Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 077

Thursday, October 28 1999

• Re: Pepsi Generation?
• kidrah chaysa
• Re: Brich Shmmeh... Should we say it?
• Re: Ortho activist
• Re: kidra chaysa
• Re: Daat Torah
• Re: Brich Shmmeh... Should we say it?
• Re: NCSY
• Re: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• Re: Daat Torah
• anonimity
• Re[2]: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• RE: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• Re: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• Re: kidra chaysa-Tangential point
• kidra chaysa
• kidra chaysa-Tangential point
• Brich Shmmeh... Should we say it?
• Re: kidra chaysa
• Re: Brich Shmmeh... Should we say it?

In a message dated 10/27/99 4:20:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
katzco@sprintmail.com writes:

<< What is the meaning of "tefillin dates."?? >>

A tefillin date is the modern version of 'Toveil v'Sheretz B'yodoh.' 
You go on a date and engage in pre marital sex, and bring your Tefillin along 
so you can make minyan the next day.
The sociological conditions that make this kind of thinking possible are 
worthy of serious discussion. It's not just a question of doing something 
wrong, but rather, a whole segment of people who care about observance enough 
to participate in many aspects of Jewish life, but at the same time have 
given up hope of being in an appropriate (acc. to Halacha) form of 
relationship. 

Jordan     

I had thought the topic settled+ADs- it's not. So I provide you with our offline
communication.  RGD's e-mail to me was on-line as well. My offline response
is below for public consumption or regurgitation, however fellow list
members may react . . .

-----Original Message-----
From: Gershon Dubin +ADw-gershon.dubin+AEA-juno.com+AD4-
To: avodah+AEA-aishdas.org +ADw-avodah+AEA-aishdas.org+AD4-
Cc: nwitty+AEA-ix.netcom.com +ADw-nwitty+AEA-ix.netcom.com+AD4-
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 11:42 PM
Subject: kidra chaysa


+AD4APg- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 16:04:36 -0400
+AD4APg- From: +ACI-Noah Witty+ACI- +ADw-nwitty+AEA-ix.netcom.com+AD4-
+AD4APg- Subject: kidra chaysa
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- No, no+ACE-  I believe that JHoexter's comment below is misleading.  It
+AD4APg- makes no difference whether it's Yom Tov Sheni or Rishon.  On yt-erev
+AD4-shabbos it +ACo-all+ACo- has to be cooked, at least to ma-achal ben drusa-ee,
+AD4-before
+AD4APg- shekiah plus time to eat some of it.  See MA(?) on SA in the
+AD4-appropriate
+AD4APg- siman.
+AD4APg- Any seconds on the above?
+AD4APg- NW


+AD4- This is correct velo meta'amei.  On Y+ACI-T rishon or sheni it needs to be
+AD4-cooked and edible for the purpose of allowing cooking on Shabbos.

My point was that it has to be cooked before shabbos so that it might still
be eaten on YT and that this rule obtains whether its YT rishon or sheni,
the only difference being that since YTR is d'oraisa, failure to comply
could very well be a chiyuv malkos for bishul be-YT she-lo le-tzorech YT.

Of
+AD4-course if one made an eruv tavshilin this would not be necessary.

Again, my point is that there is a line of shittos from gemara through
poskim that disagree with the previous statement.

  The
+AD4-point of discussion is on a regular erev Shabbos, for the reasons given
+AD4-i.e. that since we are not clear on when Shabbos starts you never really
+AD4-have kidra chaysa.
+AD4-
Was that Rav Henkin's problem?  If so, even bizman hagemara there was doubt
as to when shabbos sets in.  I thought that perhaps the efficiency of modern
cooking is such that even a kidra chaysa could be ready for Fri night with a
little stirring, i.e. increase the heat on the element or the temperature of
the oven +AFs-and that therein lies the basis for Rav Henkin's position.+AF0-

Noach

+AD4-Gershon

In a message dated 10/27/99 7:14:22 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

<< Catchy Title but nothing to do with my post.  However
 if any one would like to answer and give sources as to
 why or why not to include it in the liturgy, please
 do. It could lead to a very interesting discussion.
 Meanwhile back at the ranch... >>

Without any sources in front of me, I seem vaguely to remember that Brich 
Shmeh is supposed to be said at mincha only. In the meantime, the custom at 
KJ in NYC, which would be a fairly good illustration of Non-Breuers Germans, 
is specifically not to say it.

