Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 163

Sunday, August 15 1999

• Large Gatherings
• incandescent vs. fluorescent
• More on lowering radio volume
• Re: Avodah V3 #161
• Can it help to reverse the psak?
• HYD
• Re: Pedants R Us: Qol qoreih and exegetical freedom
• Re: More on lowering radio volume
• Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
• Re: Erroneous P'sak
• software piracy
• Please Pray for Chava Bas Esther
• Re: ChaZaL and "Advanced Knowledge"
• Re: ChaZaL and Technology
• Re: Avodah V3 #161
• Re: Avodah V3 #162: Software Piracy
• Chazal and Advanced Technology

Shlomo Abeles writes:

> 90,000! Amazing ! I wonder if besides Meron on Lag B'Omer, would this be
> the
> largest crowd to commemorate a yohrzeit of a Tzaddik (or indeed any
> orthodox
> Jewish gathering) or does anyone know of  similar-sized or indeed
> larger assemblies  anywhere in the Jewish world?

It wasn't for a yahrtzeit but....

The demonstration against the Supreme Court in Yerushalayim last 
March was reported to have attracted 250-300,000 people, but they 
said the bracha of Chacham HaRozim there (implying that there 
were 600,000 people present - entirely possible that the secular 
media downplayed the numbers).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

RET writes:
: if I have a box that gives off light it makes a big difference
: if the source is incandescent or fluorescent.

It certainly does. The fluorescent is worse. An incandescent is a single source
of a glowing metal. Fluorescent light is,of course, a "cold" source. However,
every fluorescent lamp has two electrodes, one at each end. These electrodes
are usually heated until they glow before the lamp goes on. Even in special
types where fluorescent tubes are turned on without preheating the electrodes
they heat up immediately until they glow with a bright white light.

Do you prefer to turn on one capelet she mantelet or two separate ones.

BMW, some 28 years ago I took a "fluorescent" that did not have the fluorescent
coating on the glass to demonstrate to the Institute for Science and Halakha in
Jerusalem that the electrodes at the two ends do indeed glow brightly. (If you
try it, BEWARE, View through thick glass to avoid ultraviolet in your eyes.)

R' Sholem Berger's comment about operation of other circuits is similar to
what I wrote before I saw his comment. But his question:

>By turning down the volume I  would imagine one is changing the setting
>of a resistor -- is a circuit with a near-infinite value of resistance
>halachically equivalent to a  destroyed circuit? 

and RYGB's answer:

>I do not think so.

are not la'inyan because not the metziut. Lowering the volume does not usually
"increase resistance to infinity". The volume control may be understood
as a rod held fixed at the lower end while the top end is vibrated. If one
touches the rod near the top one feels strong vibrations. As one slides the
hand down the rod one feels a lower amplitude of vibration. At the bottom,
held in a fixed position, there is no vibration. Lowering volume is like
lowering the hand on the rod. The rod is actually a resistance and the
current through it is almost unaffected by the "moving hand". There may be
a slight decrease of current through the "hand" as it feels less "vibration".

Before sending this second posting today, I read all of Avoda 3:153 and
3:154 so I won't have to send a third.

R' Akiva Miller questions:

>Is light required for the definition of halachic fire? I recall from
>somewhere that heat is also sufficient evidence of aish, even in the
>absence of light. My experience is that the magnet of a speaker gets
>noticably hot after a while. Perhaps this establishes the presence of
>aish even before it has had enough time to get hot. Any comments?

I'm an electronics engineer, not a rav, so I telephoned R' Levi Yizhak
Halperin, the head of the Institute for Science and Halakha in Jerusalem.
He says that there is no esh without light. He has heard of only one person
who says otherwise, R' Yudelevitz in Jerusalem. R' Halperin also would
not agree to the heter of turning down volume, certainly not completely
(even though not switching off). If one accepts the Hazon Ish's boneh then
changing from a condition where one hears the radio to where one can no
longer hear it would be soter.

As to speaker magnets getting warm, they usually don't even get to yad
soledet bo and even R' Yudelevitz probably has a lower limit higher than that.

