Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 186

Wednesday, August 25 1999

• Re: Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are tod...
• data transmission accuracy
• Re: [Fwd: Orthodox historians and Lashon Hara]
• Re: Sleeping on the left side
• Electric Fans on Shabbos and Y"T
• Re: Schlessingers Proof of Gods Existence-Laymans Description
• Reform Self-Perception
• Es vs. Eis
• Litvish vs Chassidish Learning
• Re: criticizing gedolim
• Re: Es vs. Eis
• RE: "A women can't speak before a man"
• Leshon Hara is because of the Pain it causes--NO!
• A Prohibition for Lower Criticism
• RE: Midgets vs Gedolim
• Chumrahs--Dialog of Carl and Myself
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• Rav Zilberstein

On Tue, 24 Aug 1999 TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:

> So tell me, just what is the philosophical reasoning behind studying
> history? Is it to learn from the past how not to fall into the mistakes
> of our ancestors? Or is it part of the natural human imperative to come
> to grips with who we are? I have always felt, Santayana notwithstanding,
> that the study of History was the ultimate existential quest, a means of
> knowledge of self, individually and collectively. How does this not jive
> with Torah principles? We study Jewish History to know who we are.
> Should anything be off-limits from that study from a philosophical point
> of view? Nothing about it contradicts philosophical principles of
> Judaism.  But specific halachik issues, as raised by Prof. Schapiro, are
> something we can quantify in a realistic way.
> 

Again, it is not easy to answer the questions. Nevertheless, we can draw
some lines that are clear, and the publication of the SE's letters (or,
for that matter, the Chida's letters to his wife) are something we should
all feel queasy about, if not find downright forbidden.

I stress, not because of the friendship with Atlas! That was something
well known (the SE gave him a haskomo on the Ra'ab"d on BK), and from
which we might learn a great deal of positive for Avodas Hashem (although
some might disagree and rule out friendship with the Reform on a personal
level, that is a legitimate area of debate. I clearly believe that
personal friendship is a good thing. It should be noted, as an example,
that R' Moshe Sherer and Alexander Schindler of the UAHC were personally
friendly despite being institutional foes). But because of privacy, CDRG,
and intent issues - things a pure historian, by profession, must probably
disregard.

YGB

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

RRHendel writes:
<Just to reiterate a point I have often made (based on a Rav Yonah in Avoth)
- ---As mechy himself points out, except for a few dozen discrepancies in
100000 words there is complete agreement about malay and chaser..
- ---As I have pointed out many times the current accuracy of the Mesorah is
on the highest level according to modern data standards (That is modern
data>

Just to reiterate a point i've made before in a different forum.  When the
perpetrator of the 'data" is non-other than you know Whom - we, and He, must
answer, as the old hebrew national hot dog ads used to say, to a higher
standard.  Thus whatever the "insignificance' of any assumed error rate in
some modern information processing matrix, the appearance of even a single
acknowledged deviation - from a theological perspective - puts one in an
entirely different bin. everything and anything is 'significant.  i will
forebear to reprise any of the numerous postings on related mesorah matters.
readers with an interest and strong stomach can no doubt unearth them on the
mail-jewish archive. 

Mechy Frankel				H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil		W: (703) 325-1277

In a message dated 8/24/99 12:16:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yblau@idt.net 
writes:

<< In our desire to see all of halacha in objective terms we fail to
 acknowledge that not every situation can be decided by applying formal
 rules.  The process of Peshara, used by battei din instead of din,
 reflects this awareness.  Realizing that mishpat (law) has to be
 balanced with shalom (peace) and tzedaka ( charity or justice) the
 Talmud in Sanhedrin 6B recommends peshara over din.
 It is also important to admit that a gadol may have made an inaccurate
 assessment of a historical reality and that he retains his being a
 gadol.  In Gittin 56B Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zaccai's request to save Yavneh
 and its wise men is criticized by either Rabbi Akiva or the amora Rav
 Yosef.  The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 11;3 states that Rabbi Akiva
 mistakenly thought that Bar Kochba was mashiach.  Does the stature of
 either Rabbi Yochanan Ben Zaccai or Rabbi Akiva become diminished
 because they may have erred? >>


