Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 359

Thursday, February 10 2000

• Re: Seride Esh, Meiri
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: Seridei Eish and other gedolim
• Posthumous letters
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: SE
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: SE and Other Gedolim
• Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom
• Re: SE and Other Gedolim
• Re: Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom
• Re: Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom
• Re: Re[2]: publishing letters - issur?
• Re: Posthumous letters
• The SE and TuM
• Re: The SE and TuM
• Re: SE and Other Gedolim

Who were they exactly to austritt from?

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:20 PM
Subject: Seride Esh, Meiri


> >Remember, in Germany, initially, it was the
> >"Frummies" who were against Austritts!
> 
> One should also note that Austritt was only implemented in Germany and
> Hungary.  To my knowledge there were no Litvish rabbanim who advocated
> Austritt and no communiteies that implemented it.  I believe the same is
> true about Poland.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 

On 10 Feb 00, at 17:25, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

> What is the rational basis for that presumption?  Especially in light of the
> fact that mail changes hands many times before it is ultimately delivered.

If I hear lashon hara and I believe it, I am mekabel it which is an 
issur. If I then pass it on to someone else, I am speaking lashon 
hara, which is an issur. If the person I told it to tells it to someone 
else, he also is speaking lashon hara, which is an issur. The 
number of hands it has been through is irrelevant if it is lashon 
hara. The fact that it has been "published" does not take off the 
issur of lashon hara. See Clal 2 in the Chafetz Chaim.

-- 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

On 10 Feb 00, at 17:43, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 2/10/00 4:30:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> > Halachic 
> >  logic creates a presumption that letters are confidential unless they 
> >  state otherwise. Secular logic presumes that letters are only 
> >  confidential if they state that they are confidential.
> 
> Please see wording in Leket Hakemach and Beir Hagolah Y"D end of 334. (there 
> is (in some cases) another issue of Bal Tagid).

If you're referring to Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, I am well aware 
of it. I think Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom would be overcome if 
both parties to the correspondence gave their reshus for it to be 
disclosed. The original poster posited that the sender gives up his 
"rights" to have his letter kept confidential by sending it to another 
person and giving up his "ownership" of the letter. I was trying to 
show him that this type of logic does not apply in this case. It 
seems to me that it's not just CDRG here. CDRG bars you from 
reading the letter. I think Hilchos Lashon Hara would bar you from 
disclosing it, even in the absence of CDRG.

-- 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

----- Original Message -----
From: <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:59 PM
Subject: Seridei Eish and other gedolim


> Stipulated, perhaps the letters should not have been published,
> perhaps not in that forum (although TuMJ has a mostly scholarly
> audience; one gets it because one subscribes to Tradition, which
> has a total circulation of less than 2000).  However, odds are,

Tradition has a circulation, I have been told, of 8000.

> Now that they have been, though, smearing those who published them
> accomplishes nothing.  As David Finch says, if you want something
> constructive to come out of this, write an essay about the SE that
> puts his relationship with R' Atlas into its proper context.  Then
> we can all appreciate RYW's gadlus more, rather than seeing how
> some of today's rabbonim view this aspect of the SE's personality
> as a liability, something to be covered up.  This only serves to
> diminish the SE's reputation - if the rabbis see this as a defect
> in RYW, I should see it as a defect as well.  I'm not sure that's
> what the critics want to do.
>

OK, which of you is commissioning the essay and how much are you paying? I'm
game.

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

RYGB raises two issues, which are of independent interest (outside of
the Seride Esh), as he raises two new issurim that I find difficult to
understand, and would appreciate sources.

He says that neither the wife of Rav Atlas, nor Rav Weingort had the
halachic authority to publicize the letters.  However, we have had
letters by many  gdolim published posthumously, without a specific
haskama by the gadol.  The iggerot of the hazon ish and of rav chaim
ozer come to mind.  While rav chaim may have wanted his hiddushim on the
rambam to be published, do we know whether he wanted his later hiddushim
on shas (and other recent material) to be?  Much of the zofnat pahneach
was from manuscripts where there was no clear approval of publication.
I  think that much of mishnat rav aharon appeared posthumously, as did
much of Rav Kook's writings, including his letters. The Vilna shas is
replete with hiddushim and hagahot which were gathered posthumously
(they had the shas of the gadol with the hagahot), with no mention that
there was any documentation that the gadol meant to publish these
hiddushim.  I understand that Rav Moshe's family has asked that anyone
with letters or tshuvot send it to them so they can decide on whether to
publish them.