And as to RYGB's  alert reader:

>>while on the older radios turning down the volume has no real effect on the
>>function of the radio, in modern digital radios, the volume control opens
>>and closes circuits.  

>I think that may be the case in digital radios that have LCD gauges that
>indicate volume level - could you please ask if that is the case where
>there are no LCD indicators?

Modern digital radios are digital in tuning the stations and other operations,
but the volume control is not in that section of the radio and is still analog.
Where it is still a rotating knob or slide, it is a potentiometer which I
described above (first posting) as the vibrating rod with sliding finger.
In remote control of volume there would be digital action. And if there is
visual volume indication there too there would be digital actions.

But why does one assume that the halakhic definition of digital action is
different from that of analog?

biv'rakha,

David

After quoting my statement that, without even considering halakha, not
operating electrical devices is a universally accepted minhag and as such
there is no way to change it R' Rich Wolpoe continues:

: WADR respect to my bar plugta, it is somewhat dangerous to revise that which
: has been accepted as practice..... ... On an entirely different level, it is
: also IMHO a bit presumptuous to assume that we have it right And the previous
: doros have it wrong. Sophistication does not always produce greater clarity.

Am I your bar plugta?  I think we agreed completely. 

As to your "presumptuous to assume that we have it right", I agree and
have a little story. While RShZA simply says "ma e'eseh", a custom is a
custom and cannot be changed, it would appear that Reb Moshe Feinstein had
a slightly different reasoning. I visited Reb Moshe on a day that he was
taken ill and, as I couldn't speak with him, I spoke with his grandson R'
Mordechai Tendler. I mentioned that I had seen a letter of R' Moshe that
he agreed with the "chakhmei Eretz Yisrael" that the issur in electricity
was in the result. So why not cancel the issur in cases where the result is
not an issur? (such as turning on electric fan as per RShZ"A) He said his
grandfather explained that he could not find a category in halakha into which
to place electricity and therefore couldn't change the existing issur. When
gas burns it vanishes as it is changed into heat energy. Heat energy is lost
as it turns into electrical energy. In a water wheel we can see that the water
has lost speed (and energy) as it turns the wheel. But from the explanation
of electricity he cannot see how the energy is transferred. Nothing is seen
to vanish or change. The number of electrons that enter an electric motor
are exactly equal to the number that come out. Nothing can be seen to be
used up or transferred in form. The "story" that the entering electrons are
carrying energy while the exiting no longer have that energy is very unclear.
He has no way to understand this and finds no parallel in halakha and so
cannot say there has been an error in k'viat hahalakha. R' MT said his
grandfather had explained this in his teshuva about PA systems on Shabbat.
I remember that I found that one of the four reasons he objected to microphones
and amplifiers was sort of a hint rather than a clear explanation of this.
I have Igrot Moshe in my office, but I am at home and will not visit the
office for at least two weeks so I cannot give more information here

R' Moshe Feldman writes:

I agree that if a minhag has been accepted by klal yisrael (as you correctly
define it), then we cannot uproot it. However, if a mistaken psak was
accepted, once the correct facts are established, I don't see why we cannot
uproot the psak. In the case at hand, it was mistakenly believed initially
that electricity is aish. Consequently, electricity was prohibited on Shabbos.
Today, we know this not to be the case. So, why not reverse the psak?

I think you have answered your own question in the first line before you
asked it. Okay, so reverse the psak. Does that make the minhag of klal
Yisrael vanish?

David

I have never seen HYD used when the murderer was a Jew, and think that we
prefer to ask for hiis teshuva under such circumstances...

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999, SBA wrote:

> In any case, those who remember those times will recall that the Brisker
> Rav was proven to be 100% correct as some time later another Shabbos
> protester Reb Pinchos Segalov HYD was actually beaten to death by the
> police. 
> 

YGB

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

I would tend to agree with RMFrankel on this pointt. Could we get a brief
but comprehensive history of trop, please?

