Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 316

Monday, January 24 2000

• Re: MO following Mendelsohnn?
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re[2]: Mendelsohn and MO
• Re: Histaklus B'nashim
• Re: Hareidi Press (America and Israel)
• Histaklus BaNashim
• Re:Mens rule over womens
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• MO vs RW
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re[2]: Histaklus
• Re: Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re: Techelet
• Re: Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re: Pharo's Intentions
• re: Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re[2]: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv

MO' don't foll.ow  Mendelsohnn, MO's have co-opted MOST of his agenda (though 
not all)
And the single biggest critcism of Mendelsohn I heard besheim Hirshian's was 
that Mendelsohn lacked proper reverence/deference for gedolim, IOW he was a bit 
of an iconoclast.

Which is a another way of saying he was ahead of his time and by proposing his 
ideas THEN, he was racilly opposing the prevaling zeitgeist amongs frum yiddn.

However, had he lived AFTER Hirsch most of his ideas would have been accepatble.

EG he was attacked for translating the chumash into German.  This was rendere as
an attempt to seduce German Jews into assimilating.  I need not remind you that 
Hirsch himslef did the same thing!  But when Hirsch did it, it was a fact that
Jews were now reading German.

You can see this in the Roedelheim Machzoim.  Beore about 1850 all of the 
trnslationw were in Yiddish-Deutch and after about 185/1860 they are in German 
mamash!

Mendelsohn was about 50 years ahead on that score.

I do not know how radical his beiur was.  It is probably true that there are a 
few points that we would render as "incorrect".  (No, I don't know what they are
off-hand),  But by-and-large his beiru is probably tame bizman hazeh.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: MO following Mendelsohnn? 
Rich Wolpoe writes:
<< Look at the opposition to Mendelsohnn during his time, but eventually MO 
 followed his shitos..  But he was seen (with soem justification) as poreiz 
geder
 IN HIS TIME>>
Is this true? Is MO really following Mendelsohnn? This is the first time I 
ever heard such a statement. And I know many MO who would be very insulted by 
it. The MO I know see themselves as following traditional gedolei yisrael 
such as RYBS, R. Hirsch, R. Kook, R. Hildisheimer and the RAMBAM.  

the Gemoro says in the good old days when people had the proper intentions yibum
was preferred now that we have no so pure intenstion chalitzo is preferred.

It is clear to me that

1) The Gemor acknowedge changes in human nauter over time - including more 
impure thoughts re: sexuality

2) That halacho could be molded to conform to the changes of reality.

This belief in a constant reality of human nautre is not validated by shas, it's
a myth. IN fact hsas points out how people became weaker.

same with fasting, people do not fast as well as in the days of rishonim.  Lots 
of changes have been made to accomodate weaker spirits

KT,
RW 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus BaNashim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    1/23/2000 8:32 AM


> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:28:43 -0500 
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim 

<<And therefore Yibum is still a lechatchilo over Chalitzo?>>

	Lost you here.  Please elaborate.

Gershon
PS Still waiting for info @ R' Weinberg

It could be said that the TI/EMC/IBC section of YU is less Talmudic and more 
"Mendelsohnnian" as opposed to the the heart of the Yeshiva - RIETS - whic was 
indeed a continuation of Brisker/ Litvisher derech.

Rich wolpoe
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Mendelsohn and MO 

<snip>
In a speech (printed in R. Rakefets book) RYBS clearly makes the point that 
although YU shares some ideas (secular studies) with German Orthodoxy, still 
in essence they are very different. For RYBS (and YU) Shas and posekim in the 
traditional manner of R. Chaim of Brisk, was of extreme importance. So RYBS 
is not even in the same mold as German Orthodoxy, kal vchomer Mendelsohn.

re: Yoseif

Bonos Tzaoda alei shur (breishis 49:22)

See Rashi bnos mitzrayim hoyu... lehistalek byofyo

Also tatiso ..eineho el Yoseif (39:7)

Isn't there a midrash re: Shaul that women engaged him on coversation just to be
able to spend time with him - Apparently becase they thought he was tall and 
good-looking?!

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus B'nashim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/24/2000 3:27 AM


It is my understanding that one suggestion in Gemara Berachos 48b clearly 
indicates that Hazal believed that women find men attaractive and desire to 
gaze at them. In trying to explain why the young women at the well (Shmuel 
I:9) engaged in lengthy conversation with Shaul (who was just asking for 
directions), the Gemara suggests "Kdei Lehistakel Byofyo shel Shaul".