Jordan

See a start at  - http://www.ou.org/public/default.htm


Moshe

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> This is correct velo meta'amei.  On Y"T rishon or sheni it needs to be
> cooked and edible for the purpose of allowing cooking on Shabbos. Of
> course if one made an eruv tavshilin this would not be necessary.  The

No, it is still necessary even with an eruv tavshilin. SA OC 527.

> From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com
> 
> 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?

Since it takes a long time to cook raw meat, there is no fear that you
will stir it to make it ready for the seudas halayla; you will forget
about it until seudas hayom. Perhaps if you will raid the cholent pot at
midnight this doesn't quite work - maybe you will stir it so that it's
ready for the midnight raid?

JH

Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
: 1. Historically, it is clear that each community was governed by the LOR
:    and not by gedolim. There exist numerous responsa of rabbis supporting
: their independence. ...

I wonder if this shift has something to do with our current insistance (in
general) to maintain the customs of our families' respective Old Countries,
and not (again, in general) shifting to local minhagim.

: As a simple less controversial example, I have always used cottenseed oil
: on pesach. One well known rabbi told me that this allowed in the US
: where Rav Moshe is the posek. However, since I moved to Israel I must
: stop since Rav Eliyashiv does not allow it (for asheknazim of course).
: I am dumbfounded by this attitude. With the greatest of respect for
: Rav Eliyashiv who declared him the posek of Israel?

Is a local poseik to be final arbitor for local custom or not? If R' Eliashiv's
ruling became normative Israeli practice than isn't it an example of the
community being governed by a local Rav? Or is there something about the scale
of locality or means of appointment to LOR-ness that I'm missing?

-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.         

TROMBAEDU@aol.com wrote:


> 
> Without any sources in front of me, I seem vaguely to remember that Brich 
> Shmeh is supposed to be said at mincha only. In the meantime, the custom at 
> KJ in NYC, which would be a fairly good illustration of Non-Breuers Germans, 
> is specifically not to say it.
> 



You mean before hakamat Sefer Torah? Sefaradim say it at Shaharit and
Minha.

Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it,
what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? Fine, so
maybe it's not in your siddur. Was it taken out, or never put in?


---sam

I'm happy to see NCSY is getting into public school student organizations. In
my days as an NCSY advisor (Long Island) JPSY (Jewish Public School Youth) ran
such programs. The overlap in local staffing between NCSY and JPSY was roughly
80% -- same people, different organization.

-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.         

In v4n69 Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes:
: To be accurate, you would have to specify a starting time. From Matan Torah
: through the Navi'im at least, Judaism *was* monolithic (to use your phrase).

I do not believe this is correct. After all, we know havaros differed
("sibboleth"), we know each sheivet and city had its own dayanim, and the
number of panim latorah is suspiciously similar to the number of zekeinim
in Sinai.

In v4n71 he adds:
:> and whose tfillin did they wear - Rashi or Rabbenu Tam? If
:> Rashi's, then

: Probably Rashi's -- the important thing is that *everyone* wore the *same*
: t'fillin.

This is probably untrue. In Qumron (admittedly not Perushim) both Rashi and
Rabbeinu Tam tephillin were found.

As I commented a year ago (v2n181), it's hard to picture otherwise. How can
doubt arise in how to make tephillin? Since the end of galus bavel was there
ever a break in which we could forget such a thing, or not have tephillin
we could compare with?

I instead would argue that shiv'im panim implies that we never were, nor
supposed to be, monolithic. The role of Sanhedrin WRT p'sak was to eliminate
those differences in practice that would lead to communal divisions -- e.g.
(but not limited to) the calendar, ishus, geirus, mileches hamikdash (there's
only one, you can't have multiple minhagim), or anything that happened to
generated divisive debate.

-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.         

On 28 Oct 99, at 13:54, Micha Berger wrote:

> Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes:
> : 1. Historically, it is clear that each community was governed by the LOR
> :    and not by gedolim. There exist numerous responsa of rabbis supporting
> : their independence. ...
> 
> I wonder if this shift has something to do with our current insistance (in
> general) to maintain the customs of our families' respective Old Countries,
> and not (again, in general) shifting to local minhagim.

I think it partly has to do with the fact that we have all been 
reshuffled so much as to make local minhagim (except in cohesive 
communities like the western side of Washington Heights) pretty 
meaningless. What is the minhag of Passaic, New Jersey and how 
was it determined? Not over the course of several hundred years as 
was the case in Europe (assuming you can even say what THE 
minhag is, as opposed to what each shul does).

