Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 439

Wednesday, March 15 2000

• birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: science and halacha
• Re: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Moshe's Streiml
• Re: Chazalic sea faring, Ayin tachas ayin
• Re: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: loshon hamrugal?
• Nahum Sarna's books on Humash
• Re[2]: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Ayin Tachas Ayin
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re[2]: birkhat ha-gomeil

Practical considerations:

If the halakha is that people who travel in the Shomron should bensch gomel,
then how would they ever finish davening on Shabbat morning in Shilo?  Would
they say it in unison?

Similarly, if people were makpid on Gomel for flying abroad, then here in
Raanana there would be a pretty long line at Kriat HaTorah.

And at the end of August, there would need to be arrangements made for all
the ladies flying back from their summer abroad - perhaps a special minyan,
or we could all stay late and take turns?

:-)

Personally speaking, I've made sure to bensch gomel after giving birth,
either at the bris or at Mincha on the first Shabbat I could get to shule.
But for a routine flight to NY?  I'd like to, but it's not nahug.

-Kira

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 10:56:36PM +0000, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
: In which case, of course, I have no problem with the concept of chazaka,
: but this analysis seems to me to suggest a divergence between the
: concept of chazaka, and the concept of a metaphysical curse.

My understanding of the Rav's position on "tav lemaisav" is somewhat different.

First, the point wasn't in it being a curse but metaphysical. IOW, it is
existentially true of women whether or not they are aware of it on the level
that psychology addresses.

Therefore, since it's a rule of mata-nature, it's a chazakah in the normal
sense of chazakah disvara (as opposed to chazakah dimei'ikara).

Second, he never really addresses why chazakos can't be overturned as we
learn more about the rules of thumb they embody. Instead RYBS notes how
dangerous the consequences are. Rather than providing a philosophical basis
for leaving chazakos alone, he provides a motivation. I was frustrated by that.

I again ask the chevrah to please look over my "halachic hermeneutics"
where I try to provide a hashkafic basis and overall structure to forms of
birur at <http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf>. Your comments and
corrections are eagerly invited. The assumption of said not-yet-a-manuscript
(argued in <http://www.aishdas.org/book/book1.pdf>) is that all sechar is
seguli. (Later chapters get more and more rough, I don't recommend trying
to browse through them all. They're on the web as a means to hand things off
for proofreading.)

Chazakah in particular is addressed in section A.4.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:52:45AM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
:> Do women bench Gomel?

: Why not? It's not mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama.

See the Aruch haShulchan, who uses a very mimetic proof that they don't.

There's no reason connecting gomeil to getting an aliyah. The fact that the
two are paired implies that all gomel-benchers can get aliyos. If women were
supposed to bench gomeil, the practice of pairing the two never would have
started.

I believe, though, that those who hold a woman doesn't, do say that she
should attend shul and have her husband say it. He can say it as he is
should give hoda'ah over his wife's safety. And she can be yotzeis from
his berachah.

As to the reason why not -- it's a question of "kol kevudah". Does a woman
make a berachah out loud for a minyan or not? Having her husband say it
avoids the issue.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 16 Mar 00, at 9:18, Kira Sirote wrote:

> Practical considerations:
> 
> If the halakha is that people who travel in the Shomron should bensch gomel,
> then how would they ever finish davening on Shabbat morning in Shilo?  Would
> they say it in unison?

No, I would guess that they would have to say it one at a time. I 
don't know of any heter for saying it en masse.

> Similarly, if people were makpid on Gomel for flying abroad, then here in
> Raanana there would be a pretty long line at Kriat HaTorah.

Not as long as you think. 

I mentioned yesterday that there was a day when I went to shul in 
New Jersey last summer, on which six people bentched gomel. 
We all went up one after the other (one person had the aliya). it 
might have taken a minute and a half. 

I had arrived in the US on Wednesday morning, that was Thursday 
morning, and I arrived back in Israel on Friday morning. And 
bentched gomel again on Shabbos. Now granted that in my 
neighborhood, most people only go to chutz la'aretz for the Chagim 
(if that), but we have had days when three or four people bentched 
gomel. In fact, IIRC correctly we had two people this Monday. 

