Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 351

Wednesday, February 9 2000

• Re: Gezel Akum
• Re[2]: Beano
• Beano; was smoking ban
• Re: Piyutim/yotzros, was: Ga'al Yisrael
• Re: Beano
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
• Off topic: Jewish Men Needed for DNA Study
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
• FW: Beano
• Paskening (again) - was: Smoking ban
• Re[2]: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
• Re: Re[2]: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
• Re: Paskening (again) - was: Smoking ban
• Fw: Tekhelet Update
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• Re: yo'tzros (was "Re: Gaw'al Yisrael")
• Re: Ain Dorshin
• Re: Science and halachah

First, my apologies for quoting the SE's letters.  Not that I do not believe 
that they are relevant or that they are available for use and quotation.  I 
am sorry, however, that they have directed the attention of list members away 
from the important topic of gezel Akum.  

Second, on a personal level, I do identify with the SE's concerns.  Is this a 
personal agenda?  I think that we all have, to one degree or another, 
personal biases.  Homoletically:  "ein la-dayan ella mah she-einav ro-os."  
And, yes, the issue of hillul Hashem is part of my personal bias, as, I 
believe, it should be for all of us.  And, yes, if within my loyalty to 
Halacha (which, for all of us, must always be paramount), and if, within my 
understanding and analysis of the sources, I can, without misreading those 
mekoros, accomodate all of these concerns -- even by relying on a Meiri that 
was unknown in previous generations  (my post was not concerned with what was 
held to be normative before, but, rather, what is normative in our day) then 
that is, I believe, my obligation. 

As for R. Gil Student's question of the use of the Noda BeYehuda's 
introduction:   I understand the skeptical nature of these type of 
disclaimers.  Nevertheless:  1) In an article in Ten Daat, Sivan 5748, p. 12, 
R. Gedaliah Schwartz quoted the disclaimer of the Arukh haShulhan (HM 388:7) 
as halachah le'maaseh.  2)  If what you say is true about the Noda beYehuda, 
me thinks he dost protest too much.

Mark Dratch

WADR,I think one chiluk can be made...

Certainly wrt to the kashrus of medications or other pills, I see no reason to 
be machmir if there is no nosein taam (EG capsules)

However, in the case of Pesach, there seems to be a "meta-halacha" of being 
machmir.  Even someone like myself who shies away from chumros in general, I 
would say that Pesach is a special case - sui generis.

There are probably a ton of "reasons" for this chiluk, eg:
1) issur hano'oh vs. issur achilo
2) koreis
3) dovor sheyish lo matirim
4) It's OK all year long as opposed to say bosor v;cholov which is NEVER mutar.

Frankly, I just see it as one of those hanhogos that grew over time, that 
created kitniyos and "matzo shruyo" etc.

FWIF, ny 9th grade day school rebbe quoted RYBS re: regular toothpaste being ok 
for Pesach. I mentioned this to My LOR  and he responded: "it doesn't take a 
RYBS to be matir it" ... nevertheless the minhag to buy kosher toothpaste on 
Pesach isn't only about Kashrus, rather it's  also about supporting Jewish 
enterprises that rely upon Pesach for parnosso, etc.

Something to think about on this machshovo list.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com



______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Beano 



Aryeh Stein forwarded from the OU Kashruth Department [mailto:kosherq@ou.org]: 
: Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
: located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher

Is Beano ra'uy la'achilah? Why does it need a hechsher to begin with?

For that matter, I don't understand R' Blumenkrantz's list of medications, 
since unflavored pills (non-vitamins) are clearly not ra'uy la'achilas kelev. 
R' Frand mentioned this on one of his tapes, but he dodged a question from the 
audience about lists that include them (presumably R' Blumenkrantz, since it's 
the best known here in the US).

-mi

-

To those who were interested in this sub-thread (of smoking ban), 
compliments of the OU:

February 3, 2000

Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher

Gershon

Carl M. Sherer wrote:


> > Carl Sherer Dubin wrote:
> 
> Who's he? :-) 


Whoops. New mail client. Pardon me.


> "Yeshivish" davening (and since I wrote the post, I get to define it!) 
> includes a long time for the silent Shmoneh Esrei (I know of 
> Yeshivas where they get as much as 45 minutes for Rosh 
> HaShanna Musaf), and relatively few yotzros and piyutim. 


