Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 125

Tuesday, July 13 1999

• flood logistics
• basement beis medrash
• Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: Flood
• Re: Flood
• Re: Science
• Re: Flood
• Women saying Kaddish
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Jewish Reaction to Copernicus
• Re: Flood
• Re: Women saying Kaddish
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: Flood
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• Re: Jewish Reaction to Copernicus
• Re: Torah im Liberal Arts
• On Normative Mesorah and the Dangers of Allegory
• Re: Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov
• Fwd: Re: Jewish Reaction to Copernicus
• Re: Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov

> Subject: Flood part 1
> 
> I am not sure if I sent this out properly. If you get it twice, please
> accept my apologies and ignore the repetition!
> 
> YGB 

In the digest I got (v3n122), it was in the order 2-3-4-1.

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

Micha Berger described a fine idea for a beis medrash in his basement. I
have a question which, as I say when I'm asking someone at work if
something is done, "there's no tone of voice here, this is for information
purposes only".

If there was a woman who was capable of keeping her end up in such a
group, would you consider including her in the group?  If so, why?  If
not, why not?  Would it make a difference if she were single or married,
younger or older, related to one of the male members by blood or marriage
or not?

Freda Birnbaum, fbb6@columbia.edu
"Call on God, but row away from the rocks"

L'fi aniyas da'ati (LAD, a/k/a IMHO, ok?), the whole discussion of Shylock is
off-track. Shakespeare has literary value even if you don't agree with the
position of the characters in it. The question is whether we place importance
in that literary value.

(Similarly tangential is the fact that Romeo & Juliet's tragic end is an
argument AGAINST young love and trying to buck familial norms.)

In terms of ideological threat, no yiddishe kinder are going to read Merchant
and become antisemitic. The position it espouses is largely irrelevant. If
anything, it may shine some light into how the Christian population views/-ed
us. They same could not be said of books that are nearly on the derech but
subtly espouse heretical ideas. I always thought that's why sefarim chitzoniyim
were defined as apocrypha or pre-Pauline Christian writings, and not Homer.
Today, perhaps Klein's guide to Conservative practice might qualify as well.


In Vilozhin and Chachmei Lublin, talmidim spent much time playing chess.
Shakespeare is no less a recreational intellectual challenge. On the grounds
of intellectual recreation alone I'd think liberal arts would have value
in a Torah lifestyle -- regardless of what one thinks of them qua liberal
arts.

And, the truth is, there are people for whom teva is inspiring, other for
whom pilpul shows the chachmas haBorei, some people find it in hashkafah, and
yet others who find toying with the complexity of man's thoughts to be more
inspiring. It's not that the messages of Virgil are absent from the Torah.
However, perhaps for some person Virgil says it in a way that reaches him
more effectively.

Last, I believe the quote from the S'ridei Aish that I gave earlier means
that his ideal Torah lifestyle is a well rounded person scientifically
and culturally -- as that is the substance to which Torah gives form and
function.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jul-99: Shelishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 337:7-338:5
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 9-12

I'm sure that in the time of the Rambam, when he publicized his views
about Bilaam's talking ass and the like, some neo-RYGB made a similar
comment about Mesorah.  

Clearly, there is change here.  That is not necessarily a rejection
of Mesorah.  As Saul Stokar pointed out, until the modern period,
there was no conflict between the literal story of the Flood and
scientific evidence.

To open a can (or a barrel!) of worms, let's analogize this to the
issue of brain death.  Until the modern period, all sources just
talked about heart function and respiration.  One might therefore
suggest that the brain-stem death criterion is a rejection of
Mesorah.  But the response is that until the modern period there was
never a reason to fully clarify the precise moment of death.

Kol tuv,
Moshe


--- "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 1999, Stokar, Saul (MED) wrote:
> 
> > Regarding Rav Bechhofer's post of the mail-jewish correspondence
> on the
> > allegorical interpretation of the Biblical account of the Flood
> (the
> > original m-j posting is in V16 no 36), I'd like to ask one
> question
> > which didn't seem to be addressed therein. Granting Rav
> Bechhofers's
> > claim that the overwhelming majority of ancient and medieval
> > commentators understood the Biblical accounts of the Flood and
> Gan Eden
> > literally, why is that relevant? 
> 
> Because Judaism rises and falls on the concept of Mesorah.
> 
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
> 
> 

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

In a message dated 7/13/99 9:34:43 AM EST, moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

> But it is far from
>  pashut pshat to say that the talking ass was just a dream.