So, in general, we do seem to rely on allowing the family and close
talmidim to decide what may be published.  I understand the argument
that such posthumous publications don't have the same force as those
directly approved by the gadol himself, but this seems to be the only
case where anyone has said that it is assur.  Why is this so different?
If a gadol dies without sons or brothers, are we forbidden to publish
any manuscripts or letters without an explicit approval?  The manuscript
of the Hazon Ish cited by Rav Bechhofer is clearly different, as the
manuscript itself said that it was not for publication.  Normally,
publishing a manuscript from "izvono" of a gadol is thought worthwhile.
Would anyone have said CDRG if more letters of the Seride Esh to Rav
Dessler were found and published?Does someone's objection to the content
now make this assur?

Secondly, if there has been approval to post the letters somewhere where
it is available to anyone who wants to, although it is assumed that few
would actually view it, how does CDRG apply?  Rav Bechhofer says that
allowing distribution to a few does not allow distribution to the many.
However, this is different than  showing it to a few friends, with a
request (either implicit or explicit) to keep it private. It is now in
the public domain, as anyone who wants to can look it up. What is the
halachic issur in making it easy for them, rather than requiring them to
go to JTS or get a copy of a thesis?

To take a more extreme example.  I write an angry letter to a local
newspaper, which is published and in the public record, but the
newspaper is poorly distributed and not widely available.  later, I
regret that letter.  (In the SE case, we have no evidence of harata or
emabarassment) What would be the halachic issur of someone publicizing
that letter in a more national forum?  Would CDRG apply, as anyone who
wants to can look up the letter?   Any sources for this issur?

Meir Shinnar

----- Original Message -----
From: Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
To: avodah list <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 3:29 PM
Subject: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence


> >I hope you have enough time to revise your essay and incorporate the
concept
> >of theft of intellectual property inherent in CDRG!
>
> On the contrary, in the numerous teshuvot on the subject, not one
> mentions this idea.  Which marks your interpretation as highly original
> and, for that reason, of dubious normative authority.
>

Oy! Please, please revise! In order to make life easier for you, the
reference is the Encyclopedia Talmudit vol 17 p 452. The Shut Chikekei Lev
notes that since Gezel Akum (the original topic of this thread, how
fortuitous) is assur, CDRG therefore applies to letters of non-Jes as well.
Those of us who are stringent in Gezel akum, therefore, should redouble our
efforts not to read or make use of letters without permission (I know that
does not quite follow, but it sounds good).

> >REC! Remember the Binyan Tziyon who forbids autopises because of gezel!
(The
> >Bigdei Shesh on BB discusses this a tad. I know the author and might
> >persuade him to give you a copy.) Hope you get a chance to put that in
your
> >revision as well - there is gezel post mortem.
>
> Actually, gezel post mortem is not relevant to the article.  Nor,
> notwithstanding the Binyan Tziyyon, is it relevant here.  For one thing,
> according to my vague recollection of the autopsy issue, most Aharonim
> do not present gezel as a basis for the issur.  For another thing, the
> overwhelming evidence goes the other way.  Third, even if one allows for
> some kind of posthumous gezel with respect to one's body, this does not
> prove that one has posthumous ownership over one's words, especially
> when Halakhah does not recognize such ownership when one is still alive!
>

Ahem, as a Yekke, I need to make a mecho'o on the Kavod HaTorah of one who
was called by the Brisker Rav the last German Gadol. What exactly was the
Binyan Tziyon? Chopped liver? Exactly how many Acharonim have spoken about
the definition of the issur of nituchei mesim that we can dismiss the Aruch
LaNer on this?

As to relevancy and proof, you got proof otherwise?

