Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 004

Wednesday, October 4 2000

• Re: sukka
• Re: asking mechilah
• Re: asking for mchila
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Leshono Habo'oh Beyerusholayim
• succah walls
• Re: Birchos HaTorah
• Re: Shehechyonu on Shmitta
• Vidui
• Re: asking mechilah
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: Yigdal
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Se'udah Hamafsekes
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• RE: Rov (was Re: bugs)
• Re: Machnisei Rachamim Apologetics
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha

>I haven't seen the article but in shiur R. Hershel Schachter quoted the Chazon
>Ish as saying that any wall that does not actually fall due to the wind is 
>fine.

It is muchach that the CI holds that way by Hil. Shabbos, where he says 
that a mechitza that is tied down on the top and bottom soy it does not 
sway in the wind is a valid mechitza - mashma that even if it sways in the 
middle it's OK. The she'mu'ah I heard is that it is, indeed, the CI that 
was mattir the canvas sukkos.

GCT
KT, YGB
ygb@aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
>> 1.  Why don't we ask mechilah from non-frum Jews?  
>> 2.  Is there a requirement to ask mechilah from non-Jews (e.g., co-workers)?

> The question is what issurim to aply to non-frum Jews and 
> gentiles.  Lashon 
> hara?  Ona'as devarim?  Gezel?

Gezel certainly applies to non-frum Jews m'doraisa and non-Jews at least
m'drabbanan (depending on meaning of "darchei shalom").  Lashon hara applies
only to oseh ma'aseh amcha.  Ona'as devarim--I assume that your referring to
the pasuk "v'lo sonu ish es amiso," implying that there is no issur for
someone that is not re'acha b'mitzvos.

But I would think that there are plenty of dinim bein adam l'chaveiro that
apply to non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  E.g., embarrassing them.  Are you are
arguing that we can learn from the cases of lashon hara and ona'as devarim
that there are no halachos bain adam l'chaveiro that apply to them?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 10/03/2000 8:49:50am EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> FWIW, I would think that pressing on in asking mechilah when you know the
> person isn't granting it could involve lifnei iveir.

See the mb there- he says you are permitted to continue to try to be mfayes 
him as long as it doesn't end up being a bizayon torah.  If he's machul, why 
continue?

GCT,
Joel RIch

Gil Student
> As such, we have a mitzva
> of Simchas Yom Tov, which according to many Rishonim requires that we eat meat
> and drink wine. Isn't that more of a taiva than eating fish, which according
> to some poskim is required every Shabbos?

In Germany after the banning of sh'chita, when imported kosher meat was
scarce and frightfully expensive, we had fish for a main dish on most
shabbatot and chagim.

GCHT
steve

From: Kenneth G Miller
>         the Satmar Rav taught how the "Habaah" in "L'shana Habaah
> Biyrushalayim" actually refers to the *current* year, not *next* year.

That is a famous pshat from the Satmar Rebbe zt'l - which has been oft
repeated (but I doubt if it was in the Vayoel Moshe that you saw it.)
even - IIRC - the Artscroll Yom Kippur Machzor brings it.

For those who haven't heard -

The obvious question is - Why do we say Leshono Habo'oh - next year -
in Jerusalem - why not this year?

He answers it by referring to Parshas Vayetzei where in (29:6) the posuk
states: "Vehinei Rochel bitoy *BO'OH* im hatzon", and later in posuk 9:
it states: "V'Rochel *BO'OH* im hatzon".

Rashi differentiates between the 2 "Bo'oh's", saying that in the first -
the trop in on the Alef - and as the Targum translates 'assyoh' - she
is coming.

The second "Bo'oh", however, has the trop on Beis with the Targum saying
'ossas' - she (already) came.

The SRebbe says that accordingly - when we pray: 'Leshono Habo'oh
Beyerusholayim' - we are actually referring to the year that has (already)
come - ie THIS year...

Omein - Ken Yehi Rotzon.
SBA

With regards to cloth succah walls I suggest seeing Igrot Moshe Orach
Haim vol.5 siman 39 (3) and Yechaveh Da'at vol.3 siman 46.

G'mar Hatima Tova,
Stuart Fischman

The following is from this week's Shabbat-B'Shabbato, produced by Machon
Zomet.

It resolves our question. (I didn't see R' Tabory's name on Avodah's
subscription rolls, but now I wonder...)

-mi

: A Mitzva in the Torah Portion: The Blessings for Torah Study
: Rabbi Binyamin Tabory
: 
: Moshe says, "For I will call out in G-d's name, declare our G-d's greatness"
: [Devarim 32:3]. Onkeles translates this, "When I pray in G-d's name, praise
: G-d." Rashi agrees and he writes, "this is the source for responding to the
: phrase 'Bless G-d' in the Temple with 'Let the honorable name of his kingdom
: be blessed'" (see Taanit 16b).
: 
: The Talmud considers this verse as referring to the blessing for studying
: Torah. Thus, before calling out G-d's name -- studying Torah -- it is
: necessary to recite the blessing of the Torah (Berachot 21a). In his list
: of mitzvot that the Rambam "left out," the Ramban adds: "It is necessary to
: thank G-d whenever we read the Torah, for the good that He did by giving it to
: us." He asks why the Rambam did not list this mitzva. The later commentators
: disagreed in their attempts to explain the Rambam's approach. Some feel that
: he sees the Talmud's proof only as a reminder, but that the requirement of
: a blessing is only a rabbinical decree. Others feel that the Rambam sees
: this as a Torah mitzva but one that is an integral part of Torah study and
: is not independent. (The Ramban suggested this possibility but rejected it.)
: 
: The wording of the Ramban suggests that this blessing (which he feels is a
: Torah obligation) is similar in form to the blessings of thanks (which are
: rabbinical rulings). Tosafot ask why the blessing is not recited every time
: one starts to study, in the same way that the blessing "to sit in a Sucah"
: is repeated every time one enters a Sucah (Berachot 12b). (The comparison
: to the blessing of Succah implies that Tosafot saw the Torah blessing as a
: blessing for a mitzva.) In any case, the answer of the Tosafot is, "Torah
: is different in that it never leaves the mind, since one is commanded to
: study all the time." It may be that Tosafot feel because there is a constant
: requirement to study, it is forbidden for one to put the Torah out of his
: mind. However, it is also possible to explain this differently: A person
: from Bnei Yisrael lives all the time within a framework of Torah and mitzvot
: and is therefore linked to a life of Torah even while not studying. Thus,
: there is no real possibility of ever being distracted from Torah.
: 
