Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 076

Thursday, October 28 1999

• kidra chaysa
• Fw: Fw: Anonymity of RW
• Re: Pepsi Generation?
• Re: Nuclear Proliferation -- The Torah view
• Re: Rashi -Bereshis 18:4 (addition)
• Re: Bereshis 18:4
• Re: Avodah 57 Kri u'Ketiv
• Anonymous Posting
• Re: Rashi -Bereshis 18:4 (addition)
• Re: Anonymity of RW
• Re: Nuclear Proliferation -- The Torah view
• Re: Ortho activists
• Re: Avodah V4 #75
• Re: Tone and mutual derekh eretz
• Re: Nuclear Proliferation -- The Torah view
• RE: Nuclear Proliferation/Triage in Public Policy
• Re: kidra chaysa-Tangential point
• Re: Avodah V4 #71
• Anonymity of RW

My memory was half correct:  Rav Henkin z"l says in Edus LeYisrael that
all food should be fully cooked before Shabbos.  In the Ezras Torah luach
he says specifically not to rely on kidra chaysa.

Gershon

Only one of of the individuals whose posts I posted anonymously did not take
exception to being labeled "Extreme" RW, and I apologize to them (I should
note the quotations marks were meant to offset the word). Here, however, is
a further anonymous post from the one who does not see a need to deny the
label :-) :


----- Original Message -----
To: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: Anonymity of RW


> Dear Rabbi Bechhofer,
>
> If you think this will pour some oil on the water, by all means please
> post. If you think it will pour it on the flames, please delete. I kind of
> like it myself but then again, I probably am stepping on toes without
> realizing it and I don't want to do that.
>
> Thanks
>
> Confessions of an Anonymous Poster
>
> To those who were offended at my characterization of the
> prevalence of halakhic misconduct amongst American Orthodox
> youth, I hereby apologize. These are my observations after working
> with teenage boys from across America over the last 14 years. I
> may be mistaken, and indeed hope that my pessimism is
> unwarranted.
>
> For the record, the Pepsi Generation piece did not mention right or
> left wing culpability. In fact, it ends with the statement that
> regardless of which side of the plate one bats from (i.e., left or
> right), only people who are serious about halakha will ask the
> necessary questions.
>
> I did not mean to dismiss the 'tweeners cavalierly. I meant to
> emphasize that the crisis in ThM, (which I thought was obvious to all,
> left, right, center, shortstop) is unlikely to be solved by the
> appearance on the scene of female halakhic consultants or
> advisers since it goes far far beyond people not asking questions.
>
> Whether Yoatzot are good or bad was not even discussed because
> I have no idea which articles to believe and even less clarity
> regarding what the Yoatzot will actually be doing.
>
> REC's examples of the breakdown of Chazal's ideals regarding
> tznius in other areas are to my mind completely accurate and also
> cross over into all segments of Orthodoxy.
>
> R. Eli Clark's other points are well taken. Rated R movies might
> sometimes be "intellectually engaging and spiritually edifying"
> despite the "nivul peh on the soundtrack." In addition, perhaps the
> hemlines and necklines are subject to fashion changes and there
> might be improvement in next year's styles. The point was not to
> use these as absolutes but rather as indicators of a society with a
> radically different concept of tznius than Chazal's.
>
> Lest we forget, Lenny Bruce was arrested in the early sixties for
> public obscenity for saying words that are likely on the soundtracks
> of those very movies just noted. I would be surprised if anyone on
> this list thinks that today's easygoing attitude towards nivul peh is
> closer to Chazal's value system than was the legal system's disgust
> with LB's behavior. Which leads me to the observation that we as a
> nation have taken it on the chin from some of the less pleasant
> aspects of our surrounding culture and are quite distant from the
> Torah's ideals.
>
> Hence the difficulty, even the outrage, accepting that in today's
> extraordinarily permissive society, which affects all of us to one
> extent or another, it is tznius that mandates changing with whom
> niddah questions need be discussed. (Again, this does not mean
> that the reticence under discussion is not a problem seeking a
> solution. It is an observation that the weakness lies within us, not the
> system. Sort of an halakhic v'im rek hu, mikem...)
>
> The "hyperbolic" objection dismissed by RHM was triggered by the
> ramifications of the claim (not made by everyone, nor was the
> response to everyone) that tznius mandated use of a female
> consultant, e.g., a lack of tznius can now be ascribed to those
> Rabbis who dealt with these issues and equally to the women who
> do bring their questions to a Rabbi.
>
> In short, the writer may be a lowlife and even a naval shelo bershus
> haTorah. He makes no claims to propriety with regard to personal
> tznius and may well be further  from holiness than anyone who
> reads or posts to this list. He may nevertheless object to equating
> tznius with discomfort at speaking to a Rabbi about halakhic
> requirements.
>
> And another one for the record, the denial of tznius as an obstacle
> to asking questions did not dismiss the very real problem of
> questions not being asked due to embarrassment, squeamishness
> or shyness. In fact, right after the objection, the following statement
> appears:
>
> "I don't deny the reluctance of people to ask questions and that
> something needs doing, but to invoke tznius is disgraceful."
>
> Regarding the varying levels of negiah laws to which RHM refers: I
> always thought that there was no limud zechus in this area. If you
> can name a reputable Posek who permits married women to
> socially kiss and hug non-family members I would be pleased to
> hear of it.
>
> And finally the anonymity issue...well maybe another time.
>
>
> All the Best...
>

