > Unlike the Mishneh Brurah -- where there appear to be "alternate"
> > compendiums (e.g., Aruch Hashulchan, Chayei Adam, Kitzur, etc.) --
> > there
> > appears to be no "competition" to the works on Lashin Hara --
> > Therefore, I
> > repeat: is there a source for stating that THESE specific works are
> > "overly machmir"?
> 
> Yes.  As I noted  in my previous posts, at least with regard to the
> issue of newspapers it is pretty clear that klal yisrael has rejected
> the CC's view.  Also, with respect to venting to one's wife where

===> The fact that people "reject" a POV does not appear to be an
acceptable "proof".  It was not all that long ago that Mixed Dancing was
"tolerated" even among the "Orthodox".  Does that mean that all of the
Poskim who condemned M"D were "rejected" and that the p'sak is not
normative?  Also, I am not at all sure that it is possible to even extend
the matter of "Newspapers" to that of direct telling and relating.
Presumably, one can claim that with a Newspaper, one is *receiving*
necessary info -- even if he does not "Strictly" believe it true and the
publisher is not even necessarily Jewish.  That "reduces" the issue to
areas OUTSIDE of L"H issues and hence is not a proof of anything here.


> there is to'elet, while the CC doesn't (to my knowledge) specifically
> prohibit it, he does seem to create that impression (by not talking
> about why it would be muttar); I have quoted some poskim permitting
> it and I agree with Eli Turkel's post on the issue.

===> From the limited amount that I have read, I never received the
impression that the CC was "playing that sort of game".  On the contrary,
he is quite specific about To'eles and emphasizes that when one IS allowed
to speak about something for To'eles, it is WRONG to avoid such speech
(by claiming that it is L"H).  Thus, there is no contradiction between
Poskim
permitting specific instances and the approach of the CC.  This point has
been reiterated when I have heard representatives of the CC Heritage
Foundation speak.

> 
> Also, if the CC's approach in his MB is not accepted by many poskim,
> I would think that that same approach would not be accepted when the
> CC wrote on a different topic.  The fact that no posek before--or
> since-- has written about the laws of Lashon Hara does not mean that
> the CC's views on the matter automatically binding on klal yisrael.

===> I see no basis for such as assertion.  On the contrary, without
providing support, it comes across as a very self-serving statement to
"de-legitimize" the CC.  If there are matters that the CC wrote that are
not "correct", I do not think that Poskim would be so "cowardly" as to
avoid asserting what the correct p'sak halacha SHOULD be.  For example, a
poster noted that the MB may have been [partially] written by a
"committee" of B'nei Yeshiva under the CC.  Does anyone make a similar
claim about the L"H compendiums. 

> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if poskim avoided criticizing the CC on LH
> issues because (1) such poskim would be afraid that such criticism
> might be viewed as legitimizing LH, which is so rampant, and (2)
> shmirat haloshon is viewed as the issue which defines the CC's
> tzidkut and no one wants to be viewed as even indirectly criticizing
> the CC's tzidkut.
>
===> It is certianly possible to critique a halchic p'sak without
sounding as if one is "legitimizing" L"H.  Similarly, nobody would think
that the *Tzidkut* of the CC is called into question simply because there
is a halachic disagreement.  Again, these type of unsupported statements
come across as self-serving rationalizations rather than rigourous
analysis.  Is there an example that can be shown where Poskim refused to
comment based upon just those considerations?


> <snip> 
> > ===> Has anyone made that statement in regard to the Sifrei
> > Shemiras
> > Halashon?  As I noted earlier, I came across material indicating
> > that R.
> > Yisroel Salanter accepted the material as definitive except in ONE
> > specific case.
>  
> I don't believe that R. Salanter was considered a posek.  Certainly,
> from a Mussar perspective, the Shemirat HaLashon has a lot to say.

===> From the limited amount that I read, he WAS regarded as a posek
(remember the epidemic on Yom Kippur?) but he deliberately "submerged"
that aspect in his concentration on Musssar.  As I noted earlier, I
believe that there was a single aspect of these Halachaot where R. Yisroel
DID disagree with the CC....


> 
> > ===> There has been a repeated assertion of "I Believe..." since we
> > are
> > not dealing with Ikarei Ha'emunah, it would seem much more useful
> > to cite
> > a basis for claiming that the CC was "overly machmir" in his works
> > on
> > Lashon Harah.  
> 
> See above.
> 
> >Further,
> > it is
> > quite possible that IF the CC was machmir in this area, he did so
> > applying
> > the rule of being strict with people who are not B'nei Torah rather
> > than
> > as a "misapplication of halacha"...
> >
> 
> I think it is a shame that certain poskim nowadays write seforim
> claiming to summarize the halacha when in reality they are
> consciously being machmir because they wish to be strict with people
> who are not Bnei  Torah (often, these poskim write their real views
> in the footnotes in terse Hebrew, which they assume will be
> understood only by B'nei Torah).  Do you have any evidence that the
> CC acted in this way?

