Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 366

Monday, February 14 2000

• What moral qualms?
• Re: r'tzai
• Re: What moral qualms?
• archangels?
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• the SE and TuM
• SE -- on his burial
• Torah Journals (was: Rav Yechiel Ya'akov Weinberg zt"l)
• Forthcoming Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest Regional Conference in Chicago
• What moral qualms?
• diyukim
• Re: Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Re: diyukim
• Re: diyukim
• Re: What moral qualms?
• Re: diyukim
• Re: diyukim

Bapashtus the SE as did others struggled with a tension between society and 
Torah/Halachah.

That does not mean to imply that societal concerns for "political correctness" 
over-ride Torah

Rather

It does imply that Torah sensibilities and sensitiveis may need to be adjusted 
in mters of Derech Eretz.

Or iow just because sometimes poskim were harsh in giving a certain psak doesn;t
mean we need to be equally harsh.  It also does not mean that we must change the
bottom line

EG I cite the hesped of R. Julius Berman for RYBS given at the Homowack circa 
the Shloshim for the Rav
----------------------------------------------------------------------
One night RYBS was pacing back-and-forth all night.  One talmid said what was 
the problem?

The Rav had just heard that a Kohen was dating a Giyores and now he had to 
pasken that this shidduch was ossur.

Fregt the Talmid, what's the shei'lo?  The halacha is poshut (iow that this is 
ossur)?

Emphered RYBS, yes but how do I tell the couple? How do I go about breaking 
their hearts?
---------------------------------------------------------------

Probably in another society and another time in which all kohanim "knew better" 
than to date a giyores, then he might have been more matter-of-fact, he might 
have given a harsh or a sharp rejoinder such as "how can you a holy coeh neven 
THINK of dating a giyores...".

BUT

Given the reality that this was {probably} done in innocent ignorance, it was 
not so easy just to fire off the letter of the law w/o regard to the feelings 
of the young mand and young woman involved. This sesnsitviy - lich'orah - is a 
function of that tension between contepmorary society and the innate core 
Torah.


Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


We start with the perspective of our times (even if we rebel against it). 
Part of R. Weinberg's point is precisely that the Torah is always, to some 
degree, out of joint with human judgment, whoever refined (if you want a 
synonym for the word enlightened).

> Obviously, throughout the course of history there are those who 
> would not consider the Torah to be "enlightened." Wouldn't it be fair 
> to say that the Torah stands independently of what we (or our 
> predecessors) consider to be "enlightened?" That it is our duty to 
> carry out the Torah's commands regardless of what society at large 
> thinks of them? That's how I understand what you cite in the SE's 

Absolutely yes!

In Avodah 4#365, AZZivotofsky wrote:
> Misconception: In the bracha of Retzai the pause is before, not
after, the phrase V'eishay Yisrael.

Fact: Although there is logic to pausing before, the usually
accepted opinion is to pause after. <
Thanks for your post.  Having said all that, (a) why do you give more
weight
to the latter sources over the former ones in coding your "Misconception"
and "Fact" summaries (or, to put it another way, if the "pause after
'Yisroel'"
opinion is such "a very strong alternative," is the "pause before
'v'eeshai'" opinion chopped liver)? and (b) re one specific point, is there
any
disagreement re the relatively strong stop inherent in the segol of
"baisecha" --
if not, do these latter sources comment on it?  Thanks.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

On 14 Feb 00, at 13:18, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> So how can even the most refined among us consider as "enlightened" anything 
> that isn't imbued with the spirit of Torah? 

I think the point is that the non-Jews do not yet recognize that the 
Torah is enlightenment. "V'Haya Hashem l'melech al kol ha'aretz, 
bayom hahu yiyhe Hashem echad u'shmo echad" hasn't happened 
yet, not because Hashem chas v'shalom isn't the Melech, but 
because the goyim haven't recognized it. So while we recognize 
that Torah is enlightenment, the "enlightened" goyim don't 
necessarily recognize it yet.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

I was asked recently if there is any Mekor for the Christian concept of the 
7 archangels? Anyone know of any?

Moshe
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

RYGB writes:

>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.

Thanks for the reference, but it really is not relevant to the article.
And, for the record, I do not understand the reasoning of the Hikekei
Lev.  The herem was a takkanah.  How can one expand the scope of a
takkanah based on sevara?

>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?

