Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 142

Thursday, July 29 1999

• Re: Second vs. Third Person in B'rachos
• Re: T"T as intellectual experience
• Re: Avodah Archive Search
• Re: Avodah V3 #139: Beit Lechem
• Re: Second vs. Third Person in B'rachos
• Re: Avodah Archive Search
• Munkacz
• Re: Second vs. Third Person in B'rachos
• Re: Allegorization
• Re: Mabul (again)
• allegorization
• mearas hamachpeilah
• Re: Mabul (again)
• using mikvaos for non-halachic "conversions"
• Fasting on Yom Kippur
• Re: Allegorization
• re: Fasting on Yom Kippur

The Nefesh HaChaim, based on the Rashba, addresses this at legth in the
Second Sha'ar.

On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> Someone on soc.culture.jewish asked about the shift from 2nd to 3rd person in
> many b'rachos. Every b'rachah begins "baruch *Ata* Hashem", and yet many
> conclude "kidshanu bimitzvo*sav*" or "nasan lanu es Tora*so*".
> 
> People provided some ideas, but nothing with a makor, and nothing that really
> satisfied me. Any thoughts?
> 
> -mi
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Jul-99: Revi'i, Eikev
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 345:14-20
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 14a
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 10
> 

YGB

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

Remember the Eglei Tal's Hakdomo!

YGB

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

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Alternatively, http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/ix.html indexes by
> subject line and
> user name. (That's why I harp on about keeping your subject lines
> meaningful.)

I would also add that there is benefit in using the *exact* same
phrase as the previous postings for the subject.  I can tell you that
when I tried to find all the posts written on allegorization, I got:

* flood
* the flood
* allegorization
* science & mesorah
* on normative mesorah and the dangers of allegory
* normative mesorah and the dangers of allegory
* the mabul and chazal
* Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
* Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov
* Megale panim betorah shelo kehalachah

IMHO, if you wish to add some emphasis to the title, keep the first
few words and then add your own.

Thus, in our example, which started out as "flood," you would write:
* flood--allegorization
* flood--science & mesorah
* flood--on normative mesorah and the dangers of allegory
* flood--the mabul and chazal
* flood--Rav Kook on allegorical explanations
* flood--Avodah V3 #122 reuven shimon and the rest of benei yakov
* flood--Megale panim betorah shelo kehalachah

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

The purported Kever of David Ha'Melech, so far as I recall, is also
subject to much doubt. I wonder about the Kever of Shmuel Ha'Navi.

YGB

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

In a message dated 7/28/99 4:32:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Someone on soc.culture.jewish asked about the shift from 2nd to 3rd person 
in
 many b'rachos. Every b'rachah begins "baruch *Ata* Hashem", and yet many
 conclude "kidshanu bimitzvo*sav*" or "nasan lanu es Tora*so*".
 
 People provided some ideas, but nothing with a makor, and nothing that really
 satisfied me. Any thoughts?
 
 -mi >>
I believe the Rav(JB Soloveitchik)  viewed this as representing the dynamic 
tension between the ahava and yira (ie need/desire to get close to hashem  
versus awestruck need /desire for distance)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> There isn't really a good search engine. Using
> http://www.aishdas.org/search.html and including "avodah" as a
> keyword for the
> search is the closest I have. If anyone wants to volunteer...

One problem with this is that when you have multiple results from a
search and you click on one result to check it out, when you press
your "back" button to see the list again, you get the following
message:

The page you requested was created using information you submitted in
a form. This page is no longer available. As a security precaution,
Internet Explorer does not automatically resubmit your information
for you. 

To resubmit your information and view this Web page, click the
Refresh button. 

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

>There is a major difference between the original excerpts which 
>indicates that he simply  felt all the Jews who disagreed with his
position should be destroyed and the full tshuva in which he expresses
his great anguish that all the terrible suffering will be in vain because
everyone is only concerned with ameliorating the horrible pain and don't
understand that this is the real thing - Moshiach will come if everyone
does tshuva. I don't think he would have changed his mind in 1944.
>
>                          Daniel Eidensohn
		Thank you R' Daniel for putting my mind at rest.   The first quote was
very disconcerting;  this is kanaus leshem Shamayim.