On Wed, 11 Aug 1999 Michael.Frankel@dtra.mil wrote:

> This raises an interesting inyon related to the periodic outbreak of
> guises of the exegetical freedom thread.  It is perfectly true that the
> trope interprets the posuq as described by REli.  Indeed, every
> miforeish I saw in a cursory look at this a long time ago also agrees
> with the trope on this.  Yet consider, there is no particular religious
> imperative, discernable at least to me, requiring one to agree with the
> trope's preferred parsing, or a rishon's preferred exegesis. Indeed
> every rishonic exeegete out there disagrees with the trope's peirush
> about some thing or other. And we are told that already in talmudic
> times there were differences between bovel and ma'arovoh in the parsing
> of verses. of course if all known rishonim including the ba'alei mesoroh
> who recorded the trope have converged to the same translation, common
> sense as well as an ingrained respect for any rishon's enormously
> superior textual insight mandate proceeding with the utmost caution. But
> must one feel constrained, even in principle, from ever advancing such a
> disagreement ourselves?  Note that we are no longer talking of
> exegetical differences that may raise ideological hackles such as the
> old "ovos bashing" (c"v loa hoyoh viloa nivroh ) accusations, or even
> allegorical excursions.  it is now simple translation, with no apparent
> resonance to larger issues one way or the other.  (pace REli, surely
> what christians think of this should neither maileh nor moirid during
> our internal grappling with the plain text.) 

YGB

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

Based on RDB's info below:

1. I am re-inclined to permit the lowering of the volume. The simplified
explanation offered is in line with what I originally understood.

2. I am bewildered as to RLYH's position. The CI frobade being boneh
circuits and being soseir them. The circuit is not deprived of its
functionality when one increases or lowers the resistance, so that cannot
be boneh or soseir. It is, if one does not make or break the circuit, much
more like turning a faucet to allow greater or lesser water pressure.

Awaiting clarification! 

On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, D & E-H Bannett wrote:

> are not la'inyan because not the metziut. Lowering the volume does not
> usually "increase resistance to infinity". The volume control may be
> understood as a rod held fixed at the lower end while the top end is
> vibrated. If one touches the rod near the top one feels strong
> vibrations. As one slides the hand down the rod one feels a lower
> amplitude of vibration. At the bottom, held in a fixed position, there
> is no vibration. Lowering volume is like lowering the hand on the rod.
> The rod is actually a resistance and the current through it is almost
> unaffected by the "moving hand". There may be a slight decrease of
> current through the "hand" as it feels less "vibration". 
> 

(deleted)

> I'm an electronics engineer, not a rav, so I telephoned R' Levi Yizhak
> Halperin, the head of the Institute for Science and Halakha in
> Jerusalem.  He says that there is no esh without light. He has heard of
> only one person who says otherwise, R' Yudelevitz in Jerusalem. R'
> Halperin also would not agree to the heter of turning down volume,
> certainly not completely (even though not switching off). If one accepts
> the Hazon Ish's boneh then changing from a condition where one hears the
> radio to where one can no longer hear it would be soter. 
> 
> 

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 8/13/99 12:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

> When
>  there is no king, the bet din performs both functions.
>  
Agreed

KVCT 

Yitzchok Zirkind

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>Chana Luntz writes:
>:               And to me, yiras shamayim in a posek is where that posek
>: genuinely knows that he will be judged for the psak that he gives, if
>: too makil, for being over on the Torah, and if too machmir, for every
>: drop of pain suffered by those who receive the psak from following it.
>
>I agree with her assessment that "erring on the side of caution" is wrong,
>and with earlier discussions about how rare it is to find a situation where
>caution WRT one issue isn't a kulah WRT another. (BTW, one possible case:
>hilchos niddah, where the wife is both post menapause and doesn't have much
>desire for relations. Neither piryah virivyah nor ona'ah would be issues.)
>


I find it difficult to say that this is such a situation, without
knowing every single intimate detail of the couple's life.  Yes, she
might not be interested in relations, but she might still prefer being
able to hug.  Or being able to dress/undress in front of him or make his
bed in front of him or go out to meals at friends without having to
worry, if they get seated next to one another, about all the passing
problems.  Or even, if both she and he are not as strong as they once
were, about being able to carry something between them.