I was once told that the Satmar Rebbe brings that Gemara as a source for 
building Mechitzos such that the women cannot see the men, just as the men 
cannot see the women.

Shalom Berger
Yerushalayim

You can try http://www.shemayisrael.com/chareidi/index.htm and 
http://www.jewishamerica.com/AmEchad.htm and http://www.jewishworldreview.com/

Three brief comments on Chana's excellent post:

>What I am trying to understand is why those who hold that the reason to
>have separate seating or no possibility of viewing women dancing is a
>fence lest one might come to histaklus do not appear to hold that a
>similar fence needs to be made regarding seeing her finger or her face.
>And yet the actions of this particular olam appears to be in favour of
>just such a distinction.

I think the difference is practical, not principled.  When one plans a
wedding, one can ensure that a mehitzah is in place.  But for most
people, it is simply impractical to walk around with one's head down or
pressed against a wall.  (While some hasidim do it, they often face the
problem only intermittently, as oppposed to men who function in a mixed
environment.)  More importnatly, there is also a kavod ha-beriyyot
issue.  Hence, one must strike a balance between avoiding hirhur and
making a woman feel like a freakish sexual object.

>The Ben Ish Chai lived in Bagdad around 100 years ago,

Actually, I think the number is 200 years ago which only strengthens
your point.

>But, it seems to me, that any baal/as simcha needs to bear in mind the
>extent of the suffering his/her particular choices will inflict on all
>of his/her guests.

Thank you for articulating an issue that has been ignored up to now.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 1/24/00 12:16:26 PM Eastern Standard Time, David Finch 
writes:
<< This is a hen-pecked husband's piteous pipe dream. In real life, Jewish 
women 
 are vocal, smart, and insistent. They are subservient to no one. They're 
 tough, and they've held their families and the Jewish community as a whole 
 together for thousands of years. (I was about to apologize for 
 over-generalizing, but on reflection I'm probably being dead accurate.) 
  >>
My fathers favorite joke: A group of husbands and wives face the bes din shel 
maala after 120 years. The bes din says "All men who were mikayaim the chiyuv 
of vehu yimshol bach and ruled over their wives go the right, all others go 
to the left." Every single man go to the left. Everyone except one small meek 
looking man named Yankel. Yankel goes to the right. The bes din looks at this 
meek little man and ask him "Yankel, you really ruled over your wife? What 
are you doing on the right?'"  Yankel looks embarrassed, points to his wife 
and blurts out "She told me to!!"
(I would like to thank my wife for giving me permission to post this joke.)
 

according to my edition of ben ish chai he was niftar TRSV - 5666, 1906.

Riche Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus BaNashim 


>The Ben Ish Chai lived in Bagdad around 100 years ago,

Actually, I think the number is 200 years ago which only strengthens 
your point.

Our esteemed listowner wrote:
>> There is much Torah written
>> on the subject of the berachah/tzivui of "umil'u es ha'aretz vikivshuha"
>>vs the kelala of "bezei'as apecha tochal lechem".

And RYGB responds:

>I think what you say here is an old, and, inaccurate canard. I know of
>plenty of sources in Right Wing tracts - such as the Michtav Me'Eliyahu,
>Pachad Yitzchok and others, that note and explain how one's secular pursuits
>can be consecrated by the right lishma. I know of no MO sources to that
>effect.

>Indeed, I submit to you that "work" as such, i.e., a cobblers's or
>blacksmith's trade, or, more contemporaneously, computer programming or
>bookkeeping, would not be granted by TuM philosophy any exalted madreiga
>whatsoever. From the perspective of true TuM, as defined from the Litvishe
>perspective by RYBS and from a quasi-Chassidic perspective by RD Norman
>Lamm, TuM is really pursuit of *secular knowledge*, and has no regard for
>"derech eretz in the life of the typical balebus".

<snip>
>Do you have explicit sources to challenge my contention?

If I may intrude, I am going to agree with R. Micha here.  In response
to RYGB's challenge regarding sources, I think that his reliance on
mareh mekomot is part of the grounds of this disagreement.

In my experience, the distinction drawn by R. Micha exists as a
sociological reality, irrespective of what appears in R. Hutner's and R.
Dessler's writings, on the one hand, and what appears in the writing of
R. Soloveitchik and Dr. Lamm, on the other.