Rabbi Blau, as is his wont, adds sanity and reason to our discussion. I would 
only reply that even in discussion of halacha, when it comes to Loshon Hora, 
a great deal is left to the judgement of the individual, even on a Halchic 
level. I don't think Prof. Shapiro is looking for hard and set rules. I think 
he is reminding us of the difficulty of navigating these issues in the 
important work of scholarship, and reminding us that there are always many 
factors that go into deciding what to leave out of historical writing, not 
the least of which is the necessity of including material that might be 
considered in a particular context prurient or at the very least, insensitive.
R' Blau's remarks also force us to ask, what about contemporary Gedolim, who 
publicly act in a manner that might undermine our respect for them. Do we 
think less of R. Ovadia for his support of Aryeh Deri, even after his guilt 
was well established? Or do we find other explanations for his behavior? And 
even if he was wrong to support him, does that take away from his Gadlus?

Jordan

>After reading Khoury's paper in the American Journal of Gastroenterology,
>**I** got heartburn :-) 

So did I, but for different reasons: a sample size of TEN?  Give me a break!  From this one constructs a sevara?!

Let me know when there's a study with a respectable sample size on the sleeping-on-the-left-side issue, and then we can call it scientific "proof" of Chazal.  Till then, I'll take my science straight, and not rush to call one journal article a proof just because it happens to concur with Gemara.

kvc"t
Sholem Berger

DC motors cause sparking as part of their normal operation. (I recently put
capacitors across the leads of my robot's motors to minimize the effects of
that spark on the rest of the robots circuitry.)

So the first question: Are we matir p'sik reishei d'lo nichah lei?

A second issue is the status of electric sparks. They cause heat and light
and look like little flames. However, the sparks discussed pre-electricity
are actually very tiny gechalos shel mateches. Perhaps this kind of sparking
wouldn't be assur?

I would want to know the answer to these issues before exploring whether
hasaras hamonei'a of an electric fan would be muttar. I'm not sure you can
consider a fan shivus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

In v3n181, DRJ Hendel writes:
: IF God exists there is a HIGH (Certain) probabilityof finding INTELLIGENT
: LIFE

Assuming that we can assign a probability to G-d wanting intelligent life.

: IF God did not exist (Rachmana Litzlan) the probability of finding
: INTELLIGENT
: LIFE is VERY LOW

Doesn't this presuppose your conclusion? After all, the opposition believes
that there are enough possible ways in which intelligent life can emerge,
enough possible venues in each of enough possible universes for the probability
not to be low for it to emerge /somewhere/.

: The probability of God's existing is MODERATELY LOW.

Again, I have no idea how to assign a probability to this kind of thing.
I assume it can be demonstrated the probability is 1. I.e. a modal proof
that G-d must exist, not just that He happens to.

: Again, Bayes theorems tells you you may "believe in God"

You also promised that it gets asymptotic to 1. That's the piece I personally
was wondering about.

: The answer is yes and for further details either read Dr Schlessingers
: book (or start a thread on Avodah)

I chose the latter (i.e. this post), not knowing which book we are talking
about.

-mi

PS: in v3n182, Alan Davidson <perzvi@hotmail.com> writes: <<(or when the fat
lady sings as they say in the goyishe velt)>>

Doesn't this reference get us back to the discussion of Wagner y"sh's music? I
believe "the fat lady" is Brumhilda who sings at the end of all 6 hours of
the Ring Cycle.

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

In v3n181, I noticed a couple of interesting quotes from RYGB's (close to
correct) autobiographical news clipping.
:  "At first it was hard to get a commitment for a minyan, as the
:  congregation here is Reform at best," he told the IJN.
....
:  Rabbi Bechhofer explained, "From my perspective as a rabbi, you are
:  conscious of playing a role, of wanting to come across in a way that
:  makes people understand that Judaism is a positive thing."

Note that to David Yaakov Reform is close to the right thing, the best they
reach. And to the IJN writer, saying that experiencing Orthodoxy is the
same as experiencing Judaism didn't raise any flags.

Note how beneath all the usual rhetoric, on the gut level, Reform Jews
realize what Reform really is.

-mi

--
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

Mechy Frankel writes: <<ais is generally used when the word receives ha'tomoh,
i.e is stressed by a trope sign. es when un-troped.>>

Moshe Feldman writes: <<es is generally connected to the next word (with a
meteg) while ais is not.>>

(Can I comment even though my initials aren't exactly MF?)