Gershon

In a message dated 7/28/99 6:07:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> << Someone on soc.culture.jewish asked about the shift from 2nd to 3rd 
person 
> 
>  in
>   many b'rachos. Every b'rachah begins "baruch *Ata* Hashem", and yet many
>   conclude "kidshanu bimitzvo*sav*" or "nasan lanu es Tora*so*".
>   
>   People provided some ideas, but nothing with a makor, and nothing that 
> really
>   satisfied me. Any thoughts?
>   
>   -mi >>
>  I believe the Rav(JB Soloveitchik)  viewed this as representing the 
dynamic 
>  tension between the ahava and yira (ie need/desire to get close to hashem  
>  versus awestruck need /desire for distance)

This is actually found in the Rokeiach on Pirushei Harfila. In the footnotes 
(from R" Herschler) he brings 2 other answers from the "Even Hayarchi" that 
by saying Melech Ho'olom he turns it into third party, and from the Riva that 
just like HKB"H is both hidden Mitzad Atzmoi and revealed by his actions, 
likewise the Neshama has these 2 aspects, and the Brocho has both aspects Peh 
and Machsheves Haleiv, and also a person is combined from Guf and Neshama, 
with the neshama he is close to HKB"H however Mitzad Haguf he is not close, 
therfore the part that deals with Tzorchei H'odom are said Bloshon Nistar, 
(note- this last part may not fully relate to Birchas Hamitvohs? (y.z.)).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> 
> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 99 09:27:43 -0500
> From: meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
> Subject: allegory

===> As much of this has been discussed, I will only note a few items...
> 1) Lack of support in the rishonim.    Just as electricity is not discussed
> explicitly in the rishonim, but we use the principles enunciated by them to
> understand its halachic status, so too, we use the principles
> enunciated by the
> rishonim to understand hashkafa in the light of modern science.
> It seems  that the flood posed no major problems  until quite recently, and in
> that sense there is no reason for any one to have dealt with it, as
> there are no 
> tshuvot of rishonim dealing with electric timers.

===> The example seems poor since the *principles* were discussed in our
Mesorah even if the specific topic was not.  The controversy here is -- in
large part -- whether one can even legitimately interpret the RamBam in
that fashion, at all.


> 
> However, the allegorical understanding does base itself on the rambam's
> approach, even though I would concede that the Rambam never discusses
> the flood
> as allegory, and may even have believed in the pshat of the mabul.

===> And this is the "controversy" -- you try to cite the Rambam to
support a point which the Rambam apparently does NOT support by stating
that "had the Rambam known what we know", this would have been the
position taken....



> 
> This reading of the Rambam, which seems clear is the reading of Rav (Avraham
> Itzhak) Kook as well, is that the allegorical (or at least non pshat) 
> interpretation of tanach is to be used whenever there seems to be a major
> contradiction with what reason dictates, and there would be no major conflict
> with major ideological principles.  This seems clear in the Rambam's
> discussion
> of ma'aseh breshit.  The major problem in the Rambam is quite clear not the
> literal understanding of the psukim in breshit.  Rather, the understanding of
> creation has a major effect on our understanding of God's interaction with the
> world.   Reinterpreting the flood leads to no such conflict.


===> I am not sure about the validity of that last sentence.  The Netziv,
for one, stated (I think) that there WERE lessons to be learned in
understanding how G-d interacts with the world...


> 
> 
> Again, it is implicit in the Rambam;s discussion of pi haaton.  It was claimed
> that nevua is different, but I see the distinctions made as dahuk.
> Because of
> rational considerations, Rambam says that the psukim do not mean what they
> cloarly say, in spite of ein mikra yotze mide pshuto  (If I would say that the
> flood happened in a prophetic dream of Noah, (with all the enhanced
> reality that 
> the discussion on avoda emphasized that prophetic dreams have), would
> that have
> been different?  After all, the flood ends with a nevua to Noah about the lack
> of future floods....

===> I noted that there were "internal" reasons to question whether Pi
HaAton was Nevua or not.  Those reasons do not seem to apply here.



> 
> 
> That is why Rav (AI) Kook can accept an allegorical interpretation of
> Gan Eden,
> even though the Rambam does not himself, and base it on the Rambam. The
> particular psukim and episodes the rambam interpretes allegorically are
> taken as
> a binyan av of how to deal with conflicts with reason.  After all, we are not
> really concerned about whether the events actually happened.

===> Rav Kook, himself, does NOT hold up allegory as the "final result" --
rather it is part of the process of achieving the final "real"
understanding.  this is vastly different from the approach of simply
saying that this was an allegory.



> 
> Rav Bechhofer disagrees vehemently with this understanding, and requires
> explicit proof of the Rambam (and other rishonim) accepting a particular
> allegory.  I think that this is a misunderstanding of the Rambam's
> shita,  but 
> further discussion of this is fruitless. However, the self understanding of
> those who allegorize is that of being solidly based in the Rambam, and
> supported
> by the reading of at least one major acharon.  