> >Likewise - Marbim b'Simcha!
>
> Ken yirbu!
>
> >What kind of "shocking" revelation is this? Is there something here that
I
> >am missing?
>
> Shocking, for some.  (Can you imagine these facts being included in an
> essay about the Seride Esh published in, say, the Jewish Observer?
> Yated?)  More importantly, it marks the Seridei Esh as different from
> the stereotypical gadol.
>

What or who is the stereotypical Gadol?

 Agreed, agreed.  All the more reason that the article was not dishing
> "dirt."
>

That was not the dirt in the essay. Perhaps I have misled you. The dirt was
negative comments about Gedolim and Frummer Yidden in general, the stuff he
would never, ever have wanted publicized. That he was friends with Atlas is
not dirt.

> >> All true.  But one will not find a similar heter in the Minhat Yitzhak.
>

He wasn't asked.

> >Is there nothing between Bnei Akiva and the Eida Charedis?
>
> I hope there is, because I need somplace between them.  But we both know
> that there is not a single teshuvah from a 20th century Gadol (let alone
> from earlier times) that mattirs kol ishah in a group setting.
>

Who else was asked?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 4:01 PM
Subject: Re: SE


> >>>Actually, what annoyed me the most, and, one of our fellow list members
can
> attest to me calling hin shortly after RJJS's defense was published and
> shouting at him over the phone vehemently over this, is davka that the TuM
> journal presented a shallow portarait of the SE. <<<
>
> Do you think the goal of the article (which collected a handful of
letters) was to present a complete portratit?
>

No. That was part of the avla.

> Do you think all reader's naively reach conclusions as to a complete
portrait based on a handful of facts?
>

Most of them, yes. Not all of them (not you, of course :-) ).

> Either you discredit the author or you discredit his readers.
>

Correct. One must be realistic.

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

R' Eli Clark wrote: <<< according to my vague recollection of the autopsy
issue, most Aharonim do not present gezel as a basis for the issur. >>>

According to my even more vague recollection of the autopsy issue, the
basis for the issur is nivul hames, which stems directly from kavod
hames. I repeat my question from yesterday: If we should not gawk and pry
into the niftar's body, is it not a kal vachomer that we should not gawk
and pry into his thoughts? (I use the word "should not" deliberately; not
knowing the technical halachic parameters, even if it is mutar, it is
still *wrong*.)


He continued: <<< Third, even if one allows for some kind of posthumous
gezel with respect to one's body, this does not prove that one has
posthumous ownership over one's words, especially when Halakhah does not
recognize such ownership when one is still alive! >>>

Huh? I thought --- based on Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom and the relevant
sections in Hilchos Lashon Hara --- that halacha DOES recognize such
ownership, at least when still alive!


Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
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.

n a message dated 2/10/00 6:18:44 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< OK, which of you is commissioning the essay and how much are you paying? 
I'm
 game. >>

I'll commission it. I won't pay anything, but RYGB should write it anyhow.

First, he's eminently qualified to do it. Second, he's a superb prose 
stylist. Third, his insights on the issues relevant to the SE would be 
wonderful to read. 

Finally, RYGB can use the essay to overcome his biggest problem. During the 
past couple of hundred years, the greatest of the great Gedolim have 
frequently been popularly renamed after the titles of the written works by 
which they first established or cemented their reputations, right? That means 
that unless RYGB comes up with something new -- like an important essay on 
the SE, for example -- RYGB will be known in the centuries to come as the 
"Contemporary Eruv." This appelation is neither fitting nor entirely 
flattering. If he chooses the title of his essay on the SE very carefully, 
RYGB can reserve for himself a much more appropriate name.

David Finch

On behalf of myself and any other less-learned people out there, I have a
request: Does anyone know offhand where Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom (Yay! I
figured out what CDRG stands for! I was going nuts thinking of names of
listmembers, and names of seforim!) can be found in Shulchan Aruch,
Rambam, and/or any other standard texts? With all the discussions that
are going on, I'd like to have a clearer handle on the parameters of this
halacha. Thanks.

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
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.

In a message dated 2/10/00 7:52:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, DFinchPC@aol.com 
writes:

>  That means 
>  that unless RYGB comes up with something new -- like an important essay on 
>  the SE, for example -- RYGB will be known in the centuries to come as the 
>  "Contemporary Eruv." This appelation is neither fitting nor entirely 
>  flattering. If he chooses the title of his essay on the SE very carefully, 
>  RYGB can reserve for himself a much more appropriate name.