Both of these merely shift the question. Instead of asking when a tzeirei is
used instead os a segol, we now have to ask why sometimes the word gets trop
or why it sometimes gets a meseg to the next word, and sometimes it doesn't.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

Joel Rich <Joelirich@aol.com> writes in response tp Daniel Eidensohn:
: I'm also puzzled by your comparison of litvak and chassidic learning. I 
: would've naively thought that the goal of each was to uncover amita shel tora 
: in whatever methodology worked best and that each would take this seriously 
: and personally.

Actually, I think that Chassidishe learning is aimed at acheiving d'veikus by
experiencing Amita shel Torah. The goal is experiential, not the knowledge
itself. Whereas from a Litvak's perspective gaining divine knowledge is
more directly part of temimus. This touches on something we've discussed in
the past. (Look at "Forks version II" in v2n106 and subsequent dialogue.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

Eli Turkel writes <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
: Rabbi JJS in a previous article demonstrated that secular studies were taught
: in Voloshin. Later this article was quoted by several people to "prove" that
: Voloshin was closed as soon as secular studies were demanded, the exact
: opposite of what he showed!

We saw revisionism of the same subject as part of the "My Uncle the Netziv"
episode.

That said, according to Shneiur Leiman (my father asked him in shul) the
Netziv *allowed* secular studies. He didn't want them in Vilozhin, however.
Given the choice between allowing them and closing, he (unlike R' Chaim)
chose to keep the doors open.

We can not portray the Netziv as having a mod-O perspective.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Aug-99: Shelishi, Savo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 27b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Nefesh Hachaim I 12

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Both of these merely shift the question. Instead of asking when a
> tzeirei is
> used instead os a segol, we now have to ask why sometimes the word
> gets trop
> or why it sometimes gets a meseg to the next word, and sometimes it
> doesn't.
> 

I seem to recall from M. Breuer's book on ta'amei hamikra (Russell
can correct me on this, since he has the book) that basically it's an
issue of how the pasuk divides up.  (Recall Russell Hendel's post
describing how a pasuk is divided up multiple times.)  Sometimes
there's room for an extra stress, sometimes there's not.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

David Glasner asked for a comment on the above Rashi.

The motto on my email list is Rashi Is Simple. The above Rashi CLEARLY
refers to COURT PROCEEDINGS (where women cannot be witnesses
or judges). Furthermore the Talmud EXPLICITLY advocates taking women's
opinions on matters of "this world". 

(Please visit the rashi  web site: http://www.shamash.org/rashi/)

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA;
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.

I don't want to get invovled in this Leshon Hara on the dead yet.

But leshon hara is not prohibited because of the pain it causes.

The Chafetz Chaiim makes this clear by classifying as leshon hara
to say that someone with 10 children does not have time to learn.

EVEN though, the chafetz chaiim says, NO ONE PERCEIVES THIS
AS A SIN, nevertheless since it is a violation of a positive commandment
it is prohibited.

Following a famous Rambam in Sefer Hamitzvoth I would simply say that
the prohibition of Leshon hara emanates because it corrupts the 
PERSONALITY OF THE SAYER (not the person on whom it is said) by
training him/her to see fellow Jews in a bad light

Russell Hendel; Phd ASA; 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.

In my article TOWARDS A DEFINITION OF TORAH (Proceedings of the AOJS
Volume III) I cite the halachah that "The same sefer Torah if written by
a 
heretic is to be burnt while if written by a God fearing person has
Kedusha"

In other words, the status of the Sefer is not an objective attribute of
the book
but a relational attribute of the book and its author.

So too with Lower criticism. If a non believer wrote it we should regard
it as
Epikorsus. But if a believer wrote it and is asking a question in
ignorance
we need not.

NEvertheless, my real problem with lower ciriticism is that very often
these
problems can be resolved with Talmudic Briskian methods in which the
lower criticism folks have not beed trained (See my "resolution" of the
AZLA GERESH vs the REVIA in Gen 32:8--KATONTI written a few
issues ago)

Russell Jay Hendel; Phd ASA
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.

I didn't want to get involved in this but nevertheless 
thought I would throw in one example.