45 minutes would be nice, but is it worth the trade-off of dropping other
parts of the mahazor?



> Minhagim with respect to singing vary - and in my experience 
> generally depend on the baal tfilla and not on the kahal.
>


Also interesting. Most sefaradi kehillot in the States pay to import
hazzanim from Israel for RH and YK. They won't have a ba'al tefilla who
doesn't suit them.


> You won't find it in the Machzor. In Yeshivish davening, much of the 
> Machzor is skipped.


Again, I wonder if the trade-off is worth it. 


> IIRC most Sphardim following Minhag Yerushalayim (at least in my 
> neighborhood) daven k'vasikin. Correct?


Correct. 


> On Rosh HaShanna we start about 4:30 A.M. (depends on 
> *hanetz* and finish around 10:30 A.M. (five minute break for the 
> baal Musaf to go to mikva before tkiyas shofar - most people do not 
> make Kiddush then).
> 
> On Yom Kippur we start around 4:45 A.M., finish Musaf around 
> 12:00 and come back for Mincha around 2:30 P.M. (depends on 
> length of day).
> 


On RH, we (my kehilla here, not necessarily MY) start 7.00am and finish
Musaf with enough time to make it home for hazot. YK, we start the same
time, and finish Musaf around 3.00 or so, and start Minha an hour later.

It sounds like we take about the same amount of time, so there are
obviously major differences. I think the only way I'm gonna find out is
to pick up an Ashkenazi mahazor.


---sam

In a message dated 2/9/00 1:15:28 PM US Central Standard Time, aes@ll-f.com 
writes:

<< Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
 located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher >>

What does "effective February 28, 2000" mean? Does it mean that Bean-O is 
kosher until the end of the month? That if one (meaning myself) were to stock 
up on pre-February 28th Bean-O, the supply could be used indefinitely? Or 
does is mean that any Bean-O of any date of manufacture will cease to be 
kosher on February 28? Even if pre-February 28th Bean-O would remain kosher, 
wouldn't it be assur to take advantage of this loophole now that we are all 
on notice? How could Bean-O be kosher now and not kosher next month? What 
rabbi came up with this? *Why* has Bean-O's kosher certification been 
withdrawn? 

Despite our collective pretentions of intellectualism, we must admit that 
there is nothing as weighty as Jewish food. Or as close to the heart. The 
Bean-O questions must be answered, lest we all fall victim to bloated senses 
of self.

David Finch

From what I can tell so far from Marc Shapiro's bio of the Sridei Eish, the SE 
seems to me to be very much a proto-TuM for the most part, exempting the fact he
was no Zionist.

In fact, the Revel/Belkin/Lamm hashkofos in general seem to correspond well with
the Hildeshimer/Hoffman/Weinberg hashkofos.

OTOH My feeling is that neither R. Av. El. Kaplan nor RYBS were  "quite" fully 
into the same TuM paradigm, and they conducted themselves more as classic Roshie
Yeshiva who happened to possess secular knowledge.

I BEH will expand on this post later on.





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historica
<snip>
Thus, the gain here is actually quite great: Another Gadol has been co-opted 
by and firmly palced within the TuM camp (at least vis-a-vis the essential 
humanistic component thereof).

<snip>
>

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

> Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:09:01 -0500
> From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> Subject: (Fwd) Off topic: Jewish Men Needed for DNA Study

<<That doesn't sound particularly scientific.  What if white supremacists
decided  to ruin the study by sending in their samples?  Shouldn't there
be some sort of random sampling of some kind?>>

	No white supremacists (AFAIK) on this list.

Gershon

I do not know how you can put them all in the same breath!

It is tantamount to saying "the Lubavitcher/Satmer/Breslover hashkafos"!

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:46 PM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor


> In fact, the Revel/Belkin/Lamm hashkofos 

I vaguely remember that R' Frand tape.  IIRC, I don't think R' Frand dodged
the question; I think he answered something to the effect of:

One of the hallmarks of the Jewish people have been their strict adherence
to the laws of Pesach.  Just like we often go "overboard" in cleaning for
Pesach (e.g., searching through seforim), lists such as those of R'
Blumenkrantz and R' Bess allow yidden who, if given the choice, would rather
not ingest medicine that contains any non-kosher ingredients (even if the
medicine is kosher l'chatchila).