The Binyan Tziyyon was not chopped liver.  But the general consensus on
autopsies follows the Noda Bi-Yehudah, an ashlei ravrevei if ever there
was one.  R. Ettlinger held that an autopsy is always asur -- even if it
can save a life that is lefanenu -- unless the person gave his reshut
beforehand, in which case the autopsy is muttar completely.  Correct me,
please, but I do not know anyone who follows this today.

>What or who is the stereotypical Gadol?

See R. Aharon Feldman's discussion of Gedolim books in Jewish Observer
(Nov. 1994).

>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.

The assumption here is that gedolim would not make public negative
statements about "Gedolim and Frummer Yidden."  With respect to the
former, there are many  counterexamples, from namecalling at the time of
the Rishonim, to the debate between R. Yaakov Emden and R. Yonatan
Eyebeschuetz to snide comments about R. Hirsch to some of R. Shach's
public pronouncements.  With regard to the latter, many Gedolim have
engaged in constructive criticism of the frum community.  In the modern
period, Maharal and R. Yisrael Salanter leap most readily to mind.  But
there are certainly more.


>> All true.  But one will not find a similar heter in the Minhat Yitzhak.
>He wasn't asked.

Yes, that certainly explains the absence of such a heter there.  :)

>>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?

Look in the Seridei Esh III, which brings an opposing teshuvah of R. A
Horowitz, the rabbi of Strasbourg at the time.  And see the Tzitiz
Eliezer's teshuvah on the subject (vol. 14) and  Mishneh Halakhot, Mah.
Tin. OH no. 54, EH no. 26.

Akiva Miller asks:
>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 don't agree with the analogy.  Le-Halakhah one is prohibited from
being neheneh from a met; this does not apply to his ideas.

R. Melech Press notes:

>One is hard pressed to believe that Dr. Shapiro's picture is or was
>intended to be a "complete portrait."  He writes in his book "It is true
>that I have not had access to some important collections of letters
>written to leaders of the yeshiva world, which might have led me to
>re-evaluate some of my conclusions, but on the whole I believe that the
>picture presented here will not be substantially altered by any future
>revelations."  This appears to imply substantial intellectual
>dishonesty - how can one entertain "beliefs" about what important
>evidence might contain and how much it might or might not alter one's
>conclusions?  This is an especially important issue in view of the
>letters referred to being likely to contain material contradicting Dr.
>Shapiro's primary theses as to the SE's essential identifications.

I confess I do not understand this stricture.  On the one hand, we have
RYGB's clear position that one is not permitted to read any of these
letters; on the other hand, we have RMP triumphantly noting that
Professor Shapiro's years of study of the Seridei Esh, poring over his
writings in Hebrew, Yiddish, and German, interviewing his talmidim and
so on, do not qualify him to make some evaluation of the Gadol because
there are some letters that he did not see.  What is interesting is that
RMP deems these unseen letters "important evidence" and opines (based on
I am not sure what) that they are likely to contradict Shapiro's primary
theses.

Prof. Shapiro does not need me to defend his intellectual honesty.  I
will note only that his book does refer to statements in letters or
statements addressed to the yeshiva world which contradict Shapiro's
portrait.  Shapiro interprets these as not reflecting the Seridei Esh's
true views.  Readers are free to interpret them differently.  But Prof.
Shapiro makes no attempt to disregard or conceal the conflicting
evidence.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

RYGB writes:

>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.

>Since I do not have the Shapiro book, could you please cite for me the
>explicit reference where he reneges on earlier opposition. If it is not in a
>widely available source, could you - or one of other several perusers of
>Shapiro's work, quote it, please?

See pp. 115-20, the opening lecture given to the Seminary in 1934.  Or
read listmember R. Shalom Carmy's article in Tradition (Summer 1989).