===> The gemara notes that if a Chacham makes an assertion "lifnei
ma'aseh" then we listen but not if it is "post ma'aseh".  The attempt to
find support in Rambam AFTER one feels the need to "allegorize" strikes me
as uncomfortably close to "post ma'aseh" -- i.e., people want to
allegorize FIRST and they search for the Rishon "somewhere" who can
support them...  I would ahve been a LOT more comfortable with such a
justification BEFORE people start proclaiming "allegories"...


> 
> 2)ein dorshin b'ma'aseh breshit  should imply that we just say we do not
> understand.  ein dorshin was previously understood (I think properly) on this
> group to mean that it implies that the simple understanding of the
> psukim is not
> necessarily correct, and opens the door for nonliteral interpretations.  

===> No. it opens the door to "Non-P'shat" approaches -- i.e., remez or
sod (exactly the terminology of the meirim, I think).  that is NOT the
same as saying that ANY non-literal interpretation can be supplied.


> Just as for the first perek of ma'ashe breshit most do not take ein dorshin to
> imply that we should just say we do not understand, so too for Noah.  It does
> not endorse a particular interpretation, but expands the interpretations
> available.

===> But, perhaps only within the "range" of PRDS???


> 
> 
> 3)  Lastly motivation.  Two separate questions:
>     a) Why can't we say that this happened and science can not yet
> explain this?
> Two answers, one internal and one external.  
> 
> Part of the belief system of many of us (Not all - clearly not that of Rav
> Dessler) is that ideally,  the torah should be
> consonant with our reason (as the Kuzari says, the Torah never requires us to
> believe against our reason).  This belief is fairly widespread - note the
> popularity even within haredi circles of attempts to reconcile tora with 
> science. 
> 
> There may be times when an intellectual dissonance between our emuna and our
> understanding of reality based on reason/science is required, but it is
> something that should be jarring, and  motivate us to find an answer.  
> 
> The reason that Rav Weiss perhaps does not feel this dissonance is a problem 
> may be the general difference between "right" and "left" over the issue
> of da'as
> torah versus individual autonomy.  

===> Anyone who remembers me knows that I have never been a ferevetn da'as
Torah person.  I am just very skeptical about how much science "really"
knows....



> 
> Lastly, I would note that the position of Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook (history begins
> with lech lecha) is fairly widely known and accepted in "MO" circles (even if
> its origin is not always), and adopting it is not viewed as the heretical leap
> requiring detailed precise documentation from the rishonim that Rav Bechhofer
> requires.  The Tradition article also  bases itself on the notion that true
> history begins with the avot.
> 
> The second one is a public policy one.  While Rav Weiss's approach may
> work for
> some, it doesn't work for many others, both people who consider themselves
> solidly within the Torah camp (although clearly some  on avoda would disagree)
> as well as most who do  not currently believe in tora misinai.  Chana's post

===> To me, that means that "allegorization" is suitable as a "Way
station" for those whose understanding is not sufficiently "developed".
However, that would mean that allegorization should NOT be accepted as an
"end in itself"... only as a way station to "greater understanding"...

> about the work of kiruv organizations in England shows that the kiruv
> organizations recognize that the position that science has not yet reached the
> understanding of torah is not one that increases kavod hatora (most do
> not view
> this as showing that tora is ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem.le'eyne hagoyim..) 
> Anyone involved in kiruv knows that this is a problem.
> Therefore, the publicization that tora does not require the acceptance of
> positions that are viewed (even if you do not accept the characterization) as
> inherently anti science and anti intellectual should be viewed as  a  kiddush
> hashem, which removes a michshol from many.
> 
> 
>     b)  What about other nissim?  The problem is not with hashem's
> power to make
> the flood.  The problem is why hashem would do a public miracle to teach us a
> lesson, then meticulously remove all traces, and present us with a
> reality today
> that is not consonant with what is supposed to have happened.  
> 
> In Rav Bechhofer's answer to M. Feldman
> >Science cannot prove something did not occur. It can only indicate what
> >did occur. It may simply have not yet found the sliver of a year's flood's
> >record in all the history of the world that geology contains. There are
> >scientific records that do corroborate a Flood (see Lawrence Kelemen's
> 
> I detect a misunderstanding of what (to at least some of us) is the major
> problem in the flood.  It is not the lack of a sliver of one year's flood
> record.  It is rather the dramatic discontinuity in the local fauna, which
> implies that all land mammals and birds in the entire world destroyed, except
> for  one location, and the question of the current geographical diversity
> (achieved in only 5000 years after the flood when nature returned to normal). 
> The evidence for that should be extremely widespread.  We do have evidence of
> massive destructions of species,and discontinuities in the record, just not
> recently.