It seems to me, before you could be machmir in the way you suggest,
you would need to know all these matters, and many more besides -
because if any one of them caused the couple problems, then you don't
have the case you thought you had.  And I rather sceptical that you
could find a couple who had any contact at all with each other (ie they
lived in the same location) where none of these matters would cause some
additional bother or concern.


>However, that's not the only reason to be machmir. Nor is it even the only
>case where yir'as shamayim is an issue. Chana summarizes another poster
>as saying "he wanted somebody to just work through the halacha, and not give
>him a mussar shmuess or be machmir because of fear of heaven."
>
>My guess is that the other poster was thinking of the general chumrah as
>a measure of yir'as shamayim. (Although we could re-open the whole "Mishnah
>B'rurah and ba'al nefesh" discussion if we're not careful.) But what about
>a specific chumrah as a specific bit of mussar?
>
>For example, what's wrong with a poseik telling someone who has problems with
>stinginess that he personally ought to be machmir WRT ma'aser kisafim? Or
>someone who has problems with kavannah being told that for him it would be
>better if he repeated sh'moneh esrei -- even though he sang "mechayeh meisim
>ata ... umorid hageshem" 90 times?
>
>I believe that some definitions of "kidoshim tihyu" require (what would
>otherwise be) lifnim mishuras hadin where necessary for obtaining kedushah.
>(The Ramban appears to limit this to dinim that rein in ta'avah.)
>

Firstly, it is important to distinguish between a person themselves
choosing to take on a chumra, ie to go lifnim mishuras hadin, and a psak
that they should do so.  If the person comes to the Rav and says, can I
do eg any of the examples you give - then unless there are halachic
objections, the Rav would say yes - but in that case he may be
considered to be being  makil rather than machmir, ie he is allowing the
person to do what they want to deepen their own spirituality.

There is a big difference between this and the Rav poskening that the
person should do this.  I know Yitzchok Zirkind has raised halachic
objections to some of your suggestions, but leaving those aside (ie
assuming there are none), I still think it is very problematic for a Rav
to give such a psak.  He would need to know 100% that doing the action 
will have the desired result and not some unintended consequences.
And even if he can and does know that it is the perfect solution today,
is that necessarily going to be true in 10, 20, 30 years time?

Let's take your example of a psak to lengthen the time spent davening
(perhaps by repeating) in order to aid kavana.  Can the Rav be 100%
sure that this is the perfect approach.  Or maybe after trying and
repeatedly failing to achieve the kavana, the person might give up (eg
on davening or on trying to achieve kavana), or even if he keeps trying,
he might take his sense of failure at not achieving correct kavana first
time with him into other aspects of his life.

And even if none of the above occurs, and it has the perfect effect on
the particular individual now, while he is still single,  without any
harmful side effects - will this still be true when he has 8 kids and a
desparate need for  parnasa and a wife who constantly complains that he
is never there for her and the kids? That extra period of time spent
trying to achieve the perfect davening - while maybe fine as a bochur,
may well  now be at the expense of the needs of his wife and kids.

I believe it to be almost impossible to find a situation where being
machmir will not cause some "loss"; be it loss of time, loss of money,
embarresment or loss of convenience (in which I would include being able
to pass the plates of food directly).

Whether that loss causes pain is a further step.  If you are talking
about somebody who is underemployed, for whatever reason, loss of time
may well not cause pain (although there is always the loss of the real
mitzvos the person could do with that "useless" time).  If however, the
person is extremely stretched timewise, between the demands made on
him/her (whether it be by family or job or whatever), then there is
going to be real pain (whether in having to say no to family, or cutting
corners at work, or cutting sleep beyond that comfortable or safe).  And
the pain may not only be that of the person concerned.  If the only way
the person can find time to daven that extra chumra is by sleeping less,
and he falls asleep at the wheel, the pain may be very real and very
physical for whoever happened to get in the way of his car.  Not to
mention the pain of the children or of his wife, or of his workmates
(who may have to pick up the slack) or his employers.