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Regarding the burial of the Seridei Esh, R. Blau's recollection is
correct, although a few of the details were missing.  In fact, the
commotion is described Prof. Shapiro's book in the preface.  As Shapiro
tells it: on Jan. 25, 1966, the coffin of the Seridei Esh, which had
been transported from Switzerland, was being taken from Shaarei Zedek
hospital for burial in Sanhedria.  The melavim included talmidim,
rabbanim, the rabbanim rashiyyim, and a host of political figures,
including Zalman Shazar.  But a number of yeshiva bohurim prevented the
use of a hearse, insisting that it be carried in accordance with minhag
Yerushalayim.  Shortly therefater, R. Sarna (an old friend of R.
Weinberg's and rosh yeshiva of Hevron-Slobodka) insisted that the
Seridei Esh be buried at Har haMenuhot and forced the levayah to change
course.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

R' Jacob J Schacter, <<< editor of The Torah u-Madda Journal and the one
responsible for the publication (Vol. 7) of the correspondance between Rav
Weinberg zt'l and Professor Atlas, >>> wrote:

<<< Furthermore, the membership of Avodah should be aware that I presented
my rationale for finally deciding to publish these letters in a long and
carefully nuanced article in Vol. 8 of the journal ("Facing the Truths of
History," pp. 200-276) where I dealt at length with all the issues that were
raised here. ... I invite all those who have contributed to this discussion
to take the time to carefully read my presentation (with all its nuances,
complexity, and footnotes) and then decide if it is convincing ... I will be
happy to send a copy of this article to anyone who is interested. ... Taking
the time to read what is already available on this very complex subject can
only enhance the level of discussion taking place here. >>>

The "Torah u-Madda Journal", "Mesorah", and "Tradition" are examples of
journals which are frequently quoted here, but I find them impossible to
obtain. In contrast, the "Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society" is
also quoted here, but many seforim stores maintain an inventory of current
and back issues, and I often find myself looking through the pile for issues
which have articles I find interesting.

As far as I know, the others are available by subscription only. I wonder
why the popularity of the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society has
not inspired the others to follow suit. R' Schacter has suggested that we
<<< [take] the time to read what is already available on this very complex
subject >>>, but time is not the only problem --- I challenge the claim that
it is <<< already available >>>. It is true that he has offered to <<< send
a copy of this article to anyone who is interested >>>, but what are we to
do in similar cases, past and future, where someone quotes an article from
one of these journals? I can't afford to subscribe to them, nor do I want to
keep bumming them from neighbors who do subscribe, but I'd gladly buy an
occasional copy if I saw it in a store and it looked interesting.

My point is that the Avodah chevrah includes people who are in high
positions at these journals, and I simply want to suggest that they consider
printing some extra copies for public sale.

I wonder what the rationale is for these subscription-only journals. One
reason is probably simply to avoid the hassle of distribution to stores,
what to do with returns, etc. But if it is to ensure that only a chosen
elite group receive it to begin with, then perhaps CDRG would prohibit
quoting excepts here on Avodah...  :-)

Akiva Miller

> From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> Subject: Re: Forthcoming Avodah/Aishdas First Annual Midwest 
Regional Conference in Chicago>  

<<Anyone sending (plane) tickets? :-)>>

	You (and I) will need to make do with a virtual presence (Do a little
Rabbi Akiva Eiger dance,  maybe) until (y)our local regional conference
convenes. 

Gershon

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:10:58 +0200
> From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Subject: Re: What moral qualms?

<<How are you (or the SE) defining "enlightened opinion?">>

	When you proffer your definition,  bear in mind that the Israeli Supreme
Court, lehavdil,  bases some of its mind-boggling decisions on being the
standard bearer of enlightened opinion in Israel,  exercising the "white
man's burden",   to borrow a phrase,  of imposing it on the benighted
masses.

Gershon

> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:16:09 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: diyukim 
 
<<1) Maariv: Keil Chay v'kayom; Tomid Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed vs.
Keil Chay v'kayom Tomid; Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed
 
Where does the Tomid go?
see Baer>>

	Don't have it;  what does he say?

<<2) Kaddish: b'olmo Di vro Chirusei; vs. b'olmo Divro; Kir'usei (Gra)>>

	Are you saying that the Gra held that kir'usei belongs with the next
phrase?  If so,  what does it mean?

<<3)V'S'sim chelkeinu imohem l'olom; v'lo neivosh... vs. V'S'sim
chelkeinu imohem; u'l'olom lo neivosh...>>

	I don't think this fits;  my understanding is that this is an alternate
girsa.
 
<< There are more...>>

	Where are they?

Gershon

Rather than taking the time to refute (well I guess I would say refute,
you probably would say bicker with, which just goes to show how
perspective matters) every point here, since no real ground is really
opened here, and the issues of autopsies and mixed youth groups can wait,
let me just cheerfully note that I disagree and think you are incorrect
on every point you make here.

Onwards and upwards!