===> I think that in order to adequately address this issue, it is
important to look at how ChaZaL described the Mabul. (a) it was boiling
water; (2) fish survived; (3) Eretz Yisrael was not flooded (at least
according to some opinions)!; (4) Day and night and seasons did not
function -- implying that the earth stopped rotating both on its axis AND
in orbit....  Now, all of this describes an event that is not just
"another flood" -- rather, it is a major event that has no "Scientific"
conceptualization.  THEN, G-d "restarts" everything -- day and night, the
seasons, etc. Seems to me as if this is almost an entire "re-creation" of
the world and THAT is why we do not see "traces" of what happened.  In
that context, this is not a "conspiracy" theory -- but rather a
"mini-ma'ashe-b'reishis"...  I think that in this context, there is as
much "problem" as there is of resolving why there is no trace of
2,000,000+ people in the desert....



> 
> 
> The hakdama of the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim describes it as not being for
> everyone, only for those who are confused by apparent contradictions. 
> Similarly, allegorical interpretations may not be for everyone, only those who
> are confused by apparent contradictions.  One can take the confusion as either
> positively or negatively.  However,  there are far more important aspects of
> avodat hashem.  

===> True.  However, I think that it is important to discuss OTHER ways
in which to deal with contradictions.

--Zvi



> 
> Meir Shinnar
> 

> Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 17:07:10 -0400
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Flood
> 
> R Zvi Weiss:>>
> ===> There are two objections here.  first of all, ChaZaL did not simply
> "believe in the flood", they described it as "supra-scientific"<<
> 
> And it's possible/likely that the flood phenomeninum was the result of such 
> highly advanced technology that it is still undescriable and will still be 
> undesribable for many generations to come.  Just as the Torah would
> have lacked 
> words to desdribe  jet-plane - even though Hashem possessed that power
> - so too 
> the Torah is lacking the means to communicate super-advanced technology.


===> I am not sure if "technology" is the correct terminology to use.
However, I think that it *is* possible that the description of the Mabul
is a "simplified" description because the "Torah is not a book on
meteorology"...  The even took place but the description is too psarse for
us to fully understand what happened...


> 
> So the flood might have been a historical event for which we lack the
> means to 
> describe.  And therefore we can accept that it did happen, yet not take the 
> specific descriptions as literal but perhaps metaphorical.  EG "kanfei

===> No, it could be "literal" -- simply "incomplete" from the
"scientific" standpoint....


> neshorim"
> might have been a device the Torah used to describe Jetplane flight in
> the the 
> pre-jet era.  So too mabbul might refer to a tremendous upheaval with boiling 
> water etc. being used to describe some yet unkwon phenonemenum?  On the
> lighter 
> side, maybe Korach was swallowed by a black hole?1

===> Well, keep in mind that the Gemara records that an Amora *found*
where korach was swallowed up....

--Zvi

> 
> Rich Wolpoe   
> 

I have hitherto witheld from contributing any comments on this subject but
I will just have to chime in a little bit.
HaRav YGB writes, "I must add, you make a mockery
of Chazals - dozens of them - that took the Mabul as a point of reference
for Halachic diiscussions, such as that we recently had in RH."
Noone is making a mockery of anything, just as in the recent "science and
chazal" debate, there is nothing chas veshalom wrong with saying that
chazal based their decisions on the scientific understanding of their
generation.  If we find that scientific investigation leads us to believe
otherwise, AND we are remaining true to the Torah, there is not necessarily
anything wrong with saying that Chazal understood the physical world
differently, (including Geology).
However, I do maintain that the Torah is Literally true, only we may not
always understand what it means. I'm not really taking a position as pro or
con allegorization, just pointing out what I think is a flaw in your argument.
I agree with Reb Micha's words "The question isn't whether Chazal and the
Rishonim understood the mabul to be historical. It's whether they'd agree
to the process: When scientific evidence disagrees with the claims of the
Torah, is assuming the naarative is an allegory a valid approach to
resolution? Since Chazal didn't face that conflict WRT the mabul, citing
that they actually held it was historical may not be relevent...Personally,
I believe the answer to be that the methodology isn't valid."  I agree.
Shaul Weinreb

Reb Herschel ginsburg writes "The cave was last explored
shortly after the '67 war when Moshe Dayan (I think) sent an adventuresome
niece (or someother female relative who was small enough to fit through the
down the tight entrance) to check out the cave."
I once spent a shobbos in Chevron, and a young men from the Yeshiva in
Kiryat Arbah (I unfortuneatly don't remember his name) told us about how he
and two friends went on an expedition exploring the cave below the present
building at mearas hamachpeilah.  There is a larger hole opposite the small
open one that everyone is familiar with which is covered by a stone.  One
night after selichos, they managed to move the stone when the Arab gaurd
wasn't watching and explore the cave.  The story was quite fascinating, and
they found some apparent burial tools which were later sent to ? University
which declared them to be from the Hasmonean period.  It seems that it was
used for burials into the zman of the bayis sheni.
Shaul weinreb