KT
Aryeh

===========================================

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2000 13:22:46 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Beano

Aryeh Stein forwarded from the OU Kashruth Department
[mailto:kosherq@ou.org]:
: Effective February 28, 2000 - Beano manufactured by Block Drug Company
: located in Jersey City, N.J. will no longer be certified as Kosher

Is Beano ra'uy la'achilah? Why does it need a hechsher to begin with?

For that matter, I don't understand R' Blumenkrantz's list of medications,
since unflavored pills (non-vitamins) are clearly not ra'uy la'achilas
kelev.
R' Frand mentioned this on one of his tapes, but he dodged a question from
the audience about lists that include them (presumably R' Blumenkrantz,
since
it's the best known here in the US).

- -mi

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< A LOR/Poseik can prohibit smoking either cigaretes
or marijuana >>>

I disagree.

Only a Sanhedrin can create new prohibitions.

A Musmach With Real Semicha (which we don't have nowadays) can give a person
a binding psak on whether or not a certain act is assur/mutar/chiyuv, as
regards an already-existing mitzvah or issur.

A Posek, a.k.a. Rabbi, a.k.a. Talmid Chacham, can give a binding p'sak
regarding whether a *cheftza* is assur/mutar. He can also give a non-binding
*opinion* regarding whether an *act* is assur/mutar/chiyuv, and an
intelligent person will act accordingly, but that does not make the act
inherently assur or mutar.

A community can enact takanos and put violators in forms of cherem, but I
don't think that's what we are referring to here.

This has been discussed many times before. For more information, see YD 242,
or search the archives for "psak", "p'sak", and "pasken".

Akiva Miller

ok how about Washington/Adams/Jefferson? <smile>

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/9/2000 2:54 PM


I do not know how you can put them all in the same breath!

It is tantamount to saying "the Lubavitcher/Satmer/Breslover hashkafos"!

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:46 PM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor


> In fact, the Revel/Belkin/Lamm hashkofos 

Don't know enough about them!
----- Original Message -----
From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: Re[2]: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor


> ok how about Washington/Adams/Jefferson? <smile>
>
> Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
> Subject: Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
> Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
> Date:    2/9/2000 2:54 PM
>
>
> I do not know how you can put them all in the same breath!
>
> It is tantamount to saying "the Lubavitcher/Satmer/Breslover hashkafos"!
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:46 PM
> Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Histor
>
>
> > In fact, the Revel/Belkin/Lamm hashkofos
>
>
>
>

Are you categorically syaing that an LOR cannot say, for you smoking is oveir 
v'nishmartem?


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Paskening (again) - was: Smoking ban 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/9/2000 3:00 PM


R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< A LOR/Poseik can prohibit smoking either cigaretes 
or marijuana >>>

I disagree.

Only a Sanhedrin can create new prohibitions.

A Musmach With Real Semicha (which we don't have nowadays) can give a person 
a binding psak on whether or not a certain act is assur/mutar/chiyuv, as 
regards an already-existing mitzvah or issur.

A Posek, a.k.a. Rabbi, a.k.a. Talmid Chacham, can give a binding p'sak 
regarding whether a *cheftza* is assur/mutar. He can also give a non-binding 
*opinion* regarding whether an *act* is assur/mutar/chiyuv, and an 
intelligent person will act accordingly, but that does not make the act 
inherently assur or mutar.

A community can enact takanos and put violators in forms of cherem, but I 
don't think that's what we are referring to here.

This has been discussed many times before. For more information, see YD 242, 
or search the archives for "psak", "p'sak", and "pasken".