As a practical matter, the yeshivisher velt does not value work.  Young
women in Bais Yaakov or seminary are strongly discouraged from dating
men who work and immense pressure is placed on yungeleit to stay in the
beit midrash.  The only exception is for people who make a lot of money.
 One rosh yeshiva I know put it far more starkly (in private, trying to
convince a talmid to stay in learning):  The Torah world will only
respect you if you are a talmid hakham or a millionaire.  Thus, I think
it is fair to say, as R. Micha did, that the general attitude in the
yeshivisher comunity today looks down on those who work.  Of course,
this is a generalization and a stereotype of sorts.  Obviously, Flatbush
is teeming with professionals in black hats.  But I do not think that
they generally are considered role models, especially by the leaders of
the educational system, who may or may not have read R. Dessler (and
almost certainly have not read R. Hutner).

In the modern Orthodox community (at least, to my knowledge), one finds
the opposite attitude.  A great deal of emphasis -- too much in my view
-- is placed on the value of secular education, especially prestigious
Ivy Leage diplomas.  Rabbanim who do not have a college degree are
likely to be looked down upon as unsophisticated.  (This is true in the
US.  In Israel, most of the MO rabbanim have no secular education, so
the situation may be different.)  Al ahat kamah ve-kamah, a baal
ha-bayyit engaged in physical labor or a menial trade is not considered
admirable.  That is the negative side.   So RYGB is right when he says
that MO does not respect labor.  But the ability to support oneself is
valued by the MO, provided one is engaged in white collar work.  And the
positive side of this is that the frum ba'al ha-bayyit is considered a
worthy individual in the MO community.  If that person combines work
with keviat ittim, he is even more highly regarded.  And the ideal is
the articulate, educated talmid hakham who also supports himself
professionally.

As far as texts go, remember that the vast majority of the MO community
are not intellectuals; most have not read R. Soloveitchik or Dr. Lamm,
and among those who have read the former, most probably do not
understand him.  They may look to the Rav as a symbol, but no more.  Dr.
Lamm's book on Torah u-Madda is not a MO manifesto, but an argument for
engagement in secular learning.  Its focus is determined by its thesis.
In any case, in my view, it lacks the nuance, the thoughtfulness, and
the objectivity of the article by R. Lichtenstein in Judaism's Encounter
with Other Cultures.

But, as I said, we err if we focus too much on the writings of this or
that thinker.  The simple reality -- in my experience -- is that the MO
community respects people who work for a living and the RW community
does not.

If others' experience differs, I would be interested in hearing from
them.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

I still don't understand (but I am closer!).   Granted,  there is a
yeridas hadoros in terms of physical strength and ability to withstand
yetzer hara.   Therefore...?

Gershon

On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 11:51:57 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:
> the Gemoro says in the good old days when people had the proper 
> intentions yibum
> was preferred now that we have no so pure intenstion chalitzo is 
> preferred.
> 
> It is clear to me that
> 
> 1) The Gemor acknowedge changes in human nauter over time - 
> including more 
> impure thoughts re: sexuality
> 
> 2) That halacho could be molded to conform to the changes of 
> reality.
> 
> This belief in a constant reality of human nautre is not validated 
> by shas, it's
> a myth. IN fact hsas points out how people became weaker.
> 
> same with fasting, people do not fast as well as in the days of 
> rishonim.  Lots 
> of changes have been made to accomodate weaker spirits
> 
> KT,
> RW 
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Histaklus BaNashim 
> Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
> Date:    1/23/2000 8:32 AM
> 
> 
> > Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:28:43 -0500 
> > From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> > Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim 
> 
> <<And therefore Yibum is still a lechatchilo over Chalitzo?>>
> 
> 	Lost you here.  Please elaborate.
> 
> Gershon
> PS Still waiting for info @ R' Weinberg
> 
> 

I would say it proves women are less likely to ACT on it than men.
It does NOT prove that women have less HIRHURIM than do men,
I think we all agree that women are not as agressive as are men in ACTING upon 
their sexual drives, I am still not convinced that woman have fewer sexual 
hirhurim, only that - due to  hu ymishol bach - they have more inhibition wrt 
acting upon those hirhurim.

Now we can raise the corollary, are hirhurim only ossur in that they would 
eventually lead one to action?  I don't think this is the case, it seems that 
bringing on hirhurim is ossur period (as opposed to having to deal with 
"unsolicited" hirhurim)

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
<snip>
Bottom line, I don't think there is any women's locker room in any 
sport that admits men, while women reporters are admitted to 
men's locker rooms in just about every team sport. To me that 
says that goyim understand that women are better able to control 
themselves than are men.