In a message dated 7/28/99 11:23:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, weissz@idt.net 
writes:

> > side, maybe Korach was swallowed by a black hole?1
>  
>  ===> Well, keep in mind that the Gemara records that an Amora *found*
>  where korach was swallowed up....
>  
The possuk says Vatiftach "Ho'oretz" Es Piha... ("Vayeirdu"), and the Mishne 
says that it was from the creations of Bein Hashmoshos.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

    I recall once reading that the Rav said that we should allow mikvaos to 
be used by Conservative and Reform rabbis for their "conversions."  As I 
recall, the author of the article said this was because of the very high 
priority the Rav placed on avoiding disputes within the Jewish people.  I 
thought the article was in the special issue of Jewish Action dedicated to 
the "Life and Legacy" of the Rav, but I cannot find it there.  I therefore 
turn to the Avodah list with three questions:

    1.  Can anyone refer me to the article that I have just described?

    2.  Can anyone refer me to anything written by the Rav, or to any written 
material that claims to be a transcription (or at least a paraphrase) of an 
oral statement by the Rav, concerning whether we should allow mikvaos to be 
used by Conservative and Reform rabbis for their "conversions"?

    3.  Does anyone have any personal recollection of hearing the Rav discuss 
this?  If so, what did he say?

    Thank you.

Jeff Zuckerman

    A dinner guest in my house recently made a comment that I thought was 
totally off the wall.  My response, however, failed to persuade him that he 
had erred in any way, and did not entirely satisfy me either.  I therefore 
turn to the Avodah list for your comments.

    In the context of a discussion about fasts after the Bais HaMikdash is 
rebuilt, my guest said that it is not certain that we will continue to fast 
on Yom Kippur.  His argument was that the Sanhedrin in those days could rule 
that "t'anu es nafshoseychem" means something other than not to eat or drink 
(such as to wear heavy wool clothing), in which case we would not be 
obligated to fast on Yom Kippur.  He was not saying that this would happen; 
only that it would be within the power of a future Sanhedrin to reinterpret 
the meaning of "t'anu" -- and that we would be obligated to follow that 
future Sanhedrin.  How would you have responded?

Jeff Zuckerman

First, speaking as listowner, can we keep contributions to this discussion
limited to emails that actually say something new? I caught two levels depth
of "but as I already said" (or some such): a poster repeated an argument he
thought was ignored, and another posted his refutation. Im kein, ein ladavar
sof!

Jon Baker cites the Me'iri as saying:
:                                                     He brings as an
: example the claim that the Dor Haflagah wanted to build a tower "to
: heaven" - this cannot be literally true, so it is clearly hyperbole.

I don't understand the Me'iri. How do we know how high the Dor Haflagah
(or is that Dor haHaflagah?) thought shamayim was? After all, we're not
discussing whether they could build such a tower -- just whether they
could try to. Why couldn't they have been trying to do something they
thought was possible, but wasn't?

(Much like the p'shat to "Elohim acheirim" -- someone can worship a
non-existent god, and therefore place this imaginary deity ahead of Hashem.)

Aside from that, lishitaso, the height of the tower was hyperbole, not
allegory. Is that any different than other lishonos b'nei adam, such as
idiomatic speech?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Jul-99: Chamishi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 345:21-27
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari V 13-16

Jeff Zuckerman asks:
:                                   He was not saying that this would happen; 
: only that it would be within the power of a future Sanhedrin to reinterpret 
: the meaning of "t'anu" -- and that we would be obligated to follow that 
: future Sanhedrin.  How would you have responded?

As far as I know, the technical definition of inui was never in doubt (about
the major points). By doubt I don't necessarily mean uncertainty, but subject
to halachic plurality. It's not like our current definition was one of many
divrei E-lokim Chaim that has the weight of Sanhedrin behind it. Then, it's
possible for a future Sanhedrin (gadol mimenu bichachma uvminyan) to legislate
differently. Which is why, we find in Edios 1:5, rejected opinions were
recorded in the Mishnah. Implied in that mishnah, had the minority (or
otherwise rejected) opinion not existed, the future Sanhedrin would lack
the power to "reinterpret".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Jul-99: Chamishi, Eikev
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 345:21-27
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 14b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Kuzari V 13-16

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


[ 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         ]