Akiva Miller

----- Original Message -----
From: <info@tekhelet.co.il>
To: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 2:08 PM
Subject: Tekhelet Update


> Dear Friend,
>
> Join us in celebrating Parshat Trumah, the Torah portion in which Tekhelet
is first mentioned!
>
> Continuing in Am Yisrael's tradition of Trumah (giving), P'til Tekhelet
would like to give thanks to our growing circle of friends. Thanks to your
support and encouragement, P'til Tekhelet has increased the range and scope
of our educational programming and distribution of Tekhelet.
>
> This past year, we hosted close to 2,000 visitors at our facility in Kfar
Adumim, and over 1,000 participants at our marine tour in Dor. An increased
number of schools and shuls, both in Israel and abroad have sponsored P'til
Tekhelet lectures and workshops. The number of people around the world
wearing Tekhelet is rapidly increasing.
>
> In recognition of your role in spreading this mitzvah, P'til Tekhelet is
pleased to donate a woolen Tallit (with Tekhelet, of course) to be raffled
among our Internet friends. As an emissary of the mitzvah of Tekhelet,
please continue to spread the word by forwarding this message to a friend.
>
> To be eligible, please reply to this message with your name, postal
address, and telephone number. (One submission per e-mail address, please.)
>
> You are invited to visit our website (http://www.tekhelet.co.il) for
further information.
>
> Tizku L'mitzvot,
>
> P'til Tekhelet
>
>

Then perhaps his legal heirs gave permission?



----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> He didn't. He's dead.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 11:21 AM
> Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?
>
>
> >
> > IIRC letters are the property of the recipient.  Thus if in this case,
> Prof.
> > Atlas provided the letters for publication. . .
>
>
>

In Avodah 4#343, AEStein wrote:
> On a related note:
R' Henkin also states that the Shatz (and, for that matter, everyone else;
it's just that the problem usually crops up on Shabbos with the Shatz)
should be careful about his pronounciation of words with respect to
phrasing.  For example (in nusach ashkanez), when concluding the paragraph
of "Es shem hakail....", the shatz often groups the last three words
together ("onim v'omrim b'yira"), when, in fact, "onim" belongs to the
previous word "k'echad". <
I haven't seen the source for this example, but I would hazard that Rav
Henkin was not trying to group "onim" with the previous word "k'echad" *to
the exclusion* of grouping "onim" with the subsequent phrase "v'omrim
b'yir'ah" -- could you check and clarify?  Thanks.

As a side point, I think it's noteworthy that there are different nuscha'os
re the words before "kulam k'echad" (e.g. (a) should there be a dagesh in
"b'rurah"? (b) is it "k'dushah" or "k'doshah"?) and after "kulam k'echad"
(e.g. "onim b'aimah v'omrim b'yir'ah" or "onim b'yir'ah v'omrim"), but not
with "kulam k'echad."  That may provide a rationale for a SHaTZ grouping
those two words and then grouping the remaining words (i.e. "onim etc.")
before "Kodosh..." (or it may just be a matter of bad habit/breath
control/ignorance :-).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

In Avodah 4#348, CSherer replied:
>> EG, how many Litvisher Minyanim STILL say piyyutim on the 4
Parshiyos?  On Yom Tov? <<
> Rav Savitsky used to say most of the piyutim in chazoras hahsatz
on Yom Tov and the yotzros on Shabbos Shkalim and HaChodesh
(Musaf only - there are no yotzros in Musaf on Zachor and Para). <
"Yo'tzros" are piyyutim said specifically in the midst of birchas "Yotzair
Or"; I believe Richard meant "piyyutim" (i.e. not just the additions during
chazoras haSHaTZ -- e.g. [I think, but am not sure] "k'rovos" -- but also
those before the Amidah -- e.g. "yo'tzros" and "ofanim" ) when he said
"piyyutim," :-) and there's no time like the present to repeat my pet
theory that most people label all these piyyutim as "yo'tzros" because
they're not familiar with the "real" Minhag Ash'k'naz that Richard referred
to.

> To the extent that you are talking about yoztros and the like, some of
the undoing is simply a question of time. In "Yeshivish" davening on Rosh
HaShanna and Yom Kippur, unless you daven netz, it is almost impossible to
say all the yotzros (let alone slichos) and give the amount of time they
give for the shtiller Shmoneh Esrei and still get through davening. I think
that's where doing away with yotzros came from (although I have no source
to prove it). <
In "Breuer's" (to bring us back to RW's point), the davening on RH and YhK
does start around sunrise{*} (the starting time, IIRC, is fixed whether
Tishrai falls out earlier or later in the Gregorian-calendar year, but it's
probably approx. 30 minutes before sunrise on RH and a bit after sunrise on
YhK) and provides a fairly long period of time for the Amidah (as mentioned
before in the "k'dushah" thread, the k'hal waits for Rav Gelley sh'l'y't'a'
to complete his Amidah) -- somehow, they "get through" just fine, thank you
:-).  My $0.02 is that piyyutim were dispensed with for less noble (as in a
lack of sitzfleish) and/or more noble (as in avoiding hafsakos) motives.
(P.S. - After writing this, I see that I'm repeating, to some degree, what
RW posted in a message that resides in 4#349.  I kept it in this reply only
because it's not a repetition to the Nth degree :-).)