Isn't also against the Mishne Avos 5:6, 10 things were created Erev Shabbos 
Beim Hashmoshois...Pi Ho'oson?

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/13/99 9:38:06 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu 
writes:

> While I do not need science to confirm the Torah, as I am sure none here
>  do, I present this as evidence of the tides of change in rhe scientific
>  world, the ebb and flow of flood theories. My thanks to the individual who
>  forwarded this to me. Hope it will provoke some sea changes in thinking.
>  

What I find troubling with most of these kind of articles is, that only the 
general issue (in our case the flood), is according to torah, however all the 
details, do not correspond to what Torah says.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/13/99 11:02:33 AM EST, moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

> One might therefore
>  suggest that the brain-stem death criterion is a rejection of
>  Mesorah.  But the response is that until the modern period there was
>  never a reason to fully clarify the precise moment of death.

IMHO there always was reason to clarify precise moment of death, (many Nafkoh 
Minas), WRT brain activity there was no way of measuring or seeing within the 
cranium.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

While this issue may be more appropriate for a different forum, for 
various reasons I decided to raise this question here.

A situation came up where a woman had Yahrzeit and stood up and said 
Kaddish.   A man  was designated to say Kaddish for several people, but 
was slow in getting up and set it much quieter than the woman.

One of the balabatim (a relatively recent BT) was upset and teh Rabbi and 
myself for not doing anything to stop her.  We both said there was 
nothing to be accomplished by creating a scene.

If I recall correctly there were some discussionselsehwere in the past on 
this issue.  I would appreciate any sources on a woman saying kaddish 
both with a man also saying kaddish and by herself.

TIA


Harry J. Weiss
hjweiss@netcom.com

In a message dated 7/13/99 11:02:39 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> In Vilozhin and Chachmei Lublin, talmidim spent much time playing chess.
>  Shakespeare is no less a recreational intellectual challenge. On the 
grounds
>  of intellectual recreation alone I'd think liberal arts would have value
>  in a Torah lifestyle -- regardless of what one thinks of them qua liberal
>  arts.
>  
Chess is a pure play (pun intended) on being M'chadeid reasoning powers, 
literature carries along the risk of adapting the writers wrong ideas. 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

R. Saul Stokar writes:

>Andre Neher published
>a very interesting paper in the Journal of the History of Ideas (I believe
>in the 1970s) which analyzed the response of Chazal to the Copernican
>revolution. As I recall, he contrasted the ease with which contemporary
>Jewish sages acclimated the heliocentric model of the solar system (or
>universe, as it was then thought) with the Biblical text, as opposed to the
>difficulties the Christian Church had with this. [snip]

I agree with R. Saul that  the example of the reaction of early Aharonim
to Copernicus is highly relevant to our discussion, but I am afraid
that, if one focuses on the late 16th-early 17th century, the evidence
runs the other way.  Put another way, Neher's article is not the last
word on the subject.  Interested readers are directed to a more recent
article by Hillel Levine, "Paradise Not Surrendered: Jewish Reactions to
Copernicus and the Growth of Modern Science," in Cohen and Wartofsky,
eds. Epistemology, Methodology and the Social Sciences (1983), and the
relevant passages in David Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific
Discovery in Early Modern Europe (1995).

As it turns out, the initial Jewish response to Copernicus was generally
to reject him.  R. David Gans (of Tzemah David fame), R. Toviyah Katz
(Ma'aseh Toviyah) and R. David Nieto all rejected Copernicus.  Neher's
article downplays some of the rejection, especially that of R. David
Nieto's.  (Note that this response occurred before Copernicus'
heliocentric theory had completely vanquished Ptolemaic astronomy, so
the example is not entirely analogous to niddon didan.)  The prominent
exception is R. Yosef Shelomoh Delmedigo, in the early 17th century.
(Incidentally, in response to an earlier question of R. Saul's, I don't
know whether he qualifies as a "post-medieval Gadol," but Delmedigo
studied with Galileo.)

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark

What happened to flaura during the flood? There's no mention of taking
plants on the teiva. For that matter, immediately after the flood, there's
a standing olive tree for the bird to land on. No erosion.

IOW, there's something lima'aleh min hateva going on about how some things
survived the mabul. Perhaps that's why there's little archeological record
of the event.