One point, however, I need to make. Much as I respect Prof. Shapiro's
scholarship, and share with him admiration for certain historical figures,
those veterans of MJ who recall my debate with him there of years ago will
doubtless forgive me for not trusting his judgment in excerpting letters
and deciding the SE's true views. Thus, just as cheerfully - but
vehemently - must I disagree with what here follows:

> Prof. Shapiro does not need me to defend his intellectual honesty.  I
> will note only that his book does refer to statements in letters or
> statements addressed to the yeshiva world which contradict Shapiro's
> portrait.  Shapiro interprets these as not reflecting the Seridei Esh's
> true views.  Readers are free to interpret them differently.  But Prof.
> Shapiro makes no attempt to disregard or conceal the conflicting
> evidence.
> 
> Kol tuv,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
> 

YGB

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

1) Baer (seder Avoda Yisroel) maintains that Tomid and l'olom vo'ed are 
redundant.  Therefore Tomid should be in the 1st phrase. 

But even he concedes that it is not ipso facto reedundant.  Tomid is always, 
l'olom vo'ed is forever.  one denots constant, the other is about duration.

An ICU is constant but it's not forever.

Taxes are forever, but they are not necesary constant.

2)  yep so says the Gra and I do not recall the source. yisgadal ends with di 
vro;  then ki'r'usei v'yamlich malchuseih begiens a new phrase.  

3) it is an alternate girso based upon a diyyuk. The question isn't a 
manusrcript question it's a sevoro.   Baer and Birnbaum both are mistaver that 
u'l'olom is mistaver based upon the benching shelo  nievosh v'lo 
nikaleim l'olom vo'ed.  Girsos are sometimes "zetsed" not by manusrpict research
but by ASSUMTIONS such as a misplaced vov

See Birnbaum on uva letziyon legaei sorosO V'laasos, he maintains the extra Vov 
is a dittography.  I don't think he proves it based upon manuscripts, he just 
finds that if you assume the dittography it flows better.

simlarly by changing the vov  to u'lomom lo neivosh, the girso now more cloesly 
resembles a corresponding textin benching.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


_____________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: diyukim 
Author:  Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> at tcpgate
Date:    2/14/2000 2:49 PM


> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:16:09 -0500 
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Re: diyukim 

<<1) Maariv: Keil Chay v'kayom; Tomid Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed vs. 
Keil Chay v'kayom Tomid; Yimloch aleinu l'olam va'ed

Where does the Tomid go?
see Baer>>

	Don't have it;  what does he say?

<<2) Kaddish: b'olmo Di vro Chirusei; vs. b'olmo Divro; Kir'usei (Gra)>>

	Are you saying that the Gra held that kir'usei belongs with the next 
phrase?  If so,  what does it mean?

<<3)V'S'sim chelkeinu imohem l'olom; v'lo neivosh... vs. V'S'sim 
chelkeinu imohem; u'l'olom lo neivosh...>>

	I don't think this fits;  my understanding is that this is an alternate 
girsa.

<< There are more...>>

	Where are they?

Gershon

richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:


> 2)  yep so says the Gra and I do not recall the source. yisgadal ends with di 
> vro;  then ki'r'usei v'yamlich malchuseih begiens a new phrase.  

Yes he does, but it's not a phrase that goes far. It's tacked back to
Yitgadal ve'yitkadash.

Like so:

Yitgadal ve'yitkadash shemeh rabbah (amen)
Be'alma di vera.
Kir'uteih.
Ve'yamlich malchuteih.
Ve'yatzmah purkaneh.
Vi'karev meshiheih. (Amen)

In other words, each of those phrases stands on it's own, as following
from Yitgadal ve'yitkadash.

I don't know where the Gra says it either. I get this from R' Mazuz, who
attributed it to the Gra, but without bringing a source that I can recall.


---sam

In a message dated 2/14/00 12:47:11 PM US Central Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< I think the point is that the non-Jews do not yet recognize that the 
 Torah is enlightenment. "V'Haya Hashem l'melech al kol ha'aretz, 
 bayom hahu yiyhe Hashem echad u'shmo echad" hasn't happened 
 yet, not because Hashem chas v'shalom isn't the Melech, but 
 because the goyim haven't recognized it. So while we recognize 
 that Torah is enlightenment, the "enlightened" goyim don't 
 necessarily recognize it yet.
  >>

So the "enlightened" goyim aren't really enlightened. That's why they're 
goyim. That doesn't make our light any the less strong.