Someone asked; I replied

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pepsi Generation?


> "Daniel B. Schwartz" wrote:
> 
> > A date to which a boy brings his tefilin (to put on the next morning)
> > vehameivin yavin
> 
> Were we really so innocent?
> 
> 
> 
> 

In a message dated 10/28/99 2:14:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
daniel@pluto.ame.arizona.edu writes:

> Personally I would rather keep abortion legal (and teach fellow Jews
>  what the Torah says about it) than to ban it in cases where _Christians_
>  believe it is wrong and chas v'shalom have Jewish women prevented from
>  getting one in a case where it is halachically permitted.
>  
That might not be sufficient according to the Rambam Hil. Mlochim 8:10, and 
see Tosfos Yom Tov Ovos 3:14.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/28/99 7:14:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il writes:

> "Hot off the press" directly from Rav Bonchek author of "What's Bothering
>  Rashi"
>  >
>   I'd like to add to what | wrote you. I said the Torah is
>  stressing that Abraham didn't impoose himself on them by forcing them to
>  enter his house or come under his wooden lean-to. Support for this can be
>  found later. Lot's hachnasas orchim is similar to - but different from- 
that
>  of Abraham's. The Torah places many aspects of Lot's behavior in contrast 
to
>  Abraham's. In this point as well we see the contrast - see ch. 19: 8. There
>  Lot pleads to leave the men alone "for they have come under the shelter of
>  my roof." This phrase is in contrast to Abraham's serving them under the
>  tree. See how Lot had imposed upon them to come into his house and that's
>  where all the trouble began. By imposing himself on them, instead of 
feeding
>  them outside he inconvenienced them, and this lead to their troubles.

If one looks in the Pirkei DR"E Perek 25, one would see that Loit's Hanhaga 
WRT Hacnosas Oirchim was exemplary, even with regard to washing of the feet 
that Rashi says in 18:4 that Loit did not care about the possible A"Z , if 
you will look at Rashi 19:2 there is a positive reason.

> Uncle
>  Abe fed them under the tree so they could eat "and then go. "

AFAIK his name was Avraham.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/27/99 7:02:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il writes:

>  I received the following answer from Rav Avigdor Bonchek the author of
>  "Whats Bothering Rashi"
>  
>  
>  The Torah is telling
>  us Abraham's chesed. This included not only all the food he gave them but
>  also his desire not to inconvenience them, by "forcing" them to come to 
him,
>  to his tent or his wooden shelter. remember these "people" were just 
passing
>  thru, so stopping off would take up less time than stepping in. He went to
>  them, (and not  they to him)  as the Torah stresses later (18:8) "He stood
>  by them under the tree."