I still like the Rihal's argument (toward the begining of the Kuzari) that the
seven day week and a flood legend are elements of so many different cultures
they testify to the historicity of the begining of seifer B'reishis. And
now we can add the Aztecs to the list of cultures that had both.

Where does Ma'aseh B'reishis end? The Maharal (intro to Gevuros Hashem)
defines MB as being up to (and excluding) "Vaychulu". Which places the whole
Adam II naarative into history. Is it possible someone has a definition that
takes it all the way to parashas Lech-Licha? This would make a real distinction
between calling the flood allegory, and doing so to the Exodus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jul-99: Shelishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 337:7-338:5
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 9-12

I do not have the exact citations with me, but they should be easy to find.
These recent articles cite all the classic sources.

There was an article by Rochelle Millen in Modern Judaism 5/1/90 (in favor).
She recently updated it and reprinted it in the book "Jewish legal writings
by women".

Rabbi Fink had an article in RJJ in spring 1996 (against.)
There were responses to R. Fink by Millen and R. Henkin  in the next issue
(for).

Rabbi Henkin has recently written a book called Equality Lost (which by the
way has a
great biographical essay about his grandfather) in which he has two chapters
on the subject (for).

Joel Wolowelsky had an article in Judaism in Summer 1995 (for).

Hope this gets you started,

Ari



Harry Weiss wrote:

> If I recall correctly there were some discussionselsehwere in the past on
> this issue.  I would appreciate any sources on a woman saying kaddish
> both with a man also saying kaddish and by herself.
>

Yitzchok Zirkind writes:
: Chess is a pure play (pun intended) on being M'chadeid reasoning powers, 
: literature carries along the risk of adapting the writers wrong ideas.

No, chess is a WAR game. Are you going to say that one shouldn't play it
because they might pick up the idea that combat is a good thing?

Literature also develops reasoning powers. As to that risk, I thought I
addressed it by pointing out that Chazal were concerned about the risk
of reading sifarim chitzoniyim, but not Homer. It would appear that the
risk of adapting blatant kefirah is not greater than the value, but
subtle kefirah is a real problem. IOW, Shakespear would be okay, Scholem
on kabbalah may not be.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jul-99: Shelishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 337:7-338:5
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 9-12

In a message dated 7/13/99 12:07:55 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Where does Ma'aseh B'reishis end? The Maharal (intro to Gevuros Hashem)
>  defines MB as being up to (and excluding) "Vaychulu".

So is Mashma from the Rambam Hil. Yesodei Hatorah 4:11

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/13/99 12:12:19 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> No, chess is a WAR game. Are you going to say that one shouldn't play it
>  because they might pick up the idea that combat is a good thing?

The term is Take "Milchamtoh Shel Torah", "Mchadidin Zeh Es Zeh", Veod.

>  Literature also develops reasoning powers. As to that risk, I thought I
>  addressed it by pointing out that Chazal were concerned about the risk
>  of reading sifarim chitzoniyim, but not Homer. It would appear that the
>  risk of adapting blatant kefirah is not greater than the value

Reading Divrei Minus is Ossur, I had also directed in a earlier post, to the 
Rambam Hil. AZ 2:2-3.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind
..
>  

--- "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> wrote:
> As it turns out, the initial Jewish response to Copernicus was
> generally
> to reject him.  R. David Gans (of Tzemah David fame), R. Toviyah
> Katz
> (Ma'aseh Toviyah) and R. David Nieto all rejected Copernicus. 
> Neher's
> article downplays some of the rejection, especially that of R.
> David
> Nieto's.  

I would be interested in the tenor of the expression of those
rejections.  Did those achronim express themselves similar to
RYGB--"these new ideas are against Mesorah?"  And, what about those
who followed who eventually accepted the Copernican theory--how did
they deal with arguments that such ideas are against Mesorah?

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

In a message dated 7/13/99 12:12:19 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> No, chess is a WAR game. Are you going to say that one shouldn't play it
>  because they might pick up the idea that combat is a good thing?
>  
>  Literature also develops reasoning powers.

Another point, chess is a game of logic based on war, when one wins he feels 
that his strategy was correct (not that he overpowered the opponent), in many 
cases of literature the whole Kavonoh of the writer is to convey a message, 
and that is what he wants the reader to go away with.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In reading RYGB's posts on the mabbul and the initial responses thereto,
it is difficult to avoid a feeling of deja vu.  This is not because I
participated in the original mail-jewish debate of 1994, but because
this debate is, I think, an echo of many earlier Avodah debates.  Here I
refer not merely to the previous Avodah debate regarding the limits of
parshanut, but also to the discussion of Hazal's scientific statements
and the chronology of Bayyit Sheni.

