Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 325

Wednesday, January 26 2000

• Hatzolo
• Re: Yissachar/Zevulun
• Re: chasam sofer
• re:Mendelssohn
• Re:Macho'oh (was Mendelsohn)
• re: YT sheni burial
• Mendelssohn & Eiva
• Re[2]: mechitzot
• Re: Pharo's Intentions
• Re: Avodah V4 #324
• Re: Avodah V4 #324
• Re: Yissachar/Zevulun
• Re: Avodah V4 #324
• Re: Macho'oh (was Mendelsohn)
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim
• Re: R. Akiva Eiger
• >From Mendelssohn's Own Mouth - Afra l'Pumei!
• Mechitzot
• RE: Histaklus BaNashim

> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:09:38 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: Hatzolo, was Mendelsohn

<<It is unclear whether the reason for permitting Hatzalah to take the
call is because of eivah, or because of darchei Shalom. I paraphrase R'
Aharon Lichtenstein in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n  that
darchei Shalom is "ma ani, af ata" (imitatio dei).>>


	It is neither,  as R 'Gil wrote and as I discussed offline with R' Rich.
 It is due to a fear that perception by the outside world that Hatzolo
deals only with Jews may cause backlash in the future to the point that
Hatzolo's ability to serve the Jewish community is compromised or ended.

Gershon

R' Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
>  Bloshon Chazal Torah Ugdulah Bmokom Echod.

L"and, this is incorrect. That reference (cf. Rashi Sanhedrin 36a) is to 
Torah and Malchus, not Torah and wealth.

However, it is worth noting that the Gemara (Eruvin 85b-86a) does mention 
cases of Rebbe and R' Akiva honoring the wealthy, and it even gives a Pasuk 
to back the practice, Ayein Sham.

Mordechai Torczyner
Cong. Ohave Shalom, YI of Pawtucket, RI http://members.tripod.com/~ohave
HaMakor! http://www.aishdas.org/hamakor Mareh Mekomos Reference Library
WEBSHAS! http://www.aishdas.org/webshas Indexing the Talmud, Daf by Daf

In a message dated 1/25/00 8:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time,Daniel B. 
Schwartz writes:
<< Maybe someone can fill me in here.  IIRC, R. Akiva Eiger;s daughter was the
 Chatam Sofer's second wife.  Did they have children together?  IIRC the
 rabbinic line stems from his first marriage. >>
You remember incorectly. It is a historic fact that the chasam sofer did not 
have children from his first marriage, all his children, the entire rabbinic 
line is from R. akiva eigers daughter. While this is a well known, as a 
personal anecdote, the matisdorfer rav, who all know is a direct descendant 
from the Chasam Sofer was my brothers mesader kidushin. When asked why did 
something in a certain manner he answered "vyel azoi paskent der zaide reb 
akiva eiger." 

JJBaker writes, "R' Riskin holds that OhI was a frum Jew who said nothing
that was outside the acceptable range of Tannaitic opinions, based on the
work of David Flusser."

Does he consider Flusser a greater expert on OhI than Chazal, who wrote,
"v'amar mar Yisho kishef v'haisis v'hidiach es Yisroel"? And this, after
stating that "zakaf lventa v'hishtachaveh lah."  Not exactly the deeds of
a frum Jew.

EM Teitz





________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

R. Yitzchok Zirkind (Yzkd@aol.com), Avodah v4 #323, wrote, on Tue, 25
Jan 2000 16:53:33 EST:
<<There is a Lav Sheloi Lhapich Bizchusoi Shel Meisis.>>
I hesitate to engage in halachic debate with someone whose breadth of
knowledge is as vast as R'Yitzchok's, but lilmod ani tzarich (there has
been a lot of that lately).

The lav (Sheloi Lhapich...) l'chorah only applies to the musas (Rambam
P' 5, AKU"M, H'4; Chinuch 460); for everyone else, the chiyuv of limud
z'chus still applies.  The Minchas Chinuch  (al atar) says this b'ferush
l'gabei beis din, and l'gabei the musas himself if he is one of the
eidim.  Even if the lav does apply to others, it can only apply b'zmano,
not centuries later.  After the fact, the vadai chiyuv to be melamed
z'chus on acheinu B"Y overrides the safek as to whether what the
"accused" did is precisely defined as hasasa.   Since a meisis is one
who is meisis l'avodah zara, without accurate historical definition of
what MM's beliefs and action were (which is what the Avodah posts were
trying to accomplish), how do we know that he is an halachic meisis? 
The historical outcome of his shita does not define him as such; a
meisis is defined by what he says (Rambam, sham, 5:1).
There is no ta'ana from the Chinuch's own extension from meisis in 461,
since that extension is only for sinah, not any of the specific halachos
of meisis.