If one is Mdayeik in Loshon Rashi 18:1 D"H Pessach Haohel were he "Vyachnesom 
*L'beisoi*", likewise in 18:4 D"H Vrachatz Ragleichem "Sheloi 
Lhachnis..*Lbeisoi*", one would have to conclude that this tree was part of 
the house (i.e. a patio), the Ohel was used for private things, that is also 
pshat in Rashi 18:9 D"H Hinei B'ohel. IOW there is no Hechrach IMHO that 
bringing into the tent was even considered, if they could wait while the 
dough was being made and baked and the calves being prepared, they could 
during that time enter the house, and I doubt that the issue was the few 
seconds extra that it would take them to leave the tent.
>  
>  
>  Question: The Torah says In G-d's name (18:21) "I will go down and see..."
>  Did G-d go down and see? If he said He would, did He raelly go down? If He
>  did, where does it say?
>  
See Pirkei DR"E Perek 14 and 25, also see the Mizrachi on Rashi Breishis 18:21

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/27/99 6:48:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
millerr@mail.biu.ac.il forwarded :

>  (As far as the words of the prophets are 
>  concerned, as we wrote in the last message, Halachah l'*Moshe* cannot be 
>  taken literally. Rather, the Kri and Ksiv must have been part of the  
original 
>  Nevu'ah of the particular Navi who wrote that Sefer.) 

See Megilah 7a Ksoiv Zois Zikoroin Basefer, and see the Sherei Korban on the 
Yerushalmi Megilah 1:5 D"H Nemroh Lmoshe Msinai.

Additional references for the Etzem Hoinyan, see the Mizrachi and Sefer 
Hazicoron on Rashi Breishis 18:22, and the Mizrachi Bamidbar.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

I can think of many reasons when posting anonymously is appropriate.

One time someone forwarded email to the list because he had made reference
to a mitzvah he was involved in, and thought it would be bragging to include
his name as well.

Other times the details are embarassing because they involve personal flaws
the person is not willing to admit to in public.

In both cases, barring anonymous posting would make it impossible for the
person to have made his point. And yet it had nothing to do with being willing
to stand behind the conclusion being demonstrated.

More relevent to the discussion of why it happens more often to be a RW-ish
post that is anonymously sent -- list demographics. We have more MO regular
contributors than RW ones. It's common to see a post that explains the RW
position shouted down in a flurry of emails. The same happens in reverse as
well -- but with the difference in population there's going to be a difference
in how many people pile on to tackle the guy. (I believe the yoatzot debate
easily had an order of magnitude more lines from the pro crowd than from
the con and let's-think-first groups.) It can be intimidating.

It's something we really need to keep in check. We lost much of our Chassidishe
population that way.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 28-Oct-99: Chamishi, Vayera
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 60a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

>  Question:  Isn't Lot's Imposition to bring the Mal'ochim inside based upon 
> his 
>  being in Sodom?  IOW due to his concern for "what will the nighbor's 
think?" 
> he 
>  felt compelled to host them out-of-sight.  However, had Lot been in a 
> different 
>  mileu, wouldn't he  have emulated Avrohom?

Dear RW :-)

We concur, please see my post to the list

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind
 

----- Original Message -----
From: David Herskovic <david@arctic1.demon.co.uk>
To: Avodah <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:36 PM
Subject: Anonymity of RW


> I noticed that all the anonymous postings in the yoatsot debate were
> right wing orientated. This is not a phenomenon exclusive to Avodah;
> open any chareidi newspaper and the letter pages are full of initials
> not to mention the pseudonyms of some of the contributors.
>
> Is it a fear to think? to step out of line? or by voicing an opinion do
> you run the risk of being labelled an apikoyres?
>
> Dovid Herskovic

I've only met one 'RW' anon letter here-  were there others?
If the tone of the anonymous letter is thoroughly  'RW', then logically that
person would not run the risk of seeming an "apikoyres" in the 'RW sector'.