Rav Hirsch in a (beautiful) essay on VaYiGDeLu 
HaNNaRiM points out that the Patriarch Yitzchak 
behaved improperly as a father. He SHOULD
have trained Yaakov/Esauv each according to 
their needs.  In fact the Patriarch Yaakov did 
behave this way..he brought up each child
according to his propensities. HAD ISAAC 
BROUGHT ESAUV UP ACCORDING TO HIS 
HOT HUNTER NATURE HE WOULND"T HAVE
TURNED OUT THE WAY HE DID.

Now I make 3 observations
---Some people I quote this too state
 "Who is Rav Hirsch to criticize a Patriarch"

---Nevertheless if Rav Hirsch's advice is 
listened to we would have less people
leaving Judaism

---Similar observations to the above 2 
hold for many critical comments of 
midgets on Gedolim. As one person 
on this list put it Judaism 101 is where
you learn to avoid the mistakes that 
other people made.

Russell Hendel;Phd ASA
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.

It looks like Carl and I are making headway.

Carl asks for a definition of Chumra WIHTOUT NOTICING
that he gave one:

>>A CHUMRAH is a PROHIBITION THAT SOME BUT
>>NOT ALL POSKIM HOLD (ex: husband and wife
drinking from same soda can even if in different glasses)

>>USING A HARCHAKAH MEANS TELLING THE
>>FALLED COUPLE THAT THIS IS A HARCHAKAH
>>AND IT WOULD HELP THEM REMEMBER THE
>>PROHIBITED STATUS OF THE WOMAN

Now that we have some definitions let us review :
I make 5 points

STRATEGMS/ADVISE 
===================
1) I and Carl certainly agree that you can ADVISE
a couple that certain STRATEGMS exist for avoiding
NICHSHAL (such as the soda issur) (BUT..I would
caution a POSAYK against saying it is prohibited
for them)

NO GENAYVATH DAAS
====================
2) The way Carl defends himself against my
claims of Kenayvath daas makes me think that
he agrees with me that nothing should be done
behind the couples back (Is this true Carl)

In fact, that is the whole Chidush of Rabbi Akivah--
besides AVOIDANCE we must also MAINTAIN
attraction or the marriage will disolve (hence the
heter to wear jewelry). By analaogy IF THE COUPLE
FELT THAT SHARING SODA IN TWO GLASSES
WAS NEEDED THEN THEIR FEELINGS SHOULD
BE RESPECTED (needless to say if they had
fallen and asked their posayk I don't see why
they should have strong feelings on anyone)
Hence one should not do anything behind
their back since one does not know how it
will affect them

3) CHAVA - SNAKE EPISODE
=======================
Carl and I agree that there is a difference between
the 2 posookim (DON"T EAT vs WE CAN"T EAT
and WE CAN"T TOUCH) and we BOTH want
to check sources before we make further comments
(BRAYSHIT IS COMING UP IN A FEW WEEKS)

4) BAITOTHIM
============
My statements about the BAITOTHIM come from
the Rambam (either on Avoth or his hakdamah to
Mishnayoth (I can check).

The "simple law" is that you SHOULD DO MITZVOTH
in order to receive candy (if you are a child), clothing
(if you are a teenager), social status and respect (if
you are a young adult). The Rambam explicitly
states this (in his hakdamah to Chelek?). 

Thus TELLING STUDENTS (Tzdak and Baitos)
to do things for the sake of heaven is a chumrah
(something not necessary). It led to them going
astray and caused us much grief.

Carl please let me know if you want me to look up
the sources

Carl is correct about the numerous Gmarrahs
that say that one should do things for the
sake of heaven (However in light of the
Rambam these Gmarrahs are talking about
Chumrahs not the strict law)

5) DRINKING WINE WITH A NIDDAH IS AN
"ESTIMATION BY CHAZAL" OF INTIMACY
====================================
Come come Carl. You just celebrated your 18th
anniversay. Surely you don't believe that wine
and romance is an OPINION of chazal. 

Physiologically wine induces psychological
states similar to those encountered during 
romance (less restraint on inhibitions, flowing
of emotions, less pickiness etc).

Hence it is an objective observation.

I will look up the Rambams if I am asked but
anyone wanting confirmation on the wine-intimacy
issue will have to do their own research.

Russell Hendel; 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.