At first blush, RYGB's position seems unassailable: any willingness to
dispense with one link in the chain of the mesorah necessarily severs it
from its original source.  If memory serves, this sevara underlay
Ralbag's critique of Rambam for allegorizing the sin of Adam ha-Rishon.
After all, Hazal posit ten generations from Adam to Noah and ten more to
Avraham.  Remove Adam from the foundation and the entire edifice
(halilah) will collapse.

But, in fact, this argument depends on two assumptions: 1) there is a
part of the mesorah of Hazal with which we are not permitted to disagree
(following R. Meir Shinnar, let us call it the "normative mesorah"), and
2) Hazal's literal understanding of a parashah in the Torah is ipso
facto a portion of the normative mesorah.   If I understand them
correctly, RYGB assumes both of these points, while a number of
respondents have questioned the latter point.

If the issue is the one I have formulated, then the issue of aggadah and
Rambam's parshanut are relevant, notwithstanding RYGB's fine
distinctions between visions and allegory.  Of course, many gedolim view
aggadah as a part of the normative mesorah.  And, by this measure,
Rambam's reinterpretation of various passages in Tanakh is similarly
suspect, as it too has no basis in Hazal and runs contrary to the
rabbinic exegesis of these texts.

Assuming the question is, indeed, what is included in the normative
mesorah, then we are confronted by two questions: 1) The most obvious is
where does one draw the line in determining whether a particular
statement of Hazal is indeed part of this normative mesorah. 2)  More
fundamental is the question how do we make such a determination.

Up to now, it seems, the debate has focused primarily on the first
question.  Thus, R. Saul Stokar, R. Meir Shinnar and R. Moshe Feldman
feel (if I understand them correctly) that literal interpretations of
Hazal (or Rishonim) are not part of the normative mesorah.

But R. Meir Shinnar also raises the second issue: on what basis do we
determine what is or is not part of the normative mesorah.  For now,
RYGB is content to argue on the basis of sevara.  Indeed, on this basis
he is willing to discard the Seforno.

But I propose that it is precisely the Rishonim and Aharonim to whom we
must look for guidance on this issue.  The fact that Rishonim and many
Aharonim generally do not view the parshanut of Hazal as part of the
normative mesorah is, in my view, decisive on the issue.

However, I think RYGB would argue that allegorizing historical events is
different from reinterpreting, say, aton Bilam, because Hazal's
historical understanding must be part of our normative mesorah.  After
all, so much of what we do is based on the Hazalic account of history.
If this indeed is RYGB's view, then this debate parallels the one we had
over Bayyit Sheni chronology, as well as historical questions regarding
Hanukkah (raised  on this list by R. Moshe Feldman) and so on.  It also
echoes our debate on Hazal's scientific statements in contrast to their
medical advice.

However, because the above is based largely on conjecture, I am loathe
to respond to it.  I therefore request that RYGB clarify whether this is
a debate about Hazalic parshanut or Hazalic history and, if the latter,
could I trouble him to explain in slightly greater detail why he
believes we are bound by Hazal's chronology?

She-nir'eh et nehamat Yerushalayim u-binyanah bi-mherah ve-yamenu,

Eli Clark

The Asertion that all of scientific evidence points against a 5759 year
old world and a flood 4109 years ago, to be exact is patently false.
Recent scientific evidence has cast aspersions on many dating methods and
there is very little evidence of developed societies that can be
accuratly dated to more than 4100 years ago. There is conjecture but that
is about it.

Genetic science clearly states that all Human beings are descended from
one woman!
This, after 200 years of the account of Adam Vechavah being rubbished by
"advanced Scientific types"

In summation:

1. Sooner or later science does and will recognize the truth of all our
Torah as understood by the Chazal in the framework of our traditional
Mesorah.

2. Any and all "questions" from Scientific theory against these accepted
norms of Torah , however seemingly strong, are products of the still
infantile state of the sciences and will be resolved by science moving
close to Torah as it learns more.

3.If G-d is "kol Yachol" there is no reason to take any event in the
Torah dealing with creation, floods etc. out of it's Plain Meaning. The
need to do so is indicative of a -Lo Aleinu- a fundamental lack of belief
in the Torah as being a Divinely narrated document in it's entirety.

"Vesharei Lei Maran....."