If you're talking about letters in 'RW' publications, then there may be some
amount of caution or modesty in exposing oneself as the author of an
opinion.
Obviously anyone motivated to write a letter to express some point of view
is not afraid to think to some extent, even if we don't agree with those
thought processes.
Probably in this case and in similar cases the writer simply wished to avoid
the unpleasantness of a mailbox full of hostile replies.

anon.  <g>
>

----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:37 PM
Subject: Nuclear Proliferation -- The Torah view


> RYGB writes:
>
> >Were we to profess to really know
> >what should be done about nuclear arms proliferation, I think we would be
> >mechuyav to be involved. I think we do not, and therefore are not.
>
> I think there is more.  Be-makom safek nefashot, is the rational choice
> to simply be shev ve-al ta`aseh?
>
Right-  it certainly is an urgent issue and I think there's a good amount of
simple denial of the "overwhelming".  Many families are more concerned about
their overdraughts and other immediate issues to begin to relate to global
issues that WILL impact on US sooner or later.  (not in the obvious worst
sense of the word we hope!)
I'm constantly dismayed by the low rating of news of the water situation in
Israel- consistently about no. 9 in the Arutz Sheva ratings.  The Kineret
aquiver goes below the red line with a threat of permanent quality
degradation and we're more concerned about the trial of a couple of spies in
Haifa?  I've been nudging the community about water conservation for years -
with local rabbinic support-  but since water still comes out of the faucet
I get the feeling that the issue is well below "no. 9" in people's minds.
OK this is an avoda on a gashmi level but it's still Torah.

G. Atwood

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> 	I think it is simply a matter of choosing one's battles.  
> 
> 	Any Jewish organization such as the Agudah (using the 
> example which was
> mentioned)  has limited funds.  

Sholem Berger wrote:
<<Again, true, but in a limited way. Clearly not everyone in the Jewish
community is going flat-out, 120% in the productive pursuit of solutions to
uniquely Jewish problems. I imagine that there are some who find their
avodas hashem more activated in contemplation of wider societal issues. Why
not give them a little support? It wouldn't take much, just an
acknowledgement by some powers that be that these things do matter and they
do affect us. >>

I agree with Sholem, but would like to add an additional dimension.  Because
of triage, many of us cannot be environmental etc. activists.  But that does
not mean that we cannot be *sensitive* to these issues and do our small part
when no great time/money expenditure is involved.  How many of us refuse to
eat veal because that encourages the inhumane veal industry?  How many of us
take the extra effort to find a recycling bin?  And maybe some us (hopefully
not many) didn't even pay much attention to the killing in Bosnia, thinking
"it's goyim killing goyim."

The problem is: because Orthodox organizations are legitimately not on the
forefront on these issues (ani'yay amcha yodmin), we tend to forget about
them entirely.  It's an attitudinal issue which should be corrected even if
we don't become activistic. 

Kol tuv,
Moshe

After Carl's long and informative post, which unfortunately is very
accurate, I still would like to introduce another side.

As many on the list know, my husband is from a Sephardi family.  We have
every shade of belief possible among the family:  from totally not-religious
(and not wanting anything to do with it) to Dati Leumi and Chareidi (black
hat).  Pesach Seder discussions are very interesting b/c the non-religious
brothers also know a lot of G'mara and general jewish studies material.

When I had to choose where to send my children, I chose a place where they
were open-minded, where the first question I was asked _wasn't_ "do you have
a T.V. set?" (which I maintain is my business) as a basis for determining
where I was on the Dati_meter.   I found nothing wrong with having
non-religious kids in the class -- my kids learned Hilchot Terumot
U'Ma'asrot and kashrut earlier and better.  But I found that I was in a
minority.  Most of the people I know whose kids would have been with my own
went to places where "non-religious kids shouldn't be in a religious school"
is a good indication of the attitude towards others who were different.

