Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 083

Sunday, October 31 1999

• [none]
• Luxuries
• Parsha question
• Conspicuous consumption
• Re: Parsha question
• Re: Parsha question
• RE: Conspicuous consumption
• RE: Rav Schach on Americans
• RE: Re[2]: Bnei Torah and Tolerance
• Re: Avodah V4 #56
• [none]
• Limudei Chol
• Re: Parsha question
• Re: kidra chaysa-Tangential point
• Re: Aliya
• Re: Parsha question
• Re: Luxuries
• What Else-Tzni'us in Material Acquisitions

> 	I am not familiar with Pesichas Eliyahu although I suspect same goes
as
> for the quote from selichos above.  Kaddish is a special case;  see for
> example Rav Dovid Cohen's Masas Kapai.

<Is this the name of a sefer? I haven't seen it. Would you be kind enough
to summarize for me what makes Kaddish special?>
	The sefer Masas Kapai is a very interesting sefer by Rav Dovid Cohen on
Tefila.   So far there are five volumes.  Available only  AFAIK,  from
the mechaber.

	`There is a Tosfos in Berachos which mentions a shita that Kadish was
composed in Aramaic  **in order*  that the malachim should not understand
it.  (I should put in here that the source of the no-no for Aramaic is a
Gemara in Shabbos 12b,  and SA OC I think it's 101:4,  which says that a
person should not pray in Aramaic because the malachim don't handle
tefilos in Aramaic.  Look there in SA.)

	Rav Cohen's explanation is based on a Medrash that we say the phrase
"Boruch Shem Kevod Malchuso" quietly because Moshe Rabeinu,  when he went
up to Shamayim,  "stole" this phrase from the malachim.  He goes on to
explain that the key phrase in Kaddish,  "Yehe Shemei Rabbo..." is an
Aramaic translation of Boruch Shem. Hence,  we say it in Aramaic davka so
that the malachim should not understand it,  as per Tosfos,  because
Moshe Rabeinu stole it from them. 

Gershon

> Obviously there have to ultimately be some limits as
> to how one enjoys his wealth.  I suppose we can all
> point to cases of conspicuos consumption. ( I recently
> attended an Orthodox wedding that I assure everyone
> cost in excess of a half million dollars - I am not
> exaggerating.) But, who is going to draw the line. 
	The line has been drawn by gedolei hadoros since Yaakov told his sons
"lama tisra'u".  When nonJews have their eyes gouged (figuratively) by
the conspicuous consumption of some of our brethren,  that is where we
draw the line.  Of course one could say that one person's tznius is
another's conspicuous consumption  but I think that is disingenous.  

Gershon

From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
> Subject: A Rashi question
> 
> Now that the cholent's digested...
	You know,  after that exchange, I actually raided the cholent Friday
night for the first time in some months.....

> Rashi's comment (18:8) that Avraham did not serve the bread Sarah 
> baked  because she became a niddah is fascinating - b'shlama Avraham 
> perhaps he only ate chullin b'taharah, but he wouldn't even feed the
bread to who he perceived to be idol worshipping nomads!  
	My question is:  if he didn't serve the bread,  and we don't find that
he mixed up a new batch,  why did the malachim ask for Sarah to send her
a Kos shel Bracha:  which Kos if there was no bread to bentsch on?

Gershon

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il		>
> Subject: Re: Tzni'us in Material Acquisutions
> 
> On 29 Oct 99, at 11:31, harry maryles wrote:
> 
> > Obviously there have to ultimately be some limits as

> The previous Gerrer Rebbe had a very simple line. Whatever money 
> you spent on a Simcha, you had to donate an equivalent amount to 
> Tzedaka. 
	My recollection of the Gerer Rebbe's lines is that they were much more
solid than that.  What you are suggesting is that he allowed you to spend
as much as you wanted so long as you gave Tzedaka in equal measure.  This
was definitely not the case,  at least for his own Chasidim.  He had very
specific guidelines which he intended,  and enforced,  for all his
Chasidim,  no matter how rich.  There are several well known anecdotes
concerning this.