On a related matter, it seems to me that the definition of being machmir
is wider than the the category used to discuss forbidding that which is
permitted.  For example, if the Rav ruled that the person had to say an
additional perek of tehillim every day - would anybody say that this is
forbidding what is permitted (ie it is permitted not to say an
additional perek of tehillim every day).  But it could have all the
consequences set out above, and it would fall within the definition of
being more machmir on what is required vis a vis davening than the
usual.

Another poster suggested that being too makil can also cause pain, but I
am having difficulty finding a case of this nature except a) cases
where the leniency has an attached stringency, but then it is the
attached stringency that is actually causing the pain; or b) when the
person later learns that the Rav has been too lenient, and is
spiritually pained by their loss (but since his job is too make for
himself a Rav and follow that rav, it is arguable whether this pain is
fully valid).

Can you give me an example of any others?



>- -mi


Regards

Chana
-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

To expand the point a bit, I note that bootleg tape cassettes are widely
available in Israel, including in "frum" shopping areas, and including
tapes that are widely listened to by religious Jews. It would be nice if
the Israeli roshei yeshiva would put an issur on the sale and use of these
cassettes (and at the same time issur illegal copies of software.)

CLS
---------------------------------------------------------
Claude (Chaim) and Rivka Schochet
Math Dept		04-834-6049 home phone and fax
The Technion		04-829-3895 office phone
Haifa, Israel 32000     

Please Pray for Chava Bas Esther
=============================

Chava Bas Esther has been diagnosed with CANCER
and is scheduled to have an OPERATION this Monday. 
Please pray for her quick and complete recovery!!

Chava Bas Esther is the mother of DerechEmet@aol.com,
a very hard-working and dedicated kiruv activist and anti-
missionary activist. DerechEmet@aol.com has already 
prevented many Jews from becoming baptised.

I have already begun to pray for Chava Bas Esther.

Please help DerechEmet@aol.com stop Jews from
converting to Christianity by joining him in his weekly
anti-missionary protests in Brooklyn. Even if you can
join him for one hour each month, that could be helpful.

If you do not live in Brooklyn, or live in Brooklyn but
can't come to the anti-missionary protests, then
please re-send this e-mail to your Jewish friends
in Brooklyn.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
ShShbsNY 

Regarding the issue of "Where did ChaZaL get 'advanced Technical Knowledge
From"? (And, do Gedolim Still have it today...).
Seems that there are a few different issues to explore here:
A. Might not the concept of "Sod Hashem L'Yra'av" explain how ChaZaL
receive the "support knowledge" needed to "explicate/formulate" Halacha.
Note, in addition, that the Midrash (cited several times by the Netziv)
noted that when a person is "working for Torah", the Torah is "working for
him" and will beseech (!) G-d to reveal to the one learning the knowledge
that htis person needs...
B. When people have knowledge but do not have the terminology to so
express it, it is difficult to determine how the material is
transmitted...  Maybe the knowledge is "embedded" in Kabbala?  Maybe it is
embedded in some of the Agadot...  Further, ChaZaL may have been
reluctant to "Freely" discuss knowledge that is not commonly
"well-understood"... such that those who RECEIVE this knowledge would also
be reluctant to "tell"...
Thus, I think that it is extraordinarily difficult to determine the extent
of ChaZaL's "advanced" knowledge.  However, I would note that -- given the
fact that we DO know that they ere the "giants" of our Mesorah, I owuld
tend to accept -- at the least the POSSIBILITY -- that they DID have this
advanced knowledge and be VERY VERY cautious about "overturning" anything
because MY understanding differs from theirs...

--Zvi

> Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:01:10 -0400
> From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
> Subject: "Chazal had access to advanced technology"
> 
> If so, shouldn't there be some physical evidence of it?  After all, we
> know a lot about the Romans' advanced technology (aqueducts, etc.) from
> surviving artifacts.  (The old joke comes to mind: we know the
> Israelites had wireless telephones because nothing
> has been found underground...)