How to change things?  I don't know, but I do know from Shabbat meals at my
inlaws that it is possible to sit together and be brothers.  Now we just
have to find a way to do this with people who aren't members of our
immediate family.

Shoshana L. Boublil (nee Skaist)
Ramat Gan, Israel

In a message dated 10/27/99 3:13:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< Regarding the tone of discussion between different segments of the
 Orthodox community:  Those of a historical or halakhic orientation will
 attest that the current phenomenon of vituperation is not a recent
 development.  Gedolim  -- both Rishonim and Aharonim -- called each
 other names, hasidic groups feuded, etc.
  >>

In a discussion of the halachik category of Mitoch (the issue of allowing 
unnecessary things on Y''T that would be muttar  based on Ochel Nefesh) R' 
Yosef Adler brought up a Machlokes Rambam and Raa'vid regarding which parts 
of the Sidura D'Pas fall under the category of Ochel Nefesh. Basically, they 
were discussing if there was value added by having fruit picked that day, or 
if the day before was good enough. 
In other words, how fresh did fresh fruit have to be to be good. After the 
Shiur, I went over to R' Adler and said, ' Boy, those guys will fight about 
anything.' 
:)
 
Jordan

In a message dated 10/27/99 3:37:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< Yet, the halakhic community tends to absent itself from many policy
 debates, especially in America.  For my part, I would be pleased to see
 frum people take the lead on the tza'ar ba'alei hayyyim issues related
 to the production of veal.  I know that Agudah maintains an office in
 Washington DC where it lobbies on various issues, school vouchers,
 abortion, right-to-die.  The need for a Torah perspective on government
 policy is even greater in Israel, but beyond the major issue of
 territorial compromise and the local issue of hillul Shabbat, not too
 many policies are given attention.  (Though I recall that Meimad's
 platform did mention this.)  Personally, I have spoken -- and am writing
 -- on the issue of extradition, which of course raises the issue of >>

I had always assumed that the lack of participation by Frum Jews in issues of 
social conscience or public policy was due less to specific Torah positions 
regarding those issues, and more to the very parochial way in which we deal 
with community building.  Who has time to demonstrate against nuclear arms 
when the Day School has a $5,000,000 budget to be raised? As we become a more 
secure community, perhaps we will begin to see more Frum activism, although I 
tend to doubt it. 


Jordan

I'll make an assumption that our existing organizations (OU/Agudah etc)
cannot realistically add to their agendas (limited resources etc). It seems
that the question is why as individuals are we not more involved in
these subjects.
We have touched on this before - try ecology/ignoring ecology in the 
Avodah archives. I'd like to repeat a post from that dicussion.
"One possible reason the religious community "ignores" issues such as ecology
may be that many of those at the forefront of the issues (or at least the
ones who get the most press) tend to be radicals."

For example: Is there any way to get involved in the veal issue without aligning
with PETA?

kol tuv
Sender Baruch 

In a message dated 10/27/99 4:16:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
nwitty@ix.netcom.com writes:

<< I was taught that it is mutar to put up cholent right before shkiah if
 there is a piece of raw meat in the pot, and have seen it done in several
 homes. OC 253-4, also SAR and MB. Of course the only catch is when YT
 Rishon is on Friday.
  >>

It is my understanding that in this case, the traditional midnight raid on 
the cholent pot is assur. I am not entirely clear on the reason. Any ideas?

Jordan

Subject: Gender Roles in Halachah and Aggadah
 
micha@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
> Staying away from the "Y-word" for the moment, I'd like to apply the same
> distinction I did before. There's a difference between a woman who is a
> partner in a law firm and a woman who defines herself as a partner in a law
> firm.
> 
> Regardless of gender, it's dreadful that in English idiom "What are you?" is
> answered by a job description.

I agree on this latter point, but I'm not sure why you don't apply it to
the former.  No one should define hirself by hir profession.  

(Realistically speaking, in the social situation where someone asks
someone what they are, it's hard to think of a different answer, but 
that's beside the point.) 
 