> And at the end of August, there would need to be arrangements made for all
> the ladies flying back from their summer abroad - perhaps a special minyan,
> or we could all stay late and take turns?
> 
> :-)

Again, when my wife was in Telz Stone, the men were asked to 
stay after minyan and the women bentched one at a time. I think 
we went through about 10-12 of them. It doesn't take THAT long!

> Personally speaking, I've made sure to bensch gomel after giving birth,
> either at the bris or at Mincha on the first Shabbat I could get to shule.
> But for a routine flight to NY?  I'd like to, but it's not nahug.

Actually it is for those of us who live in Israel. At least in my 
circles. A "routine flight to New York" is a ten hour flight that 
crosses the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. Between Succos and 
Chanuka I think I bentched gomel eight times (one trip was "only" 
to Europe).

-- 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.

On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 07:34:42AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Doesn't everyone realize that Moshe Rabenu wore a
: Shtreimel, Kapote, and Veise Zokin? 

Seriously (and I mean it, nothing to do with Purim here), my guess is that
Mosheh Rabbeinu wore a nose ring.

We know from ma'aseh ha'eigel that such was Egyptian fashion, and possibly
fashion amongst the more observant Jews as well. However, the medrash tells
us Par'o felt his throne threatened by Mosheh. I would surmise that this is
in part because he was dressed like an Egyptian prince, and carried himself
accordingly.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

<< On another matter, my learned friend DDG in the course of his 
correspondence  on hagomeil, reaching, I suppose, for illustration of
the inherent dangers  of any travel in ancient times as compared to our
own, averred that  <.. In the time of Chazal,  people who crossed the
ocean literally did  not know where they were>  
 This is quite curious.   Just what oceans were people supposed to have
 crossed back then?  
  >>
<Perhaps he meant "sea" instead of "ocean," sea being a general term.If
he wanted to be specific, he'd have said the Specific Ocean. David Finch>
No doubt he did. in fact certainly he did since, by chance, i ran into
DDG on the metro yesterday and he conirms your supposition, pointing
out that hebrew uses the single term "yom" for both. However, that misses
the point (such as it was) a bit. When sailing on the sea-mediterranean,
there was generally never any need for remaining out of sight of land,
and thus the position mystery of the longitude when sailing along fixed
latitude which plagued ocean going ships prior to harrison's clock was
absent.  (of course, to cross the med north-south was a snap, sailing
along fixed longitude). 

On another matter, i am happy to be updated by RZlochower who informs
me that prof n. sarna - whose works on biresihis and shimos i commended
to pishot mongers the other day - is not niftor at all but has rather
retired to florida where he continues some educational activities. this
is good news, not only for prof sarna who may now get to employ the old
mark twain line in his conversational repertoire, but possibly for the
rest of us who may yet hope to see new volumes covering the rest of chumosh
by this author.   

Mechy Frankel                   W: (703) 588-7424
frankemj@acq.osd.mil            H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@dtra.mil





___________________________________________________________________
To get your own FREE ZDNet Onebox - FREE voicemail, email, and fax,
all in one place - sign up today at http://www.zdnetonebox.com

On 15 Mar 00, at 6:54, Micha Berger wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 10:52:45AM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> :> Do women bench Gomel?
> 
> : Why not? It's not mitzvas aseh she'hazman grama.
> 
> See the Aruch haShulchan, who uses a very mimetic proof that they don't.

I don't have it in front of me (sforim at home), but I actually saw this 
inside last night, and IIRC what he does is prove that the husband 
should not bentch gomel for the wife after childbirth, not that 
women don't bentch gomel. 

> There's no reason connecting gomeil to getting an aliyah. The fact that the
> two are paired implies that all gomel-benchers can get aliyos. If women were
> supposed to bench gomeil, the practice of pairing the two never would have
> started.

You actually don't need an aliya to bentch gomel. The ideal is that 
it is supposed to be done during kriyas haTorah, but not 
necessarily after YOU get an aliya. I have gone up and bentched 
before hagba without an aliya many times. But really all that is 
required is a minyan.

> I believe, though, that those who hold a woman doesn't, do say that she
> should attend shul and have her husband say it. He can say it as he is
> should give hoda'ah over his wife's safety. And she can be yotzeis from
> his berachah.

See above re: the Aruch HaShulchan. There is also a Biur Halacha 
in 219 where he proves that the husband should not bentch for his 
wife (after he says in the Mishna Brura that he should). The whole 
sugya is based on the Gemara in Brachos (54B or 55A) where one 
of the Amoraim bentches gomel for another, but that appears to be 
the exception rather than the rule. 