<<The (so called) positive that is being said for MM SR"Y is on his
Shita>>
What shita of his, R' Yitzchok, do you believe defines him as an
halachic meisis?  Apodictic statements should not suffice for ta'anos of
this magnitude.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

Richard Wolpoe asked

>> EG, how many communities still bury on YT sheini shel golus?

To which Carl Sherer responded

>Yerushalayim does :-) 

On Rosh Hashana too?

Sadya N. Targum
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Regardless of the details of the burial controversy...

I think it iso very important to avoid burying MM based on lumping him together 
with Geiger or other reformers.  I think it is a disservice to the emes to just 
PRESUME he is a heretic and finished.  It is important to poinpoint his 
heresies.

I would say it is about as important as understanding what Korach did wrong.

Don't we learn from Miriam's error in Beha'aloscho and that the Meraglim 
failed to learn from her mistake.

Bamidbor is filled with stories of WHAT went wrong.  There is a lot of Torah 
telling us the facts, in order for us to be aware.

Rich Wolpoe

I seem to recall a MB that distinguishes between 2 kinds of erva,

Subjective or "distracting" erva - therefore some societies are ok with uncoverd
ankels, while some are not...

Objective erva regardless of distraction - and he draws THAT line at the 
knees...(IOW shokaim are ervo regardless of our sensitivities)

While it is true that this issue of being de-sensitized to exposure has already 
been oovered <pun> by the AH, however, isn't it worthwhile to re-visit this in 
light of the high degree of "pritzus" in mass media etc.?

Rich Wolpoe



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: mechitzot 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote: : I heard there were 2 dinim in Mechitzo 
<brisker style>
..
: 2) Issues of Erva

Didn't the Aruch haShulchan matir davening in front of women who weren't 
dressed halachically appropriately, but who weren't in violation of social 
norms? I know he matirs davening in front of a married woman who didn't cover 
her hair, I thought it was a general separation of the definition of ervah 
into "mutar" vs "assur but not distracting".

-mi

> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 11:09:49 +0200
> From: Moshe and davida Nugiel
> Subject: Pharo's Intentions
>
> 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?
>

An answer to this question is given by Rabbi Yaakov Kamenetsky in Emes
LYaakov on Shemos Chapter 3 verse 18.  It is the second piece on that
pasuk in my edition.  To summarize based on what i heard quoted by Rabbi
Bernstein on tape: The jewish people were supposed to be in Egypt for
400 years.  They were at too low a level to survive spiritually in the
current situation.  Hashem wanted to take the Jews out for a 3 day
spiritual lift and then return them to Egypt to finish their servitude.
Pharo refused to let them out.  Therefore Hashem had to cause the
servitude to be harsher as if the Jewish people had actually worked the
full 400 years.  Therefore when they finally went out it was permanent
not just for 3 days.  Pharo on the other hand thought that they were
still operating on the original formula.  Please see the original for a
fuller explanation.

Kol Tov
Ezriel

In a message dated 1/25/00 8:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< It is difficult to write this posting without sounding preachy but it is
 more an expression of my frustration than my criticizing the fine people
 who participate in Avodah.  When I have brought up problems facing the
 entire Orthodox community and which can only be solved through
 cooperative effort almost no discussion follows.  However when any topic
 which contrasts the modern Orthodox and the Charedim (or whatever other
 terms are preferred) and one group  can attack the other is introduced,
 the postings come fast and furious.
  Differences are real but the need for working together is critical.
 The Orthodox media are not helpful and unfortunately the model projected
 for gadlus is not Rav Shlomo Zalmen Aurbach ZTL who did not sign
 manifestoes or publicly support political parties.
 Sincerely,
 Yosef Blau >>
In relation to the issue R. Blau brought up in his last post, I personally do 
not think a solution will be found ad bias goel tsedek. Like many issues we 
suffer because of the lack of a kehila structure. Being that different Rabbis 
have very different opinions on these issues I can't even imagine a possible 
solution being found. Lets be honest. A moser is a very serious issue in 
shulchan aruch. Also lets not forget that even without the chilul hashem 
involved, the police and secular authorities don't necessarily have our best 
interests at heart. At times they may not be pursuing Justice at all. Also 
the "criminal" we are dealing with is frequently a son, daughter, brother, 
etc., of an upstanding member of the Orthodox community and many don't have 
the heart to cause his family pain. I am not saying right or wrong, rather 
that is the reality. And even if one gets a pesak from one Rav that in this 
case he may go to secular authorities, there is always the worry that others 
that don't follow this Rav will consider you to be a Moser. And yes this way 
many people hide behind the word Moser and are not brought to justice. Of 
course I just mentioned problems not solutions, but I think the reason that 
it doesn't generate discussion is because many just have no idea how the 
problem can be solved.