--0-424238335-931892503=:11490
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

The following is from Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman, my brother-in-law.
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--0-424238335-931892503=:11490
Content-Type: message/rfc822

X-Apparently-To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com via mdd301.yahoomail.com
Received: from imo17.mx.aol.com (198.81.17.7)
  by mta109.yahoomail.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 1999 11:20:07 -0700
Received: from Saraneddie@aol.com
	by imo17.mx.aol.com (IMOv20.21) id rJJTa07548 (4225)
	 for <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:05:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Saraneddie@aol.com
Message-ID: <aec68ca.24bcd9d9@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 14:05:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Jewish Reaction to Copernicus 
To: moshe_feldman@yahoo.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 10
Content-Length: 2732

Dear Moshe,

Please feel free to post my response on the Avodah list.

re: Jewish Reaction to Copernicus 

David Nieto did in fact reject the Copernican system, primarily because it 
conflicted with the pasuk in yehoshua of "hashemesh biGivon dom." This was 
also the motivation of Tuvia Cohn for rejecting the new hypothesis. 

The approach of David Nieto to science in general and to the theories of 
Copernicus in particular is addressed in the dissertation of Jakob 
Petuchowski published by Ktav as "The Theology of Haham David Nieto: An 
Eighteenth Century Defense of the Jewish Tradition." 

Andre Neher extended his original essay [Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature 
from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century," J. of the History of ideas 
38(1977), 211-226)]into a more comprehensive work, which was translated from 
the French as "Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth 
Century: David Gans (1541-1613) and his Times." Here Neher provides a 
thorough analysis of the dynamics of the history of astronomy, as well the 
views of the Maharal and Remah (the teacher of David Gans) on astronomy and 
their supposed impact on David Gans. 

Regarding Delmedigo's approach to the theories of Copernicus, it should be 
noted that Delmedigo studied at the University of Padua when Galileo was 
lecturing there. Indeed, he refers to Galileo as his master and even mentions 
that he had the opportunity to gaze at the stars through Galileo's telescope. 
Surely this contact influenced his approach to the Copernican system. Despite 
his clear appreciation of the "new" astronomical discoveries, Delmedigo still 
devoted the majority of his writings to the study of ancient astronomy. For 
more on Delmedigo, see Isaac Barzilay, "Yoseph Shlomo Delmedigo (Yashar of 
Candia): His Life, Works and Times."

While the history of astronomy is an interesting area to explore the views of 
chazal on the interface of science and halakha or rabbinic tradition, it has 
the unique aspect that even at the time of the evolution of the new theories, 
they were not considered proven beyond doubt. Even the rabbis who rejected 
Copernicus frequently brought scientific arguments into the discussion to 
support their perpetuation of the ptolemaic system. Astronomy remained 
essentially a theoretical science. Medicine, OTOH, yielded clearly defined 
discoveries, which unequivocally contradicted, at least on the surface, the 
earlier teachings of chazal, especially in the area of anatomy (many such 
examples have surfaced on the Avodah list). It is in these areas that a study 
of the rabbinic response is more instructive. The facts relating to the 
change in these cases is irrefutable.

Kol Tuv,

Eddie Reichman

--0-424238335-931892503=:11490--

I received this 2nd hand from "Reuven Shimon" for anonymous posting to Avodah.

: He didn't include everything I wrote. you might want to send in
: that Reuven Shimon never said that there was no flood, only that
: there was never a flod that destroyed the entire world (we have
: records of uninterrpupted civilizations. If I'm teaching a
: course in ancient Indian history I am not going to stop the
: course at 4500 years ago, say that everyone was wiped out and
: then the descendants of Noah began to arrive, and at the same
: time the kangaroos began to get on their boats and sail for
: Australia. The question to be considered is what does the Torah
: mean when it says the entire world. What did this mean to people
: in the days of the Torah? Obviously there was some kind of
: deluge or we wouldn't have this story in all Mesopotamian
: cultures. Those who peruse my original posting will see that I
: mentioned that there was no flood that destroyed the entire
: world.

If the anonymous middleman could point "Reuven Shimon" to
	http://pibweb.it.nwu.edu/pib/FLOOD.HTM
Is he going to suggest that Precolombian American Peoples migrated from
Mesepotamia?

R' SR Hirsch suggests that the dispersion of Babel included differentiation of
fauna.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jul-99: Shelishi, Devarim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 337:7-338:5
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 6b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari IV 9-12

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


[ 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         ]