===> Not at all.  I am simply trying to posit that the CC was not
"careless" and did not simply write material just because he was at a high
level.  He either did so because that is how he understood the halacha or
because the "generation needed it"....  In either case, there seems no
reason to assert that he was not "accepted" in his approach.


>  
> > > 
> > > Considering the general non-compliance of much of klal yisrael
> > with
> > > the halachot of lashon hara, I would think that it would be
> > better to
> > > create rules that people might be willing to abide by rather than
> > > prohibiting newspapers and all speech to spouses and waiting for
> > > people to just sigh at their inability to fulfill the laws of
> > lashon
> > > hara.
> > 
> > ===> One can make the same argument concerning Shemirat Shabbat or
> > Arayot
> > ow whatever -- dpending upon your sample of klal yisrael.  If the
> > halacha
> > is as the CC formulated it 
> <snip>
> 
> But, you're switching the argument here.  I was reacting to your
> suggestion that the CC was being machmir for non B'nei Torah and that
> the halacha is really l'kulah.

====> Sorry for the imprecision.  OTOH, if people are NOT behaving like
B'nei Torah, the fact that they are not in compliance does not to seem to
be a reason not to be machmir on them (otherwise, how to explain all of
the gemarot where strictures are imposed "because they are not b'nei
Torah". Alternatively, if we are talking
about normative halacha, the fact that people do not observe it does not
seem to be sufficient reason to "invalidate" it.

In general, I do not understand what the "chumra" is over here?  If we are
dealing with a case of to'eles, then the CC is clear about the matter
being permitted (or required).  If it is not a case of to'eles, then I do
nto understand the basis for asserting that the CC is "overly machmir".
All that we are really saying is that one has to ask a Rov whether a
matter is a case of to'eles rather than try to rationalize for one's self
that communication with a spouse is *automatically* to be considered
to'eles....
As I noted earlier, since we see that contemporary Poskim permit *in
specific cases*,
it seems that they continue to accept the CC's guidelines in this area.
This would further the case that -- in the area of L"H -- the CC was
considered to be "accepted".

BTW, when the CC first published, he did get haskamot from: Rabbonim in
Vilna, the Rav of Novardhok, the Rov of Yanova, and the Rov of Lida....



--Zvi


> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

In a message dated 6/2/99 9:27:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, EDTeitz@AOL.COM 
writes:

<< << Perhaps not directly, but surely they use state-subsidized 
  services(transportation, social, defense,food subsidies.....). I guess my 
  point is that if you really don't want to grant a government legitimacy, 
and 
  you have the ability not to live under that government's jurisdiction, 
  shouldn't you take advantage of that right? >>
 
 I recall when studying for Yadin Yadin that one of the ways to overthrow a 
 king is to refuse to use the currency he issues.  Maybe this is why the 
 charedi world was so heavily involved in the black market currency transfer. 
 
 They would only use dollars and not shekalim :)
 
 EDT
  >>
The Rambam in hilchot gzeila vaveda(5:18)  re dina dmalchuta says the rules 
apply for a melech "shematbeyo yotzeh botan haaratzot sheharei (my emphasis) 
hiskimu alav bnai otah haaretz vsamcha daatan shehu adoneihem vhem lo 
laavadim". One might intuit that taking advantage of government services has 
the same impact.

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

	It has been suggested by a number of posters that final time for
reciting Kiddush Levana is "half of the 29d 12h 793c after the molad, when
the moon begins to wane" and, in addition, to correct the published values
for the difference in time between Yerushalayim and the local time. I find
this seemingly exact calculation hard to swallow. As is well known (and has
ALWAYS been well known), the tabulated and published value of the molad does
not represent the moment of "true conjunction" but rather the "average"
conjunction i.e. it is an approximation that assumes all (lunar) months have
the same length (in order to simplify calculations). Given this, I find it
hard to understand why we should calculate the exact half of an approximate
number! If we wish to be exact, let's really calculate when the moon begins
to wane! (In this case, the Kiddush Levana period will vary slightly from
month to month). 
	This whole subject reminds me of the problem I have with the
recitation of "Birchat HaShemesh" on a Wednesday morning once every 28 years
to commemorate the rising sun being in the same (approximate) position as in
the first year of creation. I cannot understand how this blessing is recited
on a day when the sun is NOT at the position we are alleging. We should only
be reciting the blessing when the the vernal equinox occurs on a Wednesday
morning (which indeed occurs APPROXIMATELY every 28 years, but not on the
days on which we recite the blessing!). Of course, it is well known that
this discrepency has occured due to the extrapolation of a known
approximation (i.e. that the solar year is 365.25 days) for many thousands
of years! Personally, I have NO doubt that the Talmudic and Medieval framers
of this halacha only meant the 28 year rule as a guide (i.e. an
approximation). However, subsequent generations have taken the rule as
inviolate and have, in my opinion, gotten themselves (ourselves) into the
situation of saying a blessing over a physical phenomenon that is not
actually occuring at that time! To my mind, that is like saying the blessing
over a rainbow over a mirage! To return to the case of "Kiddush Levana",
either perform the correct calculation or use an approximation (e.g. first
15 days), but don't perform an exact calculation on a approximation!

Saul Stokar

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


[ 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         ]