Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 039

Tuesday, May 9 2000

• Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: What constitutes a zibbur?
• Re: What Constitues a Tzibbur?
• Re: Calendar Controversy Article
• Re: What constitutes a zibbur?
• Praising an Akum
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: Avodah V5 #38
• Re: rape
• Re: rape
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: shaving on yom ha'azmaot
• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)
• Re: Ym Jirtzah Hashem vs B'li Neder
• Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut
• Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)

>I, with much help from RYGB, finally got an ASCII version of the article
>ready. Enjoy!

I just read this in the JO.  As a former math major, and hack programmer,
I've always enjoyed this subject.

Reading the article, however, made me want to ask a question, make an
observation, and ask one more question:

Question:

>  It is, reasonable to assume that those who set our calendar cycle in
>  place began counting these nineteen-year cycles from a year in which
>  the Spring equinox coincided closely with the molad of Nissan. Because
>  nineteen solar years are actually a trifle shorter than the 235 lunar
>  months in one nineteen-year lunar cycle of the calendar, as the years go
>  by since the founding of the calendar, the spring equinox will no longer
>  coincide with the molad in the first year of each cycle, but will move
>  up about one day every 216 years (average Jewish solar year = 365.2468
>  days; Gregorian year = 365.2425 days; actual mean tropical solar year =
>  365.2422 days).

Why is this one day per 216 years tolerated?  Now, when a molad occurs
within the first week after the Spring equinox, it is _not_ for Nisan!
Whereas, before the fixed calendar, it was.  There's another quirk
regarding the fall equinox, but not related to this problem.  See below.

Another intersting side note:

>Let us end this essay on this note: The most remarkable aspect of the Y0.92K
>controversy is that it is the exception that proves the rule. Over the
>course of over sixteen hundred years of the administration of Hillel II's
>calendar, in far-flung, diverse and disparate Jewish communities, we find
>only one significant halachic dispute concerning its implementation! Even
>our brethren that have deviated from so much that is near, dear and holy to
>us, have never tampered with all that is connected to the phrase "Mekkadesh
>Yisroel Ve'Ha'Zemanim."

I find this to be an inspiring paragraph!  Even those who have rejected the
most basic fundamentals still agree on a calendar.

I can't help but think, with the respect to this, that the first mitzvah
given to the Amcha Yisroel was Rosh Chodesh, and speculate that there is a
connection.

Nevertheless, there was one more controversy, I think, about the calendar.

'Veten tal umatar' in 'birkas hashanim' in the galus, one begins reciting
the request for rain sixty days after tekufas Tishrei (the autumnal
equinox), which generally falls out on December 5th at night, which comes
from 
Ta'anis 10a.  The autumnal equinox occurs every year on September 23; sixty
days later is November 22, not December. 5.  The difference, explains a
shiur from Yeshivat Har Etzion, is that this still follows the "September
23" of the "Julian" calendar, which is now 17 days different from the
commonly used Gregorian calendar.  (We will start on Dec 6 in the year
2100).  Quoting from the shiur:

The Rambam  (Hilkhot Kiddush Ha-chodesh 9:1)  summarizes  the
debate as follows:

   Regarding  the  solar  year,  some  Sages  in   Israel
   maintain  that  it  spans 365  and  one-quarter  days,
   while  others  claim that [the partial  day]  is  less
   than  a  quarter of a day.  A similar argument  exists
   among the Greek and Persian scholars.

   In  rabbinic  jargon, the first opinion appears  under
the appellation "Shemuel's tekufa," while the latter view
is   referred  to  as  "Rav  Ada's  tekufa."    Shemuel's
calculation corresponds directly to the Julian system. If
we   count   sixty  days  beyond  the  autumnal  equinox,
September 23, we arrive at November 22. When Pope Gregory
instituted  his  corrected calendar,  the  Jews  did  not
immediately comply.  They stood by Shemuel's calculation,
i.e. the Julian calendar (perhaps denying the validity of
the  science  of  the  time).  Thus,  they  believed  the
equinox  to  occur  10  days  after  the  new  "Gregorian
September  23."  In other words, they believed  that  the
equinox  should  be calculated according  to  the  Julian
system,  which  meant  that it would  fall  on  the  date
formerly  called September 23, which was now  changed  to
October  3.  Many years (or even centuries)  later,  when
most   Jews   accepted  the  accuracy  of  the  Gregorian
calendar,  they nevertheless continued the  tradition  of
their  predecessors,  saying  "ve-ten  tal  u-matar"   on
December 2 (sixty days after the Julian equinox,  October
3).   Although abiding by the Gregorian calendar in other
areas  of  their  lives, for the purpose  of  calculating
tekufot Jews still adhered to the position of Shemuel  in
the gemara, i.e. the Julian calculation.