I believe in a previous post he alluded to the Bigdei Sheish on BB.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Be'er Ha'Golah YD end of siman 374.

YGB

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:49 PM
Subject: Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom


> On behalf of myself and any other less-learned people out there, I have a
> request: Does anyone know offhand where Cherem D'Rabenu Gershom (Yay! I
> figured out what CDRG stands for! I was going nuts thinking of names of
> listmembers, and names of seforim!) can be found in Shulchan Aruch,
> Rambam, and/or any other standard texts? With all the discussions that
> are going on, I'd like to have a clearer handle on the parameters of this
> halacha. Thanks.
> 
> Akiva Miller
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> 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.
> 

In a message dated 2/10/00 9:19:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

> Be'er Ha'Golah YD end of siman 374.

Should read Siman 334

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I'm not sure.

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: Thursday, February 10, 2000 3:22 PM
Subject: Re[2]: publishing letters - issur?


> My question to RYGBis:
> Would it be ok to say that acocrding to some privatged letters I read
so-and-so
> held XYZ?  IOW to paraphrase w/o quoting? Or is this still ossur?

----- Original Message -----
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 6:19 PM
Subject: Posthumous letters


> RYGB raises two issues, which are of independent interest (outside of
> the Seride Esh), as he raises two new issurim that I find difficult to
> understand, and would appreciate sources.
>
> He says that neither the wife of Rav Atlas, nor Rav Weingort had the
> halachic authority to publicize the letters.  However, we have had
> letters by many  gdolim published posthumously, without a specific
> haskama by the gadol.  The iggerot of the hazon ish and of rav chaim
> ozer come to mind.  While rav chaim may have wanted his hiddushim on the
> rambam to be published, do we know whether he wanted his later hiddushim
> on shas (and other recent material) to be?  Much of the zofnat pahneach
> was from manuscripts where there was no clear approval of publication.
> I  think that much of mishnat rav aharon appeared posthumously, as did
> much of Rav Kook's writings, including his letters. The Vilna shas is
> replete with hiddushim and hagahot which were gathered posthumously
> (they had the shas of the gadol with the hagahot), with no mention that
> there was any documentation that the gadol meant to publish these
> hiddushim.  I understand that Rav Moshe's family has asked that anyone
> with letters or tshuvot send it to them so they can decide on whether to
> publish them.
>

I am not aware of the logic behind publication of Igros CI or RCOG.
Certainly open letters can be published, and letters which the author
expressly granted permission to publish fall into that category as well.
Perhaps, in these cases, the CI or RCOG expressed, in their lifetimes, some
hope that letters be collected an published, and this was then pursued.
Letters, however, of the type we are discussing, simply do not appear in
those works. Which makes your next paragraph moot. Letters that put people
down, by name, or by clearcut affiliation, are not the tpye found in common
Igros collections. The letters found in them are usually general hadrocho
and Chiddushei Torah. V'yesh l'chalek tuva.

As to Chiddushei Torah mamash, I believe the clear anan sahadei and umdena
d'muchach of doros al gabei doros is that unless you specify otherwise, it
is seen as a zechus for your neshomo and a definite retzono shel odom that
his Torah will be disseminated in Am Yisroel. One might even extend that
sevoro, perhaps, to certain letters. Not these.

Bear in mind, it is not the recipient of the letters that is the issue here,
but the bitter critiques that they contain. Were the SE to have written
scathing letters to R' Dessler, he surely would not have wanted them
published either!