When BY had his first good exam in early 1997 (pre-recurrence), I 
asked if I should bentch gomel for him (since everyone seems to 
hold that a child should not because of "chayavim tovos") and was 
told not to. But I have a sefer at home (Mizmor leThoda) in which 
someone argues that a father should bentch gomel for a minor 
child. BTW many poskim hold the child should bentch gomel on 
becoming a Bar Mitzva, although obviously that could raise the 
"more than three days" question.

> As to the reason why not -- it's a question of "kol kevudah". Does a woman
> make a berachah out loud for a minyan or not? Having her husband say it
> avoids the issue.

If you assume that the husband can be modeh, that would avoid 
the "kol kevudah" problem, but after bentching gomel on my wife's 
behalf with the first five children, I am not convinced that the 
husband can be motzi the wife. I am also not entirely convinced 
that it's a problem of "kol kevuda" either - she could say it from 
behind the mechitza (when we did it in Telz Stone, we all stood in 
the shul, and the women lined up by the door one at a time).

-- 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.

RY Zirkind wrote:

>>See the Darkei Tshuva Al Asar Y"D 178 Ois 4, he brings from Shut Tuv Tam Vodas
(Kamo 188) that Jews are obligated to be unique in their clothing, he also 
brings from Shut Imrei Eish (Y"D 55) that in the polish Jewry clothing style 
there is "Mishum Yehudis" etc. etc. bottom line w/o going into the actual 
Halacha there is "heiligeit" (holiness) in keeping the style of garb.>>

But that Shu"t Ta'am VaDa'as (R. Shlomo Kluger?) still agrees with the Rema and 
Maharik that the REASON for wearing the clothes determines its permissibility.  
If you wear the clothes specifically to imitate gentiles then it is forbidden.  
But, if you wear them to look good or to look respectable then it is 
permissible.

RR Wolpoe wrote:

>>Question: wouldnt' wearing a kipa be yotzei the requirnment of uniqueness, and
therfore no other clothing changes are required.>>

The Taz in Orach Chaim 8 suggests that it is a chiyuv de'oraisa to wear a 
yarmulka because of chukas hagoyim.  The Malbim in Artzos HaChayim 2:43 notes 
that the Taz is against the Rema in Yoreh Deah 178:1.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

In a message dated 3/15/00 9:22:15 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

>  >>See the Darkei Tshuva Al Asar Y"D 178 Ois 4, he brings from Shut Tuv Tam 
> Vodas
>  (Kamo 188) that Jews are obligated to be unique in their clothing, he also 
>  brings from Shut Imrei Eish (Y"D 55) that in the polish Jewry clothing 
style 
> 
>  there is "Mishum Yehudis" etc. etc. bottom line w/o going into the actual 
>  Halacha there is "heiligeit" (holiness) in keeping the style of garb.>>
>  
>  But that Shu"t Ta'am VaDa'as (R. Shlomo Kluger?) still agrees with the 
Rema 
> and 
>  Maharik that the REASON for wearing the clothes determines its 
> permissibility.  
>  If you wear the clothes specifically to imitate gentiles then it is 
> forbidden.  
>  But, if you wear them to look good or to look respectable then it is 
>  permissible.

Yes the Shut TTvD is from R' Shlomo Kluger, let me clarify my position, 
Lhalacha Lmaseh we see Bpoeil that the garb has changed from Golus to Golus, 
whether this was out of Oines not to be persecuted, or to make life easier, 
Soif Kol Soif Sheiris Yisroel LO YAsu Avlah, so there is Heter, (and 
definately not Issur Doireisah of Chukois Hagyim), HOWEVER my point is to 
trash the idea of following a Jewish garb, and ask what Heiligeit it has, is 
IMHO out of place, as from the above refernces we could see that there is an 
Inyan in Jewsih garb (especially those like a long coat which are because of 
Tznius etc.)
>  
>  RR Wolpoe wrote:
>  
>  >>Question: wouldnt' wearing a kipa be yotzei the requirnment of 
uniqueness, 
> and
>  therfore no other clothing changes are required.>>
>  
>  The Taz in Orach Chaim 8 suggests that it is a chiyuv de'oraisa to wear a 
>  yarmulka because of chukas hagoyim.  The Malbim in Artzos HaChayim 2:43 
> notes that the Taz is against the Rema in Yoreh Deah 178:1.