<snip>
-- Carl

RZ Brooks wrote:

>>For Example, in the book Gefen Poriah there is a passage (in the English notes
to ch. 14 I believe) in which it states that a woman is "subjugated" to her man.
I don't think the Modern Orthodox believe this.>>

Where can I get those books for my wife? :-)

I know at least two Roshei Yeshiva who are not MO and who are famous for falling
under the category of "I make all the decisions after my wife tells me what to 
decide."

In a mature couple, neither makes unilateral decisions.  The only book on this 
subject that I read was The River, The Kettle, And The Bird and I'm pretty sure 
it did not equate Shalom Bayis with a silent wife.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 11:01:58PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
: Even given the above conclusions, the question remains as to the proper
: processing of the trunculus dye and the resultant color.

According to the tape circulating from RIET's day of lectures to alumnae on
the subject, R' Tendler said this was a real problem but it was resolved.

Wool was found in a Maccabbeen cave that had indigo-dyed wool in it, stored
as though it were k'lei kodesh. (I have no idea how you can tell that.) We
can't take this as proof of the identity of techeiles, as kaleh ilan is
known to include indigo, and perhaps the fact that it was kaleh ilan was
the reason for burial. However, it should resolve the question of color.

As to QA from the Amutah: I have a sample from over two years ago that sat
in my "belt, tzitzis and yarmulka drawer" until last Oct. It was not the
same shade as more recent strings, very slightly to the aquamarine side,
although you can only see the difference if you hold the two next to each
other. It might be a function of how off-white the original wool was.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Jan-00: Levi, Yisro
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

(The following story is probably somewhat mangled, but the point is there.)

Rabbi Ciner, in his weekly parashah page, once described a conversation with
his then-future grandmother-in-law, a real matriarchal figure -- someone who
saved her family when her town was evacuated, etc...

He asked what she thought the man's role in a marriage should be. Her reply:
"The man? He's the undisputed head of the family!" He was shocked, as this
answer didn't fit the image he had built in his mind of her, given all the
family stories he had heard. "And what's the woman's role?" "The woman? She's
the neck." The grandmother paused. "The neck moves the head."

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Jan-00: Levi, Yisro
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I heard some Torah on this...

1) According to a shiur from R. Aderet, Bnai Yisroel were "lacking:" in that 
they did NOT bring a korbon after 3 days out of Egypt, and Par'oh saw this 
weakness and sought to exploit it.  IOW, in addition to korban Pesach, they OWED
hkbh a korbon after they did a a 3 day journey, and they did NOT fulfill this 
expectation.  It was an aveiro of "omission".

2) Par'oh knew that the 400 years were not up and EXPECTED Bnai Ysiroel to 
somehow come back. He did NOT factor in "hkbh cheesheiv es hakeitz"... So 
although Par'oh  thought Bnei Yesiroel were confused, in effect he was.  He was 
convinced that he just has to hold on tight because the 400 years promised to 
Avorhom was not over.  Perhaps this stubborn belief was HOW hkbh hardened his 
heart.  Perhaps hkbh whispered in par'ohs ear "just hang on the time is not up! 
didn' I promise AA 400 years?  keep up your hope and expectation of another 190,
etc."

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Pharo's Intentions 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/24/2000 10:26 AM


Question:  When Pharo finally lets the people go, does he do so 
believing that they will be
returning after a few days?  I.e., does he believe that they are going 
to do some sort of
worship in the desert and afterwards return?  Are these not the 
conditions under which
the people are being allowed to leave even at the very end?  Or was this 
just a useful, face saving,  fiction, and
everyone, Moshe, Pharo, and the people, all knew that they were not 
coming back.
The scripture seems to support the latter view in the pasuk at the 
beginning of B'shlach
[14:5], "and Pharo and his servants changed their minds..." The 
implication  is that Pharo originally was not going to pursue the 
fleeing Jews, and that it required a "hardening" of his heart to have 
him decide to "change his mind", and try to get them back.  Hence he had 
from the time of their leaving  resigned
himself to the fact that they were not coming back.
If so, was the talk of going out to the desert to worship known to be 
fiction from the very begining?  And if not, when did it become so?


Moshe Nugiel

Zvi Brooks writes:

<<< I have seen a number of sefarim by haredi authors in which they say that
a woman must give in to her husband's opinion (mevatel da'atah). These
sefarim also say that she is subservient. Even in some English sefarim this
is sometimes found. For Example, in the book Gefen Poriah there is a passage
(in the English notes to ch. 14 I believe) in which it states that a woman
is "subjugated" to her man. >>>

This is news to me. Could you please double-check that citation, with the
exact page or footnote number? The Chazal which *I* always heard was that
the husband should love his wife as himself, but honor her even more than
himself. (But, I admit, I do not know the source of that Chazal. Anyone
else, maybe?)