> So, in general, we do seem to rely on allowing the family and close
> talmidim to decide what may be published.  I understand the argument
> that such posthumous publications don't have the same force as those
> directly approved by the gadol himself, but this seems to be the only
> case where anyone has said that it is assur.  Why is this so different?
> If a gadol dies without sons or brothers, are we forbidden to publish
> any manuscripts or letters without an explicit approval?  The manuscript
> of the Hazon Ish cited by Rav Bechhofer is clearly different, as the
> manuscript itself said that it was not for publication.  Normally,
> publishing a manuscript from "izvono" of a gadol is thought worthwhile.
> Would anyone have said CDRG if more letters of the Seride Esh to Rav
> Dessler were found and published?Does someone's objection to the content
> now make this assur?
>
> Secondly, if there has been approval to post the letters somewhere where
> it is available to anyone who wants to, although it is assumed that few
> would actually view it, how does CDRG apply?  Rav Bechhofer says that
> allowing distribution to a few does not allow distribution to the many.
> However, this is different than  showing it to a few friends, with a
> request (either implicit or explicit) to keep it private. It is now in
> the public domain, as anyone who wants to can look it up. What is the
> halachic issur in making it easy for them, rather than requiring them to
> go to JTS or get a copy of a thesis?
>

I do not see how CDRG falls off. In JTS they wer munach b'kufsa. No one
should have gone to read them. Even an opened letter is still subject to
CDRG (ET vol 17 p 453). Publication thereof constitutes a transgression of
CDRG. Being megaleh sod further, to audiences as yet unaware of the letters
contents, is a continuing hezek, similar to ongoing hezek re'iah (ET ibid. p
452).

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

I checked "L'Prakim" for any essays on Wissenschaft. Although I still fail
to see what Wissenschaft has to do with TuM, while leafing through the
interesting work, I found that in th last essay, a highly ambivalent
"hesped" on RYY Reines, the SE comes out explicitly and strenuously against
"Mizug [Synthesis] Torah v'Haskala Kelalis" as practiced in RYY Reines'
prototypical TuM yeshiva (called "Torah Vo'Da'as" for that reason - the TvD
in Brooklyn was founded by a talmid of RYY Reines, R' Zev Gold, who named it
after his Rebbe's yeshiva) in Lida. So much for placing the SE in the TuM
camp.

RRW, does Marc Shapiro note this opposition in his new biography?

Oh, forgot to mention: I could not find any essay on Wissenschaft there.
REC, is it in an essay under another title?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2000 11:37 PM
Subject: The SE and TuM


> I checked "L'Prakim" for any essays on Wissenschaft. Although I still fail
> to see what Wissenschaft has to do with TuM, while leafing through the
> interesting work, I found that in th last essay, a highly ambivalent
> "hesped" on RYY Reines, the SE comes out explicitly and strenuously
against
> "Mizug [Synthesis] Torah v'Haskala Kelalis" as practiced in RYY Reines'
> prototypical TuM yeshiva (called "Torah Vo'Da'as" for that reason - the
TvD
> in Brooklyn was founded by a talmid of RYY Reines, R' Zev Gold, who named
it
> after his Rebbe's yeshiva) in Lida. So much for placing the SE in the TuM
> camp.
>
> RRW, does Marc Shapiro note this opposition in his new biography?
>
>

On 10 Feb 00, at 19:52, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> n a message dated 2/10/00 6:18:44 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
> << OK, which of you is commissioning the essay and how much are you paying? 
> I'm
>  game. >>
> 
> I'll commission it. I won't pay anything, but RYGB should write it anyhow.
> 
> First, he's eminently qualified to do it. Second, he's a superb prose 
> stylist. Third, his insights on the issues relevant to the SE would be 
> wonderful to read. 

It's against Netiquette, but I'll agree. In fact, I thought of suggesting 
the same thing in a private email. I'm sure JO would publish it.

> Finally, RYGB can use the essay to overcome his biggest problem. During the 
> past couple of hundred years, the greatest of the great Gedolim have 
> frequently been popularly renamed after the titles of the written works by 
> which they first established or cemented their reputations, right? That means 
> that unless RYGB comes up with something new -- like an important essay on 
> the SE, for example -- RYGB will be known in the centuries to come as the 
> "Contemporary Eruv." This appelation is neither fitting nor entirely 
> flattering. If he chooses the title of his essay on the SE very carefully, 
> RYGB can reserve for himself a much more appropriate name.

He's got a point. The Contemporary Eruv is a choshuver sefer but 
the title isn't exactly the Chofetz Chaim, the Chazon Ish or the 
Sridei Eish.... :-) 

-- 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

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


[ 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         ]