I pointed out earlier, the ET brings many opinions that the Yarmulke is 
different, as that was the defining Jewish Beged.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 3/14/00 6:59:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
shlomog@mehish.co.il writes:

> Excuse my abyssmal ignorance, but what is a loshon hamrugal?  
>  

The tongue of a spy :-)

I guess it was a typo it should have been "Loshon Hamurgal"

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> a quite modern "perush",  prof  N. Sarna's book  on biresihis. Titled
> "Genesis" (and available in many local jewish book stores) it is a work
> by an academic (i think niftar), aimed at a popular and not necessarily
> a jewish audience. It folds in insight from the contemporaneous near
> eastern cultural matrix, archeological finds etc. i.e. about as pishuto
> shel miqroh and non-midrashic as you might expect from such a source.
>  However, I seem to recall that he goes through a rather lengthy and
> ultimately convincing series of arguments (some noted by chazal, some
> not) to the effect that ayin tachas ayin equals cash really was the pishuto
> shel miroh back then.  Go figure. BTW there are many nuggets in this
> book (and his companion volume "Exodus") and I would recommend these
> works to you pishuto fans out there. he is generally careful not to offend
> any religious sensibilities in these books. No biblical criticism of
> whatever altitude - but here and there one may detect a whiff of an attitude

Well, hardly any...

RY Zirkind wrote:

>>See the Darkei Tshuva Al Asar Y"D 178 Ois 4, he brings from Shut Tuv Tam Vodas
(Kamo 188) that Jews are obligated to be unique in their clothing, he also 
brings from Shut Imrei Eish (Y"D 55) that in the polish Jewry clothing style 
there is "Mishum Yehudis" etc. etc. bottom line w/o going into the actual 
Halacha there is "heiligeit" (holiness) in keeping the style of garb.>>

As I understand it there IS a puspose to having distinctly Jewish garb 

But

There is nothing intrinsic about the garb imported from 19th centruy Eastern 
Europe

Lmai nafka mina?

If we made wearing blue pants and white shirts - i.e. similar to a Bnai Akiva 
"uniform"  - as a distiinctively Jewish fashion statement, we would be yotzei 
too.

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Micha Berger wrote:


> See the Aruch haShulchan, who uses a very mimetic proof that they don't.


I don't have an A"H. Could you summarize it for me? Unless the following
is the summary?


> There's no reason connecting gomeil to getting an aliyah. The fact that the
> two are paired implies that all gomel-benchers can get aliyos. If women were
> supposed to bench gomeil, the practice of pairing the two never would have
> started.
> 
> I believe, though, that those who hold a woman doesn't, do say that she
> should attend shul and have her husband say it. He can say it as he is
> should give hoda'ah over his wife's safety. And she can be yotzeis from
> his berachah.
> 
> As to the reason why not -- it's a question of "kol kevudah". Does a woman
> make a berachah out loud for a minyan or not? Having her husband say it
> avoids the issue.


R' Ovadiah writes differently. Y"Y V3 siman RY"T #7 (summary):

Women are hayyavot to say birchat hagomel after recovering from illness
or giving birth. Lechat'hila, she should say it at the party in the home
for a girl or at the Brit Yizhak for a boy, when a minyan will be
present. And she should stand in the doorway and say  the berachah, in a
loud voice, so all can hear. And she can also say it from the ezrat
nashim, if there are ten men in the Beit Kenesset, during keriat
haTorah, between aliyot. And her husband SHOULD NOT (emphasis mine) say
hagomel in her place, unless he is also hayyav to say it, like if they
went on a trip together, then his wife could listen from the ezrat
nashim, and discharge her obligation that way, and he should have the
same kavannah.


---sam


> -mi
> 
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.

"Carl M. Sherer" wrote:



> No, I would guess that they would have to say it one at a time. I
> don't know of any heter for saying it en masse.


Yalkut Yosef V3 Siman RY"T #12 (summary):

One who is hayyav to say gomel, like if he went on a trip from city to
city, but isn't called for an aliyah, but his friend who is also hayyav
is called, it's possible for him to have his friend in mind, and they
should both have kavanah, and discharge his obligation that way, as
birchat hagomel is in the category of "shomea kavanah".