> So to me the question isn't "Should a woman take a job?", or even "Should a
> woman pursue a career?" The question is one of "Is a woman supposed to see
> herself as a mom and wife who works, or as a professional who has a family?"
> And I don't see how you can argue the latter side of the question.
> 
> Men, OTOH, are not only expected to be fathers and husbands, but are also the
> only ones able to recieve true semichah (bimheirah biyameinu we should have
> such a thing), be dayanim, serve as kohanim and levi'im, shoftim, shot'rim,
> milachim, or wield serarah (whatever that is exactly). There's clear halachic
> indication that aside from his role in the Jewish home, men have to assume
> a role running Jewish society. There's also the same implication in the fact
> that "vinikdashti bisoch adas b'nei yisrael" boils down to defining an "eidah",
> a community, as 10 males.
 
I think that this dichotomy falls into the same reductionist trap you
criticise above:  that men have some religious mandate should not imply
that they should define themselves less by their family roles.  further,
that they have religious responsibilities should, if anything, imply that 
they should spend less time than women in secular professions, not more.  
(the kollel example, that is.)


since i answered your scj post, i suppose i will do it again:

>it reinforces the idea that O Judaism is structured like other
>religions, primarily in the synagogue and centered around clergy. If we
>were properly propogating the idea that Judaism is centered on the home,
>perhaps more people would be trying to seek spirituality there, instead
>of striving to become quasi-clergy.

actually, i would argue that it does just the opposite.

judaism is all-encompassing, as is halacha.  recognising that halachic
decisions can stem from the experience in the home is a huge step towards 
underlining the home's importance, erasing the notion that the public
sector is the only important one.  to compare:  this is very different 
from creating women cantors, which really would underline the importance 
of synagogue, specifically.  similarly, it's different from women's
tefillah groups.

if you would cite "inherent differences" as a further justification for
this sharp role distinction, i'm not sure why you wouldn't see that halacha 
would benefit from the different perspective.  women and men are, after
all, two distinct halves of the divine image.  

> : Solomon writes that "the honor of the king's daughter in inside". This is
> : taken by Maimonides (to an extreme we would never find acceptable today) as
> : well as many many others as a halachic priority.  

the rambam said a lot of things about women, fortunately none of them binding
or else i would have used up my quota for leaving the house for the rest
of my life.

>While it sounds like it's
> : saying "barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen", if you really look at how
> : the expression is used, it's about the notion that we need people to build
> : religious homes. IOW, it's not about where women shouldn't be, it's about
> : where we need them to be -- at the forefront of the center of Judaism.

assuming that's their inclination, that's super, but performing any
mitzvot without kevanna is really not something we should encourage,
much less force.  

janet

I agree most strongly with the initial poster on this topic, to wit:  that
here in Avodah Land, posts should not be anonymous.  Allowing lurkers to
comment w/o identifying themselves is akin in some way to getting an
injection and not knowing what's in it.

More than once, posters have stated their personal prejudices and biases and
then gone on to state their opinions.   If they are perceivede as extreme,
irrational and/or wrong, well, that's why there's always a neext post: to
defend your position or lick one's wounds or admit that you made a mistake.

If the anonymous poster is afraid of the GBShaw's (?) +ACI-Better to be silent
and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,+ACI- said anonymous
poster can follow the first half of the advice.

Finally, although it is much more unlikely than otherwise, it +ACo-is+ACo- possible
that the +ACI-anonymous+ACI- poster is the sort of person who would also have no
compunction in changing and revising a translation by inserting ellipses
instead of translating without omisison for some agenda-oriented purpose.
The common theme being presenting less than there is or otherwise altering
material in order to advance some world-view that's is capital-+ACI-T+ACI- Truth.

That would make our anonymous poster RYGB himself+ACE-   (how intriguing+ACE-)

However, from what I've seen, even if these were Reb Gavriel's writings, he
would davka not desire anonyminity.  So, we are left with requesting that
posters not remain anonymous.

Noach Witty

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


[ 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         ]