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
------
{*} respecting GDubin's wishes, I will not call it "naitz" (or "adler" :-)

In a message dated 2/9/00 5:00:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
David.Kaye@ramstein.af.mil writes:

<< Let me summarize the stand of Judaism on this issue, although it should
 be superfluous to state that Judaism regards homosexual conduct as a serious
 transgression >>

I read your post and enjoyed yor erudition. 
However, I have a few points to make.
First of all, it takes a certain amount of Chutzpah for anyone on this list 
to presume to summarize the stand of Judaism, on this or any point. Not that 
you are not capable, but the forum is so restrictive as to make it nearly 
impossible.
Second, as I think I have already made clear, Homosexuality per se is not the 
main point for me in my posts. I am quite concerned with the way in which the 
Orthodox community in general has failed to deal with a real social issue, 
due to its insistence to operate only in the realm of Halacha, and not public 
policy. 
Third, the derivation that prompted the original post was deceptively simple, 
and leads to the conclusion that Mesorah seems to be at odds with "Pashut 
Pshat." We can either throw out Mesorah, which is obviously unacceptable, or 
we can take this opportunity to learn more about the efficacy of the kinds of 
resources and methods used by the original poster. It also raises the issue 
of identifying the Pashut Pshat in cases where it may not be so easy to 
understand.
I don't think these are problematic issues.

Jordan   

On Wed, 9 Feb 2000 at 09:29:55 (Avodah V4 #349), R. Micha Berger
<micha@aishdas.org>
wrote:

<<I have a language quibble: David's terminology, and I assume this was
not his intent, implies an evolution of a halchah that chazal call
"liMosheh miSinai". Rather, the concept of t'reifah by animals was
defined as a set of medical conditions from day one (actually, from "yom
hashishi", as per Rashi on Ber 2, or even before day one if you speak of
"histakeil bi'oraisa uborei alma"). T'reifa WRT humans is a homonym,
having to do with fatal medical conditions.>>

I think the definition of human treifa as homonymous with animal treifa
is very nicely put, and I appreciate the he'ara.  

In my post I was just trying to reflect the language in the Yad where
the Rambam states that Moshe Rabbenu received 8 categories (minei) of
treifos m'sinai [M"T Shechita 5:1], but the 70(+2) he describes as
"...eilu she'manu chachmei doros he'rishonim v'hiskimu aleihen batei
dinei yisrael...." [Sham 10:12].  Is there  a significant distinction
here? 

We all know that halacha l'mosheh m'sinai lo nafla bo machlokes, but,
in fact, what exactly this means is not 100% clear.  There are plenty of
hlmm"s for which we do find machloksim.  There is debate amongst the
rishonim whether or not there is a halacha of tzroros (which is a
hlmm"s) of shen or only of regel.  There is another example (which
eludes me at the moment) in the halachos of shiurim (hlmm"s) for tumah
and taharah.  So perhaps lo naflah bo machlokes means something like
"nobody argues that such a category exists, but what is included in the
category can be debated."

I don't know enough about hilchos shechita, but is anyone cholek on the
Rambam on these 70 treifos [c'mon, somebody must disagree!]?  This
doesn't imply evolution of halacha to me, simply that machloksim could
arise here (by whatever route as the Rambam discusses in the hakdama to
the Perush Ha'mishnayos) as they have in many other places.  So,
although ultimately we consider all 70 to be hlmm"s, the Rambam can
still say that these are the 70 "she'manu chachmei doros
ha'rishonim...."

I'm sorry if my language was imprecise or unclear.

Sincerely, 
David Eisenman

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


[ 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         ]