In message , Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>
>Oh no, I think you are quite mistaken. E-mail is de riguer in many
>circles nowadays,

Yes, but Daniel is not describing "certain circles".  He is describing
the world in which his son lives, which is made up of elite and masses,
and we fit within neither.

Perhaps it would help to clarify to point out that there are two
mechanisms for controlling knowledge flow - probably best set out in a
British Television programme called "Yes Minister", which was all about
how the civil service prevented the minister, their putative master,
from knowing what was going on and hence making any decision of which
they did not approve.

If there was a critical piece of information they took one of two tacks:

a) they withheld it from him (ie the Ponavezh masses approach); or
b) the gave him seven boxes filled with material to read and the criticl
piece of paper was buried somewhere towards the bottom of box no 6.


The latter tends to be the modern way of concealing information -
everything may be on the internet, but as with Borges library, finding
it may be impossible, and even if you find it, you have to be able to
sift sufficiently to understand its importance otherwise you will skip
over it.

People operating with an internet account (I use internet, rather than
just email, which could be used purely like a form of written telephone)
are within the second paradigm. If you are, ie you freely and
comfortably access more information than you can possibly assimilate,
you are, by definition, outside the controlling mechanism that is used
to regulate the "masses".  On the other hand, you are not operating
within the framework of the elite, who has received the information in a
controlled fashion. ie you are just completely outside the world
altogether.

>and the proclomations against the Internet tell you how
>prevalent its use has become within the yeshiva world!

Before the days of internet proclamations there were television
proclamations.  The entire Sara Schneirer anniversary, about 10 years
ago, graced by many gadolim from Lakewood etc was taken up with
fulmigations on the evils of television.  How many of the girls who
attended/were shown this - had televisions do you think?  My guess is
relatively few.  The point was to strengthen the resolve of those who
did not, and make sure that those who did felt like "outsiders", and
would ditch them as soon as possible.  They are trying to create the
same thing for the internet, ie that it will be a badge of "non
belonging".  In Melbourne, Australia, you could not get you children
into the Adass school if you had a television.  My guess is that, today,
you cannot if you have an internet account at home. Or if that test has
not been implemented now, it will within the next couple of years.

The point is that even within so called "charedi" circles, there are
worlds within worlds.  You and I can see some of those other worlds, but
from Ponavezh, I doubt you can (or are interested in doing so) (actually
that is not fair, no doubt the top of the elite is interested in
monitoring such things, but the pronouncements and comments are as
little addressed to people in some of these other, what they would
undoubtedly call "lesser" charedi worlds as they are to the Modern
Orthodox, or the secular for that matter).


>
>In any event, the participants of this list, right or left, are very much
>shaped by the strong forces of the yeshiva world, whether they like to
>admit it or not :-).

Oh agreed.  But that is the other direction. ie from 
>
>Furthermore, the reality is that most of the "finds" that people like RJJS
>publicize, including the Volozhin and Netziv stuff, is well known to all
>of us, as to all members of the Yeshiva world. Stuff like R' dessler
>reading secular material, while the specific tract might not have been
>known, was generally known, and, that Agudah Gedolim used ot paricipate in
>Mizrachi events is also old hat.
>

Of course - that is my point about it all be out there.  We are not
discussing that - we are discussing a world in which it is just not all
out there, you have to be "going somewhere in Torah" before you can have
access to such material.  The very fact that you are comfortable that it
is all out there, demonstrates how much you live wihtin the second
information paradigm.

>So, in fact, I think most of the participants (and an even greater number
>of the lurkers!)  are well within the edge.
>

Depends whose edge (I am not saying they are not within your universe,
but the one of Daniel Eidelstein's son.  That is the person I would be
very interested in hearing the views of, on this subject, to see whether
he agrees with me - although the chances he would comment, on this forum
or otherwise, are relatively slim I would have thought).

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

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

> this was said over in the name of the Rav of the 
> Ramat Elchanan neighborhood in Bnei Brak, and forgive me but it 
> slips my mind if he is Rav Elyashiv's or Rav Wozner's son in law). 

Rav Zilberstein is the rav of Ramat Elchanan and is the son-in-law
of Rav Eliyashiv. Unfortunately his wife (rav Eliyashiv's daughter)
passed away several months ago at a relatively young age.

Eli Turkel

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


[ 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         ]