====> I have no evidence that ChaZaL were "builders and technocrats".
Seems ot me that whatever knowledge they had would be in the theoretical
"thought-experiment" type.  Such knowledge would not necessarily leave
traces....



> 
> Maybe what is meant is not technology, nor even science, but (as was
> suggested by someone else earlier, I forget who) a heightened empirical
> perception?  


====> However, this, itslef, needs further clarification... ("Arvach Arva
Ba'i").





> 
> Or maybe -- and here's my opinion --  Chazal had access to no
> superhistorical intellectual or cognitive abilities, and Mesorah is
> their
> claim to fame?  This last claim requires no extraordinary proof -- the
> first two do.  

====> The "difficulty" with that approach is that whenever we find some
"evidence" that appears to contradict the Ba'alei HaMesorah, we are left
with a bit of a conundrum...  If you do not assert that ChaZaL had SOME
sort of knowledge, then you are [in effect] saying that ChaZaL were
"mistaken" and [since the Mesorah is not ChaZaL's "only" area of
"strength") this can lead to a "basis" for disregarding the Mesorah, as
well.  OTOH, if you say that ChaZaL DID have this knowledge (although it
may not have been expressed in terms that WE easily understand, I believe
that you avoid the difficulty...

====> KV"CT


--Zvi

> 
> Sholem Berger
> 

From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
Subject: Ramban on the eglah arufah

A short question: The Ramban says, "..vekol hashomeya shemets davar
beinyan yavo veyagid veyisparsem hadavar veyehareg [the rotseyakh] al-yad
beysdin o hamelekh o goel hadam..." 

Where is it written that a king has rshus in diney nefashos?

Thanks.

A gutn khoydesh
Sholem Berger

ANSWER
RAMBAM HILCHOS MELACHIM PEREK 3 HALACHOS 8-10 SEE SOURCES THERE

>Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 17:01:53 -0400
>From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
>Subject: Software Piracy
>
>In the News:
><<Israel is allegedly a hub of piracy in our part of the world" and a
>``candidate to be the only country in the highest level" of a U.S. list of
..
<snip>
..
>Why then are people moreh heter to copy these programs?
>
>Kol tuv,
>Moshe
>

a) Greed.

b) Not recognizing the validity of copyright laws or any laws of the
Tziyonisha Medina.

c) There is no Issur to rip off a "treiff" organization like Bar Ilan
(stealing from goyim is also muttar).

d) Insufficient income or hope of ever attaining a sufficient income
potential to be able to afford expensive software.

e) It's heimish.

f) Dina d'malchuta does not apply to the State of Israel.

g) The same reason it's muttar to rip off the government (US or Israeli) if
you are doing it for the noble purpose of spreading Torah.

h) Frumkeit is not measured in terms of "bein adam l'chavero".

i) etc. etc. etc.

Let's face it...  the emperor hath nary a stich....

hg



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

  Hershel & Susan Ginsburg               Internet: ginzy@netvision.net.il
  P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27           Phone: 972-2-993-8134
  Efrat,  90435                          FAX:  972-2-993-8122
  Israel

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

I don't know about advanced technology but Chazal certainly had advanced
knowledge
of science. For example Moses handed down the average lunar month (29
days, 12 hours,
793/1080) to the nearest 1080th of an hour. There are many laws in
hilcoth niddah that
illustrate this also.

Now for a brain teaser. A frequent theme on my Rashi website is that
Rashi's knowledge
of syntax, grammar, and database theory far surpasses the 20th century
knowledge.
This of course applies not only to Rashi but to all the Baalay Mesorah,
Rishonim etc

So...who out there can tell me what syntax structure in Biblical Hebrew
corresponds to
the SELECT statement in most 3rd level programming languages.

Russell Hendel;Phd ASA
RJHendel@Juno.Com
Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

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


[ 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         ]