Any comments on this last part?  

A big yasher Koach to RYGB and RYZZ!

-- Eric


+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Eric Simon     | erics@radix.net                         |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| proud daddy to Joshua (4/18/93) and Eliana (3/12/95)     |
+----------------------------------------------------------+

With  regard to RYGB informative post, I think that we have to define
the notion of zibbur in relation to the context.  There is one notion of
zibbur, involving many aspects of communal takkana, where his
requirements of chacham ha'ir apply (e.g., nusach hatefila) and perhaps
ability to form distinct communities is feasible.

However, in the face of communal danger, I think that that right
disappears, which is (IMHO) the point of the rambam.

This is why the Rambam, in formulating the notion of poresh midarche
tzibbur in hilkhot tshuva as someone who has no helek in olam haba,
formulates it precisely in the context of someone who
"velo nichnas bezaratan".  Someone who refuses to pay his shul dues,
even if instituted with chacham ha'ir, is clearly very different than
someone who does not participate in communal danger and sorrow.

In 1948, many in Meah She'arim objected to the formation of the state.
Many there might still think it was a mistake.  However, does any one
seriously question that now, if not for the korbanot of zahal, there
would have been mass slaughter, including of Meah She'arim?

RYBS, in a related context, spoke of brit avot and brit sinai.  Brit
sinai is chosen.  brit avot is imposed on us.

With regard to whether a zibbur may be included against its will,Meah
shearim is included in the zibbur for yom hazikkaron because it is part
of brit avot - it is part of am yisrael which is physically threatened,
even though it is against its will.  It might not be included in the
definition of zibbur for other communal issues.

Whether or not the force of a zibbur is enough to mandate Meah she'arim
to keep yom hazikkaron behadre hadarim I don't know.  However, to
publicly flout it is tantamount to renouncing brit avot.

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 5/8/00 10:12:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

>  I propose that the concept of tzibbur can only be applied to religious
>  groupings, not to national or regional societies.

See Rabeinu Yonah on the Mishne in Ovos 2:4, IMHO the Rambam in Hil. Tshuva 
quoted by RMS is not discussing a comemoration but an actual Tzara R"L, see 
the Sugia in Taanis 11a.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Thanks for the kind words. Regarding the Tekufos issue, I too am bothered,
and guess that the answer is simply that it does not matter enough to be
precise - kind of like pi=3 in halacha.

The nafka mina is, however, piquant: If you mess up on V'sen Brocho in one
of the periods of discrepancy between Julian and Gregorian tekufos, can we
say safek berachos l'hakel?

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

----- Original Message -----

>
> 'Veten tal umatar' in 'birkas hashanim' in the galus, one begins reciting
> the request for rain sixty days after tekufas Tishrei (the autumnal
> equinox), which generally falls out on December 5th at night, which comes
> from
> Ta'anis 10a.  The autumnal equinox occurs every year on September 23;
sixty
> days later is November 22, not December. 5.  The difference, explains a
> shiur from Yeshivat Har Etzion, is that this still follows the "September
> 23" of the "Julian" calendar, which is now 17 days different from the
> commonly used Gregorian calendar.  (We will start on Dec 6 in the year
> 2100).  Quoting from the shiur:
>
> The Rambam  (Hilkhot Kiddush Ha-chodesh 9:1)  summarizes  the
> debate as follows:
>
>    Regarding  the  solar  year,  some  Sages  in   Israel
>    maintain  that  it  spans 365  and  one-quarter  days,
>    while  others  claim that [the partial  day]  is  less
>    than  a  quarter of a day.  A similar argument  exists
>    among the Greek and Persian scholars.
>
>    In  rabbinic  jargon, the first opinion appears  under
> the appellation "Shemuel's tekufa," while the latter view
> is   referred  to  as  "Rav  Ada's  tekufa."    Shemuel's
> calculation corresponds directly to the Julian system. If
> we   count   sixty  days  beyond  the  autumnal  equinox,
> September 23, we arrive at November 22. When Pope Gregory
> instituted  his  corrected calendar,  the  Jews  did  not
> immediately comply.  They stood by Shemuel's calculation,
> i.e. the Julian calendar (perhaps denying the validity of
> the  science  of  the  time).  Thus,  they  believed  the
> equinox  to  occur  10  days  after  the  new  "Gregorian
> September  23."  In other words, they believed  that  the
> equinox  should  be calculated according  to  the  Julian
> system,  which  meant  that it would  fall  on  the  date
> formerly  called September 23, which was now  changed  to
> October  3.  Many years (or even centuries)  later,  when
> most   Jews   accepted  the  accuracy  of  the  Gregorian
> calendar,  they nevertheless continued the  tradition  of
> their  predecessors,  saying  "ve-ten  tal  u-matar"   on
> December 2 (sixty days after the Julian equinox,  October
> 3).   Although abiding by the Gregorian calendar in other
> areas  of  their  lives, for the purpose  of  calculating
> tekufot Jews still adhered to the position of Shemuel  in
> the gemara, i.e. the Julian calculation.
>
> Any comments on this last part?
>
> A big yasher Koach to RYGB and RYZZ!
>
> -- Eric
>
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Eric Simon     | erics@radix.net                         |
> +----------------------------------------------------------+
> | proud daddy to Joshua (4/18/93) and Eliana (3/12/95)     |
> +----------------------------------------------------------+
>