<<< people in Bnei Brak, men and women, seem to have no problem with the
notion that women are subservient to their husbands, which is, after all,
how the rishonim viewed matters. >>>

Specific quotes from those rishonim, please? Maybe we're getting hung up
over the words "subjugated" and "subservient". Are you referring to how a
wife takes on the husband's minhagim? My understanding is that this is
because the husband's role is to define the family's relationship relative
to outside society, while the wife's role is to define relationships within
the family. (Again, I admit to a lack of sources.) Maybe I misunderstood,
but R' Brooks's post seems to posit that the husband gets to make ALL the
decisions.

<<< The Torah also says that the man shall rule over his wife. >>>

Are you referring to Bereshis 3:16? That is the very same pasuk as the one
about pain in childbirth. I understood both of these to be curses which we
have no obligation to fulfill. I understand that the Catholic Church frowns
on avoiding pain of childbirth based on this pasuk, but we do not.
Similarly, there is no virtue in a domineering husband. On the contrary!
Instead of using Adam and Chava as our models, we look to Avraham Avinu and
Sarah Imenu, and remember what HaShem told Sarah: "Whatever Sarah tells you,
listen to her voice." (Breishis 21:12)

Akiva Miller

Point: it is NOT so clear that the psyche has not changed since the days of the 
Talmud in certain areas.

I think it is fair to say that in our overly "stimulated" society that - among 
other things - women are no longer so inhibited to feel "lust".  This is perhaps
the first society in a long time that regards "forwardness" in women as ok.

I also think it while it is true that basic human nature does not change, their 
are certain societal and peer pressures that DO change.  Certainly being "gay" 
is NOT the stigma it used to be, and therefore one might not rely on the same 
inhibitions on becoming "found out" that might have been a factor 50 years ago.

EG, 50 years ago one might not have been afraid of a teacher acting out his 
inner drives on a student because it was "unthinkable".  Now it is NOT so 
unthinkable.  Therefor the inhibition has been reduced..

Rich Wolpoe 



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Histaklus BaNashim 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    1/24/2000 1:39 PM


I still don't understand (but I am closer!).   Granted,  there is a 
yeridas hadoros in terms of physical strength and ability to withstand 
yetzer hara.   Therefore...?

Gershon

----- Original Message -----
From: <benish@idt.net>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2000 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv


> I showed this post and some of the ones upon which this post is based to
Rabbi Yona
> Reiss, Menahel of the Beis Din of America, where I occasionally help out.
The
> following was his response which I am forwarding, with his permission, to
Avodah:
>
> Thank you.  I found these entries intriguing.  We do handle custody cases
> and none of our decisions have been challenged in court.

    The says nothing of about the propriety of the Beth Din hearing the
issues. There are a myriad of reasons why such decisions have not been
challenged; social pressure among them.

 The law in New
> York is not clear as there is a split between the first and second
> departments concerning the extent to which custody and visitation issues
> are subject to arbitration (though arbitration decisions in this area are
> in any event traditionally subject to a strict standard of review to
> ascertain whether the decision is in the "best interest of the child").

    The recent Stein decision in the Queens County Supreme Court seems
rather definitve.

  As
> a matter of halakha of course, parties should have everything decided by a
> bet din and often simply agree to abide by the decision of bet din,
whether
> or not there is the secular law option of challenging the decision in
court.

    I thought the RCA, (the author of this message is the director of the
RCA Beth Din) seeks to apply Dina deMalkhuta?  How then does it appear to
usurp local law?

> Yona Reiss
>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:48:57 -0500
> >From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> >Subject: Re: Agunot:  News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
> >
> >I would only point out that in New York, Bet Din has no right to
adjudicate
> >issues of custody.  The RCA is trying to assume jurisdiction where is has
> >none.
> >
> >- ----- Original Message -----
> >From: David Roth <droth@pobox.com>
> >To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> >Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:12 PM
> >Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
> >
> >
> >>
> >> The following comes from the "Standards and Guidelines with respect to
> >> Get Proceedings at the Beth Din of America," which can be found at
> >> their web page: http://www.bethdin.org/publications/standardsget.htm
> >>
> >>     9. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to
> >>        adjudicate financial (and where appropriate, custodial) matters
> >>        relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America
> >>        finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the
> >>        parties.
> >>
> >> Kol Tuv,
> >>
> >> 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         ]