As usual, the footnotes are extensive, taking more page space (with
smaller print) than the halachah itself. Ayen sham.


---sam

>>I remember learning this concept from R' Copperman; thank you for the
>>reference.

>>Re the wider discussion of mesorah vs pshat - doesn't Ibn Ezra say in a
>>number of places something to the effect of: "if Chaza"l have this
>>interpretation as Masoret, I'll accept it, but if it's parshanut, I
disagree
>>with it".

No serious discussion of this topic, from a Torah viewpoint, should be
started before reading this Seforno, reading Rav Cooperman's comments, and
then thinking about them for awhile. As for the Ibn Ezra, that, too, is not
so simple and I am not so sure that he isn't being sarcastic some of the
numerous times that he makes this statement. I would say, though, that it
would be best not to draw the IBN Ezra's stance regarding Chazal's saying of
Peshat into this, without very careful study.

On 15 Mar 00, at 9:32, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:

> >  RR Wolpoe wrote:
> >  
> >  >>Question: wouldnt' wearing a kipa be yotzei the requirnment of 
> uniqueness, 
> > and
> >  therfore no other clothing changes are required.>>
> >  
> >  The Taz in Orach Chaim 8 suggests that it is a chiyuv de'oraisa to wear a 
> >  yarmulka because of chukas hagoyim.  The Malbim in Artzos HaChayim 2:43 
> > notes that the Taz is against the Rema in Yoreh Deah 178:1.
> 
> I pointed out earlier, the ET brings many opinions that the Yarmulke is 
> different, as that was the defining Jewish Beged.

I believe Rav Moshe held yarmulka not to be d'oraysa. See Igros 
Moshe OH 4:2.

-- 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 think it is probably a manifestation of the Brisker Derech to take umdenos
of Chazal as dinim.

I would personally strike a middle position between RYBS and R' Rackman:
Umdenos of Chazal may change, but since we do not know how they were omed
them, we, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, have no way to ascertain if they
have changed or not. So, while theoretically R' Rackman may have had a case,
in practice RYBS's position is the correct one.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 03:15:30PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: > See the Aruch haShulchan, who uses a very mimetic proof that they don't.
: 
: I don't have it in front of me (sforim at home), but I actually saw this 
: inside last night, and IIRC what he does is prove that the husband 
: should not bentch gomel for the wife after childbirth, not that 
: women don't bentch gomel. 

The argument I gave, that:
:> There's no reason connecting gomeil to getting an aliyah. The fact that the
:> two are paired implies that all gomel-benchers can get aliyos. If women were
:> supposed to bench gomeil, the practice of pairing the two never would have
:> started.

... is the argument I was referring to. I remember looking it up because it's
mentioned in a footnote to Haym Soloveitchik's "Rupture and Reconstruction"
as an example of the contrast between the M"B's tendencies toward textualist
and the A"H's mimeticism.

: You actually don't need an aliya to bentch gomel.

Agreed. No one said you did. But lima'aseh we do try to give him an aliyah.
There's a connection here in people's minds indicates that women weren't
benching gomel even back when this practice started.

As I said, it's an argument from "Toras imecha", not the text of the
chiyuv.

:                                I am also not entirely convinced 
: that it's a problem of "kol kevuda" either - she could say it from 
: behind the mechitza (when we did it in Telz Stone, we all stood in 
: the shul, and the women lined up by the door one at a time).

According to those who say she shouldn't, there clearly is a problem. I'm not
interested in promoting one view over the other, just clarifying the one
you didn't address.

"Kol kevudah" is an issue of sound, not just sight. I assume those who
say women shouldn't bench gomeil do so because they don't consider saying
it from behind the mechitzah loud enough for the men to answer amein isn't
"penimah".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Is this based upon shomeia k'oneh, that saying and listening bekavvana is like 
having said it oneself?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

One who is hayyav to say gomel, like if he went on a trip from city to 
city, but isn't called for an aliyah, but his friend who is also hayyav 
is called, it's possible for him to have his friend in mind, and they 
should both have kavanah, and discharge his obligation that way, as 
birchat hagomel is in the category of "shomea kavanah".

As usual, the footnotes are extensive, taking more page space (with 
smaller print) than the halachah itself. Ayen sham.


---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         ]