---- Original Message -----
From: meir shinnar <shinname@UMDNJ.EDU>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: What constitutes a zibbur?


> With  regard to RYGB informative post, I think that we have to define
> the notion of zibbur in relation to the context.  There is one notion of
> zibbur, involving many aspects of communal takkana, where his
> requirements of chacham ha'ir apply (e.g., nusach hatefila) and perhaps
> ability to form distinct communities is feasible.
>
> However, in the face of communal danger, I think that that right
> disappears, which is (IMHO) the point of the rambam.
>

What communal danger?

Are you trying to say that they are b'geder rodef if they do not stand still
for a siren, observe State holidays etc.?

> This is why the Rambam, in formulating the notion of poresh midarche
> tzibbur in hilkhot tshuva as someone who has no helek in olam haba,
> formulates it precisely in the context of someone who
> "velo nichnas bezaratan".  Someone who refuses to pay his shul dues,
> even if instituted with chacham ha'ir, is clearly very different than
> someone who does not participate in communal danger and sorrow.
>

I am not sure danger and sorrow are the same - my point above. I could hear
very well someone arguing that Moshe Hirsch, the self appointed Neturei
Karta "Foregin Minister" had a geder of rodef once upon a time, but I cannot
see that apply to those who do not affiliate with the practices of a tzibbur
that is not theirs.

> In 1948, many in Meah She'arim objected to the formation of the state.
> Many there might still think it was a mistake.  However, does any one
> seriously question that now, if not for the korbanot of zahal, there
> would have been mass slaughter, including of Meah She'arim?
>

Ask the people in MS :-) !

> RYBS, in a related context, spoke of brit avot and brit sinai.  Brit
> sinai is chosen.  brit avot is imposed on us.
>
> With regard to whether a zibbur may be included against its will,Meah
> shearim is included in the zibbur for yom hazikkaron because it is part
> of brit avot - it is part of am yisrael which is physically threatened,
> even though it is against its will.  It might not be included in the
> definition of zibbur for other communal issues.
>
> Whether or not the force of a zibbur is enough to mandate Meah she'arim
> to keep yom hazikkaron behadre hadarim I don't know.  However, to
> publicly flout it is tantamount to renouncing brit avot.
>

Where in halacha do we find these parameters?

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

RGS asked in the Areivim list, from Smochos 1:8 where Rabi Yehuda eulogized a 
gentile, IMHO Sheloi Lafushei Machlokes between Smochos and Brochos 16b 
(other then the Baal Hamamor, which both have the same Roshei Teivoh), that 
he was reffering only to an Eved (that is why he uses the term Tevy see 
Mforshim there).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

RYGB wrote:

>>I do not know that such a day would override the minhag not to cut hair - 
which is why I ask the question.>>

RC Brown wrote:

>>A Y"T is necessary to be doche a real chiyuv of aveilus (M.K. 14), but that 
halacha is inapplicable to sefirah, which is never explicitely recorded in Shas 
a having dinei aveilus at all.  The only issue here is minhag.>>