I think the substitution of "Gdolim" for the LOR also has to do with 
the communications of today which make it easier for people 
everywhere to know what "The Gdolim" (however defined) hold. In 
the days before telephones, telegraphs and the internet, the LOR 
was really quite independent. The only time the LOR has similar 
independence today is when someone needs an immediate psak 
on Shabbos, and then only if it's something you can't look up and 
he is the only LOR in town.

The other big difference today is the wide availability of sforim. Until 
recent generations, I don't think most people had a Shas in their 
house, let alone Rishonim and Achronim. Certainly before printing 
presses they didn't have those things. With the wide availability of 
sforim today, it is much easier for someone in the States to know 
how R. Elyashiv holds or for someone in EY to know how R. 
Moshe held. So it's much easier to accept psak that is not locally 
given.

> : As a simple less controversial example, I have always used cottenseed oil
> : on pesach. One well known rabbi told me that this allowed in the US
> : where Rav Moshe is the posek. However, since I moved to Israel I must
> : stop since Rav Eliyashiv does not allow it (for asheknazim of course).
> : I am dumbfounded by this attitude. With the greatest of respect for
> : Rav Eliyashiv who declared him the posek of Israel?
> 
> Is a local poseik to be final arbitor for local custom or not? 

On the one hand, someone who goes to visit a community is 
supposed to keep chumrei makom sheyotzo mishom v'chumrei 
makom sheholach leshom. But OTOH if one becomes a permanent 
resident of a new area, he takes on the new area's minhagim.

BUT - at least in the case of EY and New York City - I think there 
is a tshuva of R. Moshe's somewhere that holds that they have no 
local minhagim because there are so many people from so many 
different places who have settled there. Other poskim may hold the 
same way....

If R' Eliashiv's
> ruling became normative Israeli practice than isn't it an example of the
> community being governed by a local Rav? 

Maybe. But for whom will it become normative Israeli practice? It is 
unlikely to become the normative practice for the Sphardim (at 
least on R. Elyashiv's say-so), for example. I think that today 
everyone chooses (or should choose) their posek and follow what 
their posek says. If their posek has a legitimate difference of 
opinion with R. Elyashiv, assuming he is (or was) of equal stature, 
then one should be able to choose to follow one's own posek. If I 
got psak from R. Moshe or R. Shlomo Zalman, I'm not sure I have 
to go back and re-ask all my shailas to R. Elyashiv (assuming he 
is THE posek of EY today) AT LEAST WHEN IT INVOLVES WHAT 
I DO IN MY OWN HOME. When it comes to things in shul or the 
community at large, I think that's a different issue, but for what I do 
in the privacy of my own home, I think I can follow my own posek. If 
R. Elyashiv were the local Rav in the sense that you are thinking 
of, I would probably not be allowed to ask my shailas from anyone 
else.

Or is there something about the scale
> of locality or means of appointment to LOR-ness that I'm missing?

See the R. Moshe tshuva.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

I can see both sides of the anonimity issue, however I want to once again
suggest something that I've already suggested several weeks ago.  In a
sense, we are all "anonymous" on this list.  Even if we type our names, it
remains unknown to the listmembers, almost any other piece of identifying
information about us.  I would like to get to know our listmembers a little
better.  How about access on aishdas.org to short bio's on every list
member?  I would love to get to know the variety of people that contribute
to our group's discussions.
Shaul Weinreb

Esteemed listowner Micha:

In v4n69 Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes:
: <snip>
In v4n71 he adds:
:> and whose tfillin did they wear - Rashi or Rabbenu Tam? If 
:> Rashi's, then

: Probably Rashi's -- the important thing is that *everyone* wore the *same* 
: t'fillin.

This is probably untrue. In Qumron (admittedly not Perushim) both Rashi and 
Rabbeinu Tam tephillin were found.

As I commented a year ago (v2n181), it's hard to picture otherwise. How can 
doubt arise in how to make tephillin? Since the end of galus bavel was there 
ever a break in which we could forget such a thing, or not have tephillin
we could compare with?

I instead would argue that shiv'im panim implies that we never were, nor 
supposed to be, monolithic. The role of Sanhedrin WRT p'sak was to eliminate 
those differences in practice that would lead to communal divisions -- e.g. 
(but not limited to) the calendar, ishus, geirus, mileches hamikdash (there's 
only one, you can't have multiple minhagim), or anything that happened to 
generated divisive debate.

-mi
<<

My theory is that certain halochos remain "optional" or debatble and in flux and
then a consensus builds.