In a message dated 1/25/00 8:18:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<<  can see that, in that they both had lots of "followers" who
 distorted their message.
  R' Riskin holds that OhI was a frum Jew who said nothing that
 was outside the acceptable range of Tannaitic opinions, based
 on the work of David Flusser.  His legacy, however, was massively
 twisted by those who claimed to follow him, who couldn't deal 
 with the death of their messianic dream, into a totally alien
 religion. >>
Unbelievable. We have gone from defending Mendelsohn (shem reshaim yirkav) to 
defending Oso Haish. Whose next? Stalin? Achav? Yiravam Ben Nevat?

In a message dated 1/25/00 8:46:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, Pawshas@aol.com 
writes:

> R' Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
>  >  Bloshon Chazal Torah Ugdulah Bmokom Echod.
>  
>  L"and, this is incorrect. That reference (cf. Rashi Sanhedrin 36a) is to 
>  Torah and Malchus, not Torah and wealth.
>  
See Rashi D"H Bmokom Echod Gitin 59a.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/25/00 11:42:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Tobrr111@aol.com writes:

> Unbelievable. We have gone from defending Mendelsohn (shem reshaim yirkav) 
to  
>  defending Oso Haish. Whose next? Stalin? Achav? Yiravam Ben Nevat?
>  
Just to point out that this idea is not R' Riskins but R' Yaakov Emdon writes 
this, however It is possible as only polemics and see Hagoas Yavetz Shabbos 
116b.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 1/25/00 9:08:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, RDE writes:

I am human and prone to mistakes!

In general that comment (which was written *Bdavkoh* without Marei Mkomos) 
was not meant in the Halachic sense, but in geder Harchaka, (as the Rambam 
writes WRT Oisoi Hoish being called a Mamzeir) in addition I did not mean 
only that particular Lav but the whole combination of Lavin involved  Al 
Derech # 461 in the Chinuch.

>  
>  The lav (Sheloi Lhapich...) l'chorah only applies to the musas (Rambam
>  P' 5, AKU"M, H'4; Chinuch 460); for everyone else, the chiyuv of limud
>  z'chus still applies.  The Minchas Chinuch  (al atar) says this b'ferush
>  l'gabei beis din, 

His Loshon there is "Mvuar Dgam HB"D Muzharim Al Zeh...V'hiniach BTZ"I"

>and l'gabei the musas himself if he is one of the eidim.

That is in Mitzvah 461 on the Asei of Limud Choiva, that he is not permitted 
to say Choivoh, likewise he says there that as an Eid he is anyway prohibited 
from Limud Zchus.

>  Even if the lav does apply to others, it can only apply b'zmano,

"Technicly" Lav 460 can only be while he is still alive, likewise even Mitzva 
457 (and see Minchas Chinuch there WRT others).

>  not centuries later.  After the fact, the vadai chiyuv to be melamed
>  z'chus on acheinu B"Y overrides the safek as to whether what the
>  "accused" did is precisely defined as hasasa.  

The issue here is saying that Ilu Hoyoh Bdoiroi Shel... Haya Tzadik.


Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>
> BTW I think that there are now 5 distinct types of
> peyos: the Chasidic type, usually long and curly, the
> Litvishe type,  ususally short and behind the ear, the
> Brisker type, usually bushy, and the Yeminite usualy
> very long and narrow, and the Chazan Ish type,which
> are basicly Elvis type sideburns.

I'll see your five and double it. I can think of *at least* 5 or six
*different* styles of chassidic peyos -- at least two types of Yeminite,
etc.