A good example of RCB's point was this past Friday during which, because it was 
both Rosh Chodesh and erev Shabbos, many poskim including the Mishneh Berurah 
allowed shaving and cutting hair.  Rosh Chodesh erev Shabbos IS NOT docheh 
aveilus.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

If I feel true simcha, and, to use the Emek Brocho's criteria, hatovos
Hashem and gevuros Hashe, can I shave during the Three Weeks (only a minhag)
on the Fourht of July?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <Gil.Student@citicorp.com>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 2:22 PM

...
> RC Brown wrote:
>> A Y"T is necessary to be doche a real chiyuv of aveilus (M.K. 14), but that
>> halacha is inapplicable to sefirah, which is never explicitely recorded in
>> Shas a having dinei aveilus at all.  The only issue here is minhag.>>

> A good example of RCB's point was this past Friday during which, because it
> was both Rosh Chodesh and erev Shabbos, many poskim including the Mishneh
> Berurah allowed shaving and cutting hair.  Rosh Chodesh erev Shabbos IS NOT
> docheh aveilus.
...

In a message dated 5/8/00 12:18:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< Thus, if someone rapes a nonvirgin single girl over the age of 12 1/2
 his only punishment is boshet (embarassment). As the gemara says the
 amount for boshet depends on the the rapist and the girl.
 I assume if the rapist is a famous boxer, rock star or even a president
 than the amount she can collect is minimal. >>

However, if the girl is a Niddah, like many girls over 12 are, the rapist is 
chayiv Misa/kares. 

On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 11:34:14AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 2. On a hashkafa level rape doesn't seem to rate very high unless the
:    woman is married or else is underage and belongs to her father.
:    A single woman on her own doesn't rate very much.

:    Of course all damages to someone else (posisbly also to oneself) are 
:    prohibited. But on the scale of other prohibitions it is not one of 
:    the major sins.

There is that famos quote of Avos 2:1 "havei zahir bimitzvah kalah
kivachamurah, she'ein atah yodei'ah matan sicharan shel mitzvah". An
implication of this is that one can't deduce any hashkafic statements
from the relative severity of on'shim.


A similar question: if someone imposes pain in a way that causes no permanent
harm to the victim, and the victim doesn't get medical attention, what fines
does he have to pay?

Would you deduce from this a similar near permissiveness?


I would say lihefech -- it would be worse if we thought that the sin were so
minor that it could be expiated through k'nas. Instead, beis din deals with
the more minor fiscal question of repaying damages, and leaves the true onesh
to HKBH.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 5/8/00 4:36:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:

> I would say lihefech -- it would be worse if we thought that the sin were so
>  minor that it could be expiated through k'nas. Instead, beis din deals with
>  the more minor fiscal question of repaying damages, and leaves the true 
> onesh
>  to HKBH

Akin to the famous Ramban on why Horgu Ein Neherogin by Eidim Zom'mimim, also 
in Pshutoi Shel Mikra, it is compared to murder.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

<< If I feel true simcha, and, to use the Emek Brocho's criteria, hatovos
 Hashem and gevuros Hashe, can I shave during the Three Weeks (only a minhag)
 on the Fourht of July?  >>

As I detailed in a previous post, the heter for shaving is based on having a 
personal Y"T based on a nes - it has nothing to do with feeling simcha or the 
4th of July.  

-Chaim B.

--- "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:

> On 3 May 2000, at 10:32, Harry Maryles wrote:
> 
>
> > R. Aaron Soloveichik Paskins that you may shave
> during
> > Sfira.
> 
> ANY time during sfira? 

Yes

Does he also pasken that you
> can take 
> haircuts? If not, mai nafka mina?

No.  Haircuts are different as they do not entail
noticible change in appearance during the given period
of Sfira.  Not shaving even for one day (if you are
clean shaven) on the other hand will make you look
unkempt.  This can effect buisness relationships and
therefore Parnassa. But I don't think R. Aaron even
requires a "parnassa" reason for his Heter.  I'm not
entirely certain of R. Aaron's reason for his Heter
but I know it exists because we (all of his Talmidim) 
shaved when we were in his shiur. That was the Modus
Operandi at the time (The 1960's). His more do his
more recent Talmidim also, shave during Sfira. I
personally never asked him directly for the Heter as
it was so widely accepted.