Example; Josephus mentions using "golden" ink for Sifrei Kodesh.  W/O going into
a tangent, at one time, that halocho leMoshe miSiani might have been construed 
liberally, and later on more narrowly to include every color so long as it is 
black. (w/o apology to Henry Ford).

IOW, the "Kur" of psak is a refining process that may take a long time to build 
a decisive normative practice.  The mistake many "artscrollians" make is that 
they retrofit our winnowed practices back for thousands of years...

And this is why I disgaree with you Micha that we can reverse the evolutoin of 
halocho that has taken place via Shut and Botei Dinim by dint of archaeological 
evidence to the contrary.  Indeed, it can be shown aracheologically that in year
X RT's tefillin were ok, that would not make them the preferred model now.  

At one time Maariv was optional, and if you omitted Morid hagoshem you probably 
need not repeat it.  That is not true anymore.

KT,
RW

> I do not believe this is correct. After all, we know havaros differed
> ("sibboleth"), we know each sheivet and city had its own
> dayanim, and the
> number of panim latorah is suspiciously similar to the number
> of zekeinim in Sinai.

True -- but what were the dayanim basing their psak on? There *must* be a
point post-matan Torah when Judaism was Monolithic, at least while Moshe
Rabbeinu was alive and giving teaching (unless you want to say that he
taught each shevet different shitas). At what point did it begin to break
down? How? Why?

> This is probably untrue. In Qumron (admittedly not Perushim)
> both Rashi and
> Rabbeinu Tam tephillin were found.

Qumron was far enough after Matan Torah for accurate information to be lost.
See below.

>
> As I commented a year ago (v2n181), it's hard to picture
> otherwise. How can doubt arise in how to make tephillin?
> Since the end of galus bavel was there
> ever a break in which we could forget such a thing, or not
> have tephillin we could compare with?

Periods of history when a large percentage of Am Israel worshipped idols;
periods of time when most of the chachamim were killed; Churban Bayis
Rishon; Golus Bavel; and so forth.

How many people today know how to make tefillin? I'm a (non-practicing)
Sofer. I know how to write. I could probably make kosher ink. Klaf from
scratch (i.e. a fresh hide)? unlikely, but possible. Batim? I've seen it
done, with hydraulic presses and calipers. If I had to start from scratch? I
know enough engineering to attempt it.

>
> I instead would argue that shiv'im panim implies that we
> never were, nor
> supposed to be, monolithic.

Two questions: One, *when* do we first hear of shiv'im panim? Two, how far
can it go? I'm certain Zalman Shechter would claim that what he is doing
falls within shiv'im panim...

> The role of Sanhedrin WRT p'sak was to eliminate
> those differences in practice that would lead to communal
> divisions -- e.g.
> (but not limited to) the calendar, ishus, geirus, mileches
> hamikdash (there's
> only one, you can't have multiple minhagim), or anything that
> happened to generated divisive debate.

*most* areas of halacha could fall into that category.

Akiva



===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

In a message dated 10/28/99 3:07:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
atwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< 
 Periods of history when a large percentage of Am Israel worshipped idols;
 periods of time when most of the chachamim were killed; Churban Bayis
 Rishon; Golus Bavel; and so forth.
  >>
How about tkiat shofar? Tashrat Tashat Tarat etc. - I'm sure people would 
remember how many kolot and whether it was sobs or shrieks.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com

> 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?
> 

1.  Maybe because the cholent may not be mevushal kol tzorcho.  In that
case, hachzara should be assur (even if oda b'yado, da'ato l'hachzir, etc.)
because there be a deoraita issue of bishul--of causing the food to become
mevushal kol tzorcho.  This assumes that even once food reaches ma'achal ben
drusai, there is a possibility of being chayav when you cause further
bishul.  I'm not sure about this.  

2.  Alternatively, if there is any safek that it is not mevushal k'maachal
ben drusai, then certainly hachzara would be assur.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> Why?
	My recollection,  from the last time I saw it (check the luach!) is that 
we are not sure when Shabbos starts.  If you put up a pot of raw food at 
what we call shkia,  and Shabbos truly starts, say 15 to 30 minutes 
later,  you have in effect started Shabbos with a pot which is partly 
cooked but not kemaachal ben drusai,  which is osur.  In order to use the 
heter,  you'd need to be certain of the moment Shabbos starts.

Gershon<<

How about the moment the Tzibbur is mekabel Shabbos?  Generally speaking, (yes 
there are numerous exceptions but) the SA makes it a point to consider that time
as THE definitive moment.