>
> Please understand I am not trying to disparage anyone
> who has Peyos. I just don't understand why it is now
> considered such a big deal to have them by a community
> that did not value them at all in the world of pre-
> 1960.
>

IN AMERICA. There is much more to the Jewish world than America.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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

--- Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> On 25 Jan 00, at 20:30, Akiva Atwood wrote:
> 
> > > This will ultimately become one of the defining
> > > characteristics of the RW as the MO will
> undoubtedly
> > > never accept this custom.
> > 
> > Gee, I'll make sure to tell all the MO Israelis I
> see whose kids have *long*
> > peyos that they must be RW...
> 
> Actually some of them may be talmidim of Mercaz
> HaRav Kook 
> and various mosdos associated with it.
> 
> There are a lot of kids with peyos in the shtachim.
> 
> Also, on this subject, someone attributed peyos in
> America to the 
> Hungarians who arrived after the Holocaust. How do
> you explain 
> that nearly every kid in the Litvishe Chadorim here
> has peyos?

I believe this is a function of the incessant move to
the right and is pointedly anti-assimilationist at
it's base.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

> This is not an MO issue. They are not the ones
> changing the custom of their fathers.  It is the RW.

The MO movement is ONLY a few generations old. You can't bring MO as an
example of keeping the customs of their fathers.

Go back a few hundred years, and most if not all Orthodox Jews wore beards
and peyos, so today's trend back to wearing peyos is *not* changing the
custom of their fathes -- it's a *return* to the custom of their fathers,
after a short period when those customs were not kept.

(Covering the hair is a similar case -- are you going to claim that, since
the wives of gedolim didn't cover their hair in Europe, that the fact that
women today *do* cover their hair is "falsher frumkite"?)



> can show numerous pictures of recent Gedolei Israel
> who DID NOT have payos(e.g. the Rav, R. Ruderman. All
> of the Telsher RY's and certainly Lubavitch).

And I can show numerous pictures of gedolim who DID have peyos. It doesn't
prove anything.

> when a Gadol has peyos, it might be considered a hidur
> for a man of his position, at least today.

When did peyos become a hidur? I thought it was a meforash mithvah in the
Torah?

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

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

--- Tobrr111@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/25/00  Harry Maryles writes:
> <<  By way of example, I'm told that all of
>  R. Akiva Eiger's descendants are not religeous
> today,
>  either. >>
> I missed this the first time. I thought you just
> wrote that not all of Rav 
> Akiva Eigers descendants are religious today, but
> you actually seem to be 
> saying that all of them are not religious today. If
> that is what you meant 
> you are very wrong. I do not know his entire family,
> but the Chasam sofer who 
> was Rav Akiva Eigers son in law has dozens of
> religious descendants. In fact 
> many prominent Rebbes and Rashei Yeshiva in the RW
> world are his descendants. 
> These include the Matesdofor Rav, Rav Paler, Rav
> Shustal and many many 
> others. 

I could be wrong. I have no direct evidence just
anecdotal.

Sorry.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

It is with a heavy heart that I descend into this quagmire further. To
paraphrase R' Blau's heartfelt post of earlier this evening, a list that had
so much potential for united exertions in Avodas Hashem, for common toil in
the understanding of kisvei ha'kodesh and Chazal, has lost its direction. I
find it nothing short of ironic that the first issue in some time that has
compelled me to seek primary sources is not a true Talmud Torah issue like
R' Shmuel Drebin's unanswered query into Beis vs. Bnei Yisroel, but this...

Someone asked me today off list why I go on with this. It is a good
question.

But here goes (a small cross-section, solely, for now, to back my preceding
contentions):

From: "Moses Mendelssohn: Selections from His Writings" edited and
translated by Eva Jospe (The Viking Press, 1975).

p. 111 (an excerpt from "Jerusalem"):

The Israelites have a divine legislation: laws, commandments, injunctions
and rules of conduct - instructions they received so they would know what
G-d wants them to do in order to attain temporal and eternal happiness. In a
miraculous and supranatural manner, Moses revealed to them these teachings
and precepts; but he never handed down to them dogmas, doctrines about man's
salvation, or general pricnciples of reason. the the eternal G-d reveals to
us, as to anybody else, at all times through nature or in any other manner
but never through the spoken or written word.

pp. 113-114 (part of "Bonner's Palingenesis"):

Does this mean that revelation is unnecessary? It does indeed - for those
people who have never experienced such an event. The Supreme Being would
most assuredly have revealed Himself to them had they been incapable of
realizing the purpose of their existence without such revelation. he granted
a revelation to the Israelites not because men, as men, could otherwise not
attain salvation, but because He deemed it wise to bestow on this particular
people some particular grace. All other nations on earth, Judaism teaches,
can and actually should live by their natural lights and thereby attain
salvation. It is this particular people alone to whom the Creator, for very
definite reasons, revealed some special laws by which they are meant to
live, be governed, and attain salvation.