HM

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com/

On 8 May 2000, at 20:48, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:

> << If I feel true simcha, and, to use the Emek Brocho's criteria, hatovos
>  Hashem and gevuros Hashe, can I shave during the Three Weeks (only a minhag)
>  on the Fourht of July?  >>
> 
> As I detailed in a previous post, the heter for shaving is based on having a 
> personal Y"T based on a nes - it has nothing to do with feeling simcha or the 
> 4th of July.  

I always understood the concept of a "personal Yom Tov" being 
based on an event that happened to me personally. I don't think 
most of this list was born by 1948 (so far, at least, only RHM has 
admitted to having been born by 1948 :-). So how does Yom 
HaAtzmaut become a *personal* Yom Tov for us? (Note - I am not 
discounting the fact that most of us who live in Eretz Yisrael would 
likely not be living here if Eretz Yisrael were R"L ruled by the 
Arabs, British or Turks. I'm just not sure that makes this particular 
day into a personal Yom Tov for any of us).

-- 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 Wed, May 03, 2000 at 11:24:27PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Are we generally meikil in Hilchos Aveilus for an istenis?

As others have pointed out, perhaps not in general, but for omer and the three
weeks, yes.

:                                                            I once 
: heard the Rav of my shul comment that he never gets questions 
: about changing clothes from people sitting shiva, but that he 
: always gets them during the nine days.

I am not sure I agree with your assumed definition of "meikil" here. I don't
think people sitting shiv'ah want to be able to get away with doing less. In
general, there is a sense of duty, and a need for catharsis. People who sit
for a few hours before Yom Tov often have emotional qualms about it.

As I believe this was recently nogei'ah lima'aseh to one of us, I invite that
chaver's thoughts.

: But I understood from RHM's post that RAS holds *generally* that 
: you can shave during sfira and not just when it's for purposes of 
: parnassa (or avoiding a hefsed).

I was holding on to a post of his because I thought it was redundant. I just
approved it to help clear up this question.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
: The lashon of the Halichos Shlomo is not mashma like that; i.e., that even
: if the husband wanted to be machmir for the entire family, this was not
: recommended, since we can be somech on the Chazon Ish who holds that k'mat,
: there is no reshus harabim b'zman hazeh.

Are we really to assume that the number of reshuyos harabim is at a relative
low in this era? One would think that industrialization and urbanization would
raise the number, not lower it.

-mi

On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 01:58:18PM +0200, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: Although I have no source, I remember hearing somewhere that 
: IY"H is used when it is not certain that Hashem will want 
: something to occur, such as "IY"H I will go to America this 
: summer," while BE"H is used it is relatively certain that Hashem 
: wants the event to occur, like "BE"H my son's bris will be at such 
: and such a time and place."

However, if Hashem really wanted every b'ris to occur when planned, they all
would.

As non-intuitive as this sounds Hashem apparantly wants some aveiros. Or,
to be less shocking about it, values the opportunity for aveirah more than He
values mitzvos. Which is why we have bechirah, no?

I therefore lack the "relative certitude" about His wanting anything I plan.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  5-May-00: Shishi, Kedoshim
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 35a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Why was there no nes in the American War of Independence? Was that not
"rabbim b'yad me'atim"?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <C1A1Brown@aol.com>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, May 08, 2000 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: shaving on yom ha-atzmaut


> << If I feel true simcha, and, to use the Emek Brocho's criteria, hatovos
>  Hashem and gevuros Hashe, can I shave during the Three Weeks (only a
minhag)
>  on the Fourht of July?  >>
>
> As I detailed in a previous post, the heter for shaving is based on having
a
> personal Y"T based on a nes - it has nothing to do with feeling simcha or
the
> 4th of July.
>
> -Chaim B.
>

According to the CI, urbanization has the precise opposite effect, i.e.,
most areas are so built up that they are b'geder omed merubeh al ha'parutz.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe also seems to have held this way, because there is
rarely true mefulash anymore.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2000 5:47 AM
Subject: Re: Lo S'Choneim (was Re: aniyei ircha)


> On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:56:15AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> : The lashon of the Halichos Shlomo is not mashma like that; i.e., that
even
> : if the husband wanted to be machmir for the entire family, this was not
> : recommended, since we can be somech on the Chazon Ish who holds that
k'mat,
> : there is no reshus harabim b'zman hazeh.
>
> Are we really to assume that the number of reshuyos harabim is at a
relative
> low in this era? One would think that industrialization and urbanization
would
> raise the number, not lower it.
>
> -mi
>

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


[ 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         ]