(Btw, this tzibbur driven concept is especially relavent to neiros chanukko on 
erev shabbos.

From: TROMBAEDU@aol.com

> nwitty@ix.netcom.com writes:


<snip>
>   >>
> 
> 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?
> 

Question: Isn't every case of a ocholent pot raided at midnight "ossur 
bechazora"?

Don't you have to remove it from the flame in order to ladel it out?  Wouldn't 
ladelling it out and returning it to th fire consitute chazoro regardless of 
kidra chyaso, maachol drusoi, etc.?  I guess there MIGHT be an exemption if the 
cholent was 100% mevushal kol tzorko before Shabbos, but I'm not clear on this 
either...

Rich Wolpoe

Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it, 
what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? Fine, so 
maybe it's not in your siddur. Was it taken out, or never put in?


---sam
<<

I have discussed 2 possibilities on how this devloped off list:

1) Brich Shmei was added on later on by Eastern European communities and the 
German communities never added it on.  In that case there is no particular 
reason to omit it.

2)  Brich Shmei was at one time universally recited by Ashkenazim but the Geramn
communities consciously removedd it followingthe Shabtai Zvi debacle. (This is 
my totally unproven hypothesis).  If this is correct, there would be a conscious
reason to omit it.

I asked R. Dr. E. Kanarfgoel and he was unsure of the origins,

If anyone can research Pre-SZ texts of nushchaos, it might help establish the 
nature of this omission.

Rich Wolpoe 

Gershon Dubin wrote:
> 	My recollection,  from the last time I saw it (check the luach!)
> is that 
> we are not sure when Shabbos starts.  If you put up a pot of raw
> food at 
> what we call shkia,  and Shabbos truly starts, say 15 to 30 minutes
> 
> later,  you have in effect started Shabbos with a pot which is
> partly 
> cooked but not kemaachal ben drusai,  which is osur.  In order to
> use the 
> heter,  you'd need to be certain of the moment Shabbos starts.
> 

I don't understand this.  Isn't the reason the k'daira chaita is
permitted by the Shulchan Arukh that *at the time of sh'hiya* the
person putting the pot on the stove is masi'ach da'at from stirring
it at any point until the morning since the meat won't be ready by
the night's meal no matter what.  So, in his mind, the pot won't be
used tonight and will be used tomorrow.

However, I looked it up and MB 253:10 says like you.

Somehow, I vaguely recall hearing from Rav Hershel Schachter (in the
name of the Rav?) that k'daira chaita is not permissible nowadays
because our stoves are powerful enough that anything could be cooked
in a relatively short period of time (i.e., by the night's meal) if
we really tried.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

=====

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

Hi All,

There is a sefer I once saw in the Young Israel of Century City in LA which I
believe was entitled Minhagei Ashkenaz.  One of the articles was on this topic and
if I remeber correctly, the author said that brich shmeh was only added to siddurim
in the last 100 years.  The major poskim and earlier authorities all railed against
it due to several very problematic phrases in the text (Bar Elakin - being one
-clearly it refers to angels - but the uneducated might think it refers to something
else...).

If I remember correctly, I believe the tefilah was introduced in chassidic siddurim
and as the chassidic influence grew, it infiltrated the "ashkenazic norm".

Therefore - there is a very good reason for people to say "I don't say Brich
Shmeh...".  Please correct me - but I believe that the GR"A also did not say this
tefilah.

Take care,

Joel

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Why is there any question? Even if the minhag somewhere is not to say it,
> what reason could there be for saying davka "We don't say that"? Fine, so
> maybe it's not in your siddur. Was it taken out, or never put in?
>
> ---sam
> <<
>
> I have discussed 2 possibilities on how this devloped off list:
>
> 1) Brich Shmei was added on later on by Eastern European communities and the
> German communities never added it on.  In that case there is no particular
> reason to omit it.
>
> 2)  Brich Shmei was at one time universally recited by Ashkenazim but the Geramn
> communities consciously removedd it followingthe Shabtai Zvi debacle. (This is
> my totally unproven hypothesis).  If this is correct, there would be a conscious
> reason to omit it.
>
> I asked R. Dr. E. Kanarfgoel and he was unsure of the origins,
>
> If anyone can research Pre-SZ texts of nushchaos, it might help establish the
> nature of this omission.
>
> Rich Wolpoe

--
--------
Joel Margolies
margol@ms.com
W-212-761-2134

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


[ 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         ]