Since then, to be sure, this people has no longer been permitted to seek
salvation by any other road other than the one delineated for them by G-d.
And since then, this people has had to suffer patiently and in submission to
the divine will whatever humiliation, oppresion, derision and persecution it
encounters along the road, from which it must not swerve a single step. This
burden, however, is not to be shouldered by anyone not born under Mosaic
law. Anyone not charged by G-d with these difficult duties should live in
accord with the law of nature, secure in the knowledge that man, as man, is
innately capable of comprehending and fulfilling the demands of virtue,
hence of attaining salvation.

While the Israelite does not claim to be the only creature G-d selected for
salvation, he feels he is the only one for whom there is no other way to
attain this state...

pp. 148-149 (To Abrham Wolf):

...Neither modern nor ancinet Judaism has any real symbols of faith. Very
few principles or doctrines have been laid down for us. Maimonides
enumerates thirteen; Albo, however, limits their number to merely three
without being considered a heretic by anyone.

What has been prescribed for us are laws, customs, rules of conduct and
ritual observances. We are free, however, with regard to doctrines Wherever
there is a diffrence of opinion among the rabbis, any Jew, be he uneducated
or learned, may agree with one another. For "these as well as these are the
words of the living G-d," as the rabbis wisely say in such instances...

Judaism means conformity with regard to ritual observance, and freedom where
religious doctrine is concerned, except for a few basic principles on which
all our teachers agreed, and without which the Jewish religion simply could
not go on existing.


Enough of this drivel.

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

> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:30:47 -0600
> From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: mechitzot
> 
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 06:12:42PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> : I heard there were 2 dinim in Mechitzo <brisker style>
> ...
> : 2) Issues of Erva
> 
> Didn't the Aruch haShulchan matir davening in front of women who weren't
> dressed halachically appropriately, but who weren't in violation of social
> norms? I know he matirs davening in front of a married woman who didn't cover
> her hair, I thought it was a general separation of the definition of ervah
> into "mutar" vs "assur but not distracting".

Rav Moshe brings such an Aruch HaShulchan with respect to 
Kriyas Shma and Divrei Torah in OH 1:43. He says it only with 
respect to uncovered hair ("d'rak b'saaros hamegulos shenispartzu 
rov hanashim b'avonoseynu harabim"). He proves this from the fact 
that unmarried women are not required to cover their hair. He 
concludes that for something to be erva there have to be two 
conditions - darchon lechasos and davar sheyesh lachoosh l'hirhur. 
He also says that this would not apply to women who are not 
dressed tzniustically. The tshuva was written Erev Rosh HaShanna 
5716 (1955).

-- Carl


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

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

--- Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> wrote:
> > This is not an MO issue. They are not the ones
> > changing the custom of their fathers.  It is the
> RW.
> 
> The MO movement is ONLY a few generations old. You
> can't bring MO as an
> example of keeping the customs of their fathers.

Mersorah is transfered through fathers not
grandfathers. besides the examples I gave were of
recent Litvishe RW gedolim, not MO.
> 
> Go back a few hundred years, and most if not all
> Orthodox Jews wore beards
There were no electric shavers trhen and the only way
to shave was through the use of dipilatories, Not very
efficient or pleasant.

> and peyos, so today's trend back to wearing peyos is
> *not* changing the
> custom of their fathes -- it's a *return* to the
> custom of their fathers,
> after a short period when those customs were not
> kept.

How do you know whether people had peyos a few hundred
years ago.  There are no photographs. The fact that
the peyos custom was not kept by Gedolei Hador such as
R. Gifter and the Rav must tell you that it is only a
hidur and not a mitzva. Otherwise they would have had
peyos. LO Sakifu Peyos Roshcha UPayos Zekancha does
not mean that there has to be peyos longer than the
rest of the hair on that area of your face.  It just
means that you shouldn't sahve off your hair in those
places. It may however blend in with the rest of your
hair and be the same length.
> 
> (Covering the hair is a similar case -- are you
> going to claim that, since
> the wives of gedolim didn't cover their hair in
> Europe, that the fact that
> women today *do* cover their hair is "falsher
> frumkite"?)

My original post on the subject stated very explicitly
that this was a positive developement.  Keeping
Doraisos is not "falsher frumkite". Hair covering is a
Doraisa.  Peyos IMHO is at best a Hidur.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

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


[ 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         ]