This, of course, isn't entirely an unmixed blessing. Sometimes our light is a 
little harsh, you have to admit. Sometimes the goyishe soul does seem to be 
at least a little "enlightened" by its own terms. These three jokes explain 
my point:

A goy goes into a clothing store, tries on a suit that doesn't fit quite 
right, and says, "I like the suit. How much is it?" The salesman says, "It 
retails at $1,000. That's what we sell it at." The goy says, "Okay, I'll take 
it."

Two goys meet on the street. The first one says, "How's your business doing?" 
The other goy replies, "Just great! Thanks for asking!"

A goy calls his mother and says, "Mom, I know you're expecting me for dinner 
tonight, but something has come up and I can't make it." The mother says, 
"Okay, come by at your convenience."

See what I mean?

David Finch

On Mon, Feb 14, 2000 at 03:56:34PM -0500, sambo wrote:
:> 2)  yep so says the Gra and I do not recall the source....

: Yitgadal ve'yitkadash shemeh rabbah (amen)

Point of note, I believe the G'ra had you say "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish"
(tzeiri as the last vowel of each word), in Hebrew not in Aramaic, as a
reference to Yechezkeil. RYBS did. Also, this reasoning only applies to
the first two words, and not to "Yisbarach viyishtabach viyispa'ar"...

: Be'alma di vera.
: Kir'uteih.

Isn't it "di vera kir'usei" -- IOW "kir'usei" being a description of the
beri'ah of the world?

: Ve'yamlich malchuteih.
: Ve'yatzmah purkaneh.
: Vi'karev meshiheih. (Amen)

The Gra also didn't have "veyatzmach pukanei vikareiv meshichei".

De Sola Pool, in his work on Kaddish, commentz on the complexity of the
grammatical structure of the first line of kaddish.

"Yisgadeil", "yiskadeish" both refer to the noun "shmei raba". And these
two verbs as well as "veyamlich malchusei" (etc... if applicable) refer to
a prepositional phrase that is inserted between them ("bi'alma di vera
chiru'sei).

Then, "bechayeichon uvyomeichon..." goes back to referring to all three (5 in
Sefarad) requested events.

I don't think using one level of pause really captures the structure. Western
grammar has three (",", ";", "."), and trop offers far more. For that matter,
trop offers grouping information, not just info about when each grouping ends.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Feb-00: Levi, Tetzaveh
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 114b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Micha Berger wrote:


> Point of note, I believe the G'ra had you say "Yisgadeil viyiskadeish"

I didn't know it was the Gra who had done that. I hear it whenever I go
to certain minyanim, and wondered why they were saying the tzere.

Do you know why he wanted those two words to be in Hebrew?  As I said, I
haven't seen the Gra inside, only heard it referenced.


> Isn't it "di vera kir'usei" -- IOW "kir'usei" being a description of the
> beri'ah of the world?

Not as far as I recall. Hence the dagesh in the chaf 'Kir'uteih'.
Otherwise it would be refuyah, following the alef in vera. As a seperate
(one-word) phrase, it is degushah. Unless it could be Be'alma; kir'uteih.
Could be.


> 
> : Ve'yamlich malchuteih.
> : Ve'yatzmah purkaneh.
> : Vi'karev meshiheih. (Amen)
> 
> The Gra also didn't have "veyatzmach pukanei vikareiv meshichei".


Good point.


> De Sola Pool, in his work on Kaddish, commentz on the complexity of the
> grammatical structure of the first line of kaddish.
> 
> "Yisgadeil", "yiskadeish" both refer to the noun "shmei raba". And these
> two verbs as well as "veyamlich malchusei" (etc... if applicable) refer to
> a prepositional phrase that is inserted between them ("bi'alma di vera
> chiru'sei).


Right. So it appears that according to the Gra the phrase being referred
to would be "Be'alma di vera" with kir'uteih included with the referers.

Be'alma di vera;
Kir'uteih,
Ve'yamlich Malchuteih,(or .)...


> I don't think using one level of pause really captures the structure. Western
> grammar has three (",", ";", "."), and trop offers far more. For that matter,
> trop offers grouping information, not just info about when each grouping ends.


I agree wholeheartedly. This is the main reason I don't generally
transliterate. 


---sam

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


[ 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         ]