Gershon

In a message dated 10/31/99 1:34:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>   My question is:  if he didn't serve the bread,  and we don't find that
>  he mixed up a new batch,  why did the malachim ask for Sarah to send her
>  a Kos shel Bracha:  which Kos if there was no bread to bentsch on?
>  
See the Eitz Yosef (on Ein Yaakov) B"M 87a.

I'll add my question on this weeks Rashi in 22:2 D"H he writes that A

Sorry my previous post was sent prematurely,

Rashi in 22:2 writes that A"A told HKB"H "Shneihem Ani Oheiv", while in an 
earlier Possuk 21:14 writes "Sh'hoyoh Sonoi", perhaps his crying was Tshuvah 
(that explains why in 21:17 Rashi says "Achshasv Mah Hu Tzadik Oi Rasha" 
which is understood that he was a Tzadik how does this fit in with Rash 21:9 
that he was Oveir A"Z G"A S"D (which is the Tarbus Ro'oh referred to in 
21:14), but if his crying was Tshuvah it is understood (without going into 
the Pilpul of Tshuvah by a Ben Noach), the fact that we find later that 
Yishmoeil did Tshuvah after A"A died (Rashi 25:9) is no contradiction to this 
point in time.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> He had very
> specific guidelines which he intended,  and enforced,  for all his
> Chasidim,  no matter how rich.  There are several well known anecdotes
> concerning this.
>

Among other things, he put a strict limit on the number of guests at a
wedding and he forbade newlyweds from buying an apartment in either
Jerusalem or B'nei Brak.

Akiva


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

> That's all fine and well, except that Rav Schach's talmidim seem to
> have interpreted the message as "regard all AMERICANS,
> regardless of appearances, with suspicion."
>

On the one hand, there *is* a degree of xenophobia; OTOH, how can you tell
who might be an "undesirable" influence? If appearance doesn't work
(American chareidim look like Israeli chareidim) then it's understandable
(but unfortunate) that one's country is used.

Also keep in mind that we're talking about a community that has been
*actively* fighting the influx of "modernity" for almost a century. Old
habits change slowly. They *do* change, though.

Akiva


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

>
> Lemoshol: BH and BS argue re: uv'shovecho - is it positional,
> i.e. HOW to read
> it, or is it chronological - WHEN to read it.  eilu v'eilu -
> aren't BOTH
> peirushim implicit?

You know, I was going to going this very gemara as an example of how halacha
could change/diverge over time.

B'kitzur: R' Elazar & R' Yishmael were together when the time to recite the
evening Shema arrived (with R' Elazar standing and R' Yishmael lying down).
R' Elazar lay now (like Beis Shammai), at which point R' Yishmael stood up.
Why?

Possibly the Talmidim would *see* them reclining, and thereafter teach that
one recites the evening shema lying down (like Beis Shammai).

Their Talmidim *knew* that the halacha was like Beis Hillel -- but there was
still a concern that just seeing their Rebbe lying down once would be enough
to change the future p'sak.

Akiva




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


> I can certainly recall arguing with classmates over the
> implicaitons of various
> shiurim just moments after the rebbe finished speaking.
>
> Rich Wolpoe
>
>
>

Response to Russell J Hendel in Avodah V4 #56, who wrote:

>the Rambam (Theft and Loss 11?) points out that unless
>you verbally explicitly stated to the non jew "Look I am
>relying on your count" you MUST return any losses.
>
>The reason the Rambam gives is because non jews sometimes
>deliberately make errors to see who is honest and that would
>lead to chillul hashem. 
>
>So it is not just that such errors are improbable...they are
>also possible from a deliberate audit.
>
>if however you think such a concern is rediculous in shop
>rite (because of technology and many customers you
>MAY have a point)


I might have thought that this concern is ridiculous, until an incident at
Heathrow airport where, until recently, El Al passengers were easily
identifyable at the security check point since they had to wheel their
luggage all the way to the departure gate. (Religous Jewish passengers can,
of course, be identified no matter where they're going.)

When emptying my pockets of metal objects before going through the
metal-detector arch, a five-pound note floated down to my feet; the official
picked it up and asked, "Did you drop this, sir?"

Since I thought I had just relieved myself of all Brittish currency, I told
him that I didn't think so.

The official then turned to another official on the side and said, "Another
one declines", and the second official made a note on a list.

I shudder to think what kind of statistic may have been compiled, what it
may have shown, and what kind of publicity it may have gotten.


yaakov Schachter

Subject: Daas torah

I agree with R. Press that not much will be gained by another round
of debate on DT. Hence, I shall give a short response to his objections

<<1. I have no idea of whom he refers to when he states that the DT world
<<maintains that there is only one correct way to view an issue in
<<hashkofo.

Some issues like litvak vs chassidic have gone away with the centuries.
The prime examples that I refered to where zionism and secular studies.
I know of one RW rabbi who offered to write a proIsrael articel in
JO with the understanding that someone else would write an article
attacking him. He was told that this topic was not open to discussion.

If one looks at the issues that we have discussed in terms of revisionist
history many of them involve either zionist or religious studies,
eg Rav Shamshon Rafael Hirsch, Volozhin, the Rav attending university,
Maimonides school in Boston, A Telshe Rosh Yeshiva attending a yom haatzmaut
celebration etc.

Hence, the fights over gadlus revolve around Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchik etc.

<<2. Eli's second defining characteristic is that the "correct" way is
<< decided by gedolim who have no need to justify their viewpoint. ...
<< I would ask Eli to provide examples of what he means.

There are loads of such examples. In most cases a pseudo reason is given,
i.e. a reason that avoids the real issues.
I consciously avoided giving examples so that we would not begin the
debate over whether I am attacking individual rabbis.
Against my better judgement I give some examples from the letters/speeches
of Rav Schach shilta.

a. He spoke against hesder yeshivot because
     they say Hallel on yom haatzmaut
     they don't produce gedolim

   I don't feel either objection is valid. However, the main point is that
   is not the real debate over hesder yeshivot which involve army service.
   But that point was avoided because it was more debateable.

b. Rav Schach criticized Rav Soloveitchik over the "chamesh derashot" because
   no one today is allowed to make up new derashot. Others on this list have
   discussed this point. But again this was not the real objection of
   Rav Schach to a sefer discussing Mizrachi.

c. Rav Schach criticizes a sefer that tried to show why one needs to also
   earn a living in addition to learning. He first quotes the author as
   Rav Doctor to make the point that it can't be a really serious sefer.
   Then Rav Schach quotes another gemara against doing anything except for
   learning and completely ignores the issues that several gemaras seem to
   contradict each other and that this debate has been going on for centuries.

<<3.probability argues that we will on the
<<whole be better off listening to the guidance of Gedolei Yisroel. 

The key question is which gedolim?

Rabbi A. Feldman argues, in Tradition, that Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchik etc.
are a distinct minority and that one has no right to choose which shitot
one agrees with and so RJBS is outvoted ans doesn'r count.
Rav Lichtenstein in his many articles clearly disagrees.

According to R. Feldman almost everyone on this list is in violation of
daat Torah since the majority of rabbis (in his opinion) oppose any
secular education certainly above 8th grade. I suspect that most of the
people on this list have a college degree if not an advanced degree.
His point is that it is not sufficient to ask a psak of a posek since no
posek can overrule the majority of gedolim.

One of the key points of "modern" daat Torah is that gedolim can see further
and know more than ordinary people not only in halakhic issues but also in
every issue.

Thus, it is common place to go to rabbis for questions about shidduchim
(even when they dont know the parties involved), business questions and
most important medical questions (again not directly halakhic).

The more difficult questions are public issues like the old question
of demonstrating for Russian Jewry which most Russian experts felt would
be effective and which many gedolim opposed. Similarly to we listen to
gedolim or army generals as to strategy in a war or in global politics.

One reads stories of gedolim who were accompanied every day to the yeshiva
since they did not know the way from their home to the yeshiva because they
were so engrossed in learning. While this can be admirable, I would be
very hesitant about asking such a gadol about worldly issues. Any attempt
to describe the issues means that the questioneer brings his own bias into
the question.
I have several psakim by world class poskim that I disagree with not based
on my gemara knowledge but just that the gadol misunderstood the facts,
usually because of the way the question was posed.

<<The statement that major actions were not issued by great rabbis alone is 
<< true even of Chazal, as witness the need for gezeiros to be accepted by 
<< the tzibbur and is hardly an argument about DT.

Exactly the point I was making. However, reading many religious
newspapers one frequently sees announcements by various rabbis.
It is made clear that these bind everyone.
I suggest walking around Bnei Brak or Mea Shearim and reading the posters.

<<The question of whether one is bound to listen to the psakim of the
<<Chazon Ish, Rav Elyoshiv, etc.. is not part of the DT debate but that
<<among the rishonim and acharonim as to the authority in Halacha of the
<<Gadol Hador, the Gadol Hair, etc.

We again return to the question of who is a gadol hador.
Again, with the greatest of respect to Rav Eliyashiv his piskei
halacha are followed by those that wish to follow it. There was
never any vote if he is greater than Rav Goren, Rav Shapira etc
or is more important than the chief rabbi.
Nevertheless, I am told by friends and relatives that I am bound
by the psak of Rav Eliyashiv whether I like it or not.
I simply do not understand the logic.

Does R. Press know of any rishonim that state that the psak of a gadol
hador overrides the psak of the local rabbi even when no question was
asked but the gadol issued a psak on his own?

I was completely confused by R. Press's story with Rabbi Bick.
The position I am advocating is for one to go to his individual posek
and rely on him. That is precisely what R. Press did and so we are
in agreement.

<<Eli's stereotypes are simply not true of the real world.

Maybe the difference between us is the diffrence between the US and Israel.
Just last night on TV there was statement issued by a meeting of
rabbis reiterating their psak that one cannot return an inch of the
land of Israel. There was also a speech bemoaning the fact that many
people do not listen to THE psak of the rabbis (of course ignoring
the fact that many rabbis disagree with their stance).

As demonstrated the shita of Daat Torah is not limited to any segment of
orthodoxy (at least in Israel). One constantly reads that the Mafdal
population is bound by the psakim of Rav Shapira and Rav Eliyahu.
I don't remember any formal decision that appointed them to a moetzet
gedolei haTorah of Mafdal. In any case it is difficult for me to swallow
that my vote in an election obligates me to followed specific rabbis.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

RET wrote:

> Rabbi A. Feldman argues, in Tradition, that Rav Kook, Rav Soloveitchik
etc.
> are a distinct minority and that one has no right to choose which shitot
> one agrees with and so RJBS is outvoted ans doesn'r count.
> Rav Lichtenstein in his many articles clearly disagrees.
>
> According to R. Feldman almost everyone on this list is in violation of
> daat Torah since the majority of rabbis (in his opinion) oppose any
> secular education certainly above 8th grade. I suspect that most of the
> people on this list have a college degree if not an advanced degree.
> His point is that it is not sufficient to ask a psak of a posek since no
> posek can overrule the majority of gedolim.
>

I suspect that R' Feldman (I assume, from context, that you refer to R'
Aharon Feldman, not his brother, the editor of  Tradition) would not be
pleased with the way you characterized his position.

He probably meant to reject RAYK and RYBS's positions on certain issues
only.

This is probably not one of them. This is just a hunch. Since he is your
nephew's shverr, could you please enquire further?

L'gufo shel inyan, I think there is a common error with regard to the
attitude of many Gedolei Torah toward Limudei Chol. Their opposition is
generally not to the acquisition of knowledge of secular studies, but rather
to the schooling therein. As we know, many Gedolei Torah who never set foot
in an institution of secular study were far greater beki'im in those areas
than others with quite advanced degrees. They were not against individuals
becoming autodidacts (I believe that is the correct word). For many reasons,
which one may or may not find oneself in agreement with, however, they were
against formal education and schooling therein.

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

R' Yisreol Salanter writes on the Akeida that it is fundamental that an
individual can have two conflicting emotions b'bas achas. I believe the
Kotzker might say the same thing (in Ohel Torah), v'lichora hu ha'din
b'nidon didan.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Yzkd@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 1999 12:58 AM
Subject: Re: Parsha question


> Sorry my previous post was sent prematurely,
>
> Rashi in 22:2 writes that A"A told HKB"H "Shneihem Ani Oheiv", while in an
> earlier Possuk 21:14 writes "Sh'hoyoh Sonoi", perhaps his crying was
Tshuvah
> (that explains why in 21:17 Rashi says "Achshasv Mah Hu Tzadik Oi Rasha"
> which is understood that he was a Tzadik how does this fit in with Rash
21:9
> that he was Oveir A"Z G"A S"D (which is the Tarbus Ro'oh referred to in
> 21:14), but if his crying was Tshuvah it is understood (without going into
> the Pilpul of Tshuvah by a Ben Noach), the fact that we find later that
> Yishmoeil did Tshuvah after A"A died (Rashi 25:9) is no contradiction to
this
> point in time.
>
> Kol Tuv
>
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>

>
> 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.)
>
The meat would certainly be fully cooked by midnight. I understood that the
problem was with the bones-  but this does not satisfy me:
*Enough people do not care too much about the bones.
*Even at the Shabbos day meal not all the bones or all parts of bigger bones
are edible. So where do we draw the line?

G Atwood

and until we find a way to
> resolve it, we don't deserve to have Mashiach come.

That may be if the whole story is the negative story.  Without denying the
problems we (the Jewish people as a whole) have a LOT of zchuyot. We simply
have to open our eyes to see them. The newspapers, for journalistic reasons,
prefer to publish the unpleasant stuff, but even there light can be found.

We are seeing great changes.  Environmental awareness has improved
tremendously in Eretz Israel over the past ten years. There are still many
serious problems, but, given our political and economic difficulties etc
there is still real progress.
The charedi sector is mainly burdened with problems pertaining to large
families (another issue) but awareness of health and environmental issues is
improving every year.
New girl's seminars and boy's schools have opened just over the last few
years as a result of the needs of the children of immigrants from U.S., U.K
etc. These will grow and increase in influence as the children of my
generation fill them.  The growth of technology over the last ten years has
profoundly influenced the exposure of frum children to wider issues.
(internet, multimedia, CDs and DVDs)  There is tremendous caution in the old
Yerushalmi yishuv regarding the implications of these influences, (not all
good of course)  but it's a case of ordering the stable door closed after
the horse has bolted.

The times they are definitely a changin'

Yes,  aliyah of more concerned people will definitely help, but even without
that,  RW frumkeit in Eretz Israel is rumbling in revolution.

Hopefully-   Gila Atwood.

In a message dated 10/31/99 7:01:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> R' Yisreol Salanter writes on the Akeida that it is fundamental that an
>  individual can have two conflicting emotions b'bas achas. I believe the
>  Kotzker might say the same thing (in Ohel Torah), v'lichora hu ha'din
>  b'nidon didan.
> 
Ich Her!
 
It is brought in Tanya too from the Zohar Chedvoh Tkiah Bliboee Msitroh 
Da...and it is Mfurosh in Tanya Perek 32 WRT a Rasha that one has to have 
both Ahavoh (Mitzad the Nefesh E-lokis which may not be Shaych by Yishmoeil) 
and Sinah, however Bnidun Didan Bpashtus Haksuvim when he said that he loved 
both of them is Mashma equal to Yitzchok (just like I have 2 sons, both are 
Yochid Limoi).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 10/31/99 12:17:43 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< Subj:     Luxuries
 Date:  10/31/99 12:17:43 AM US Central Standard Time
 From:  gershon.dubin@juno.com (Gershon Dubin)
 Sender:    owner-avodah@aishdas.org
 Reply-to:  avodah@aishdas.org
 To:    avodah@aishdas.org
 
 > Obviously there have to ultimately be some limits as
 > to how one enjoys his wealth.  I suppose we can all
 > point to cases of conspicuos consumption. ( I recently
 > attended an Orthodox wedding that I assure everyone
 > cost in excess of a half million dollars - I am not
 > exaggerating.) But, who is going to draw the line. 
    The line has been drawn by gedolei hadoros since Yaakov told his sons
 "lama tisra'u".  When nonJews have their eyes gouged (figuratively) by
 the conspicuous consumption of some of our brethren,  that is where we
 draw the line.  Of course one could say that one person's tznius is
 another's conspicuous consumption  but I think that is disingenous.  
 
 Gershon
 
 
 Nowadays, in this society, I'm not sure why we should be concerned gouging 
out the Goyims' eyes. We're all equal here. Any American is free to make a 
public jerk of himself. Conspicuous consumption is not so much a shonda fur 
de Goyim as it is a shonda, period. Where in Shas is there any message 
applauding loud materialism? Koheleth alludes to it, but not exactly with 
approval. Of course, there are always those off-channel preacher shows on 
Sunday morning TV, with titles like, "G-D Wants You To Be Rich!" or "If You 
Believe, the Lord Will Buy You a New Cadillac!" Fast encouragement is 
available for those who need it.

We believe that we believe differently. Perhaps the rabbis can teach us to 
act differently.

David Finch

In V4#81 HM writes:

>>I disagree.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor. There is
nothing wrong with enjoying one's wealth. Why
shouldn't I be able to have more if I "make" more. Do
I tell my neighbor who just bought a Lexus that his
new car is to oppulent?  Is he really violating
Tznius?  Or am I just envious and wish I had one too!
What right has anyone to judge what someone's
lifestyle requirements should be. We have to allow in
this world for differences in lifestyle ability. That's is why the level of
Tzedakah differs when one
is giving money to a poor man vs. giving money to a
poor man who was once rich.  We are required to
restore the formerly rich man to his original status. The Torah is not a
socialst manifesto.>>

I don't think this is an issue on which the free play of subjective opinion
is appropriate. Torah regulates how we should use our time, and, for
example, does not leave mere subjective preference whether it is ok
for a person whom Hashem has blessed with alot of free time to spend
it lounging on a hammock, sipping pinya coladas. The Torah also instructs
us in the proper deployment of wealth and the correct objects of discretionary
spending, not because it is a "social manifesto," chas v'shalom, but
because
"haym chayaynu v'orech yamaynu..." That is why I cited mar'eh m'komos
for
my statement:

>>The materialistic values and acquisitiveness in question
violate the isur of bal tashchis (Peleh Yo'etz, erech Mosaros and erech Sipuk),
are inconsistent with what HKB"H requires of Jews living in galus (Kli Yakar,
end
of parshas Vayigash) and constitute a hesech hada'as in the anticipation of the
g'ula (Shal"a, end of M'seches Suka).>>

I don't say that there may not be other Torah sources that take a different
approach, but I do maintain that our views on these issues should be based
on such sources.

The $500,000 wedding mentioned in an unquoted portion of HM's post
reminds me of another relevant section in Peleh Yoetz, erech Tikun, in
which the author reiterates his view regarding the isur of bal tashchis
involved in such spending and advocates rabbinically mandated limits
on such spending by rich and poor alike, along the lines of the proposal
made by R' Twersky in a series of articles in The Jewish Observer
over the last several years.

Basing our opinion on Torah sources in such matters is especially
important because of the vanity of the very wealthy who keep raising
the bar of social standards and expectations, and the powerful self-interest
of the Frum wedding industry (caterers, mucisians, party planners, etc.)
in the continuation of the obscene spending that puts ordinary families in
intolerable debt. These groups are very influential and, scarecely uttering
a word (but often helping out rabbis with their own simchas), seem to have
intimidated most rabbanim into silence on the issue (not to mention inaction
on R' Twersky's excellent proposal). These interests are well served by
promoting
the belief that the Torah leaves the deployment of wealth to subjective
determination.

Shavua Tov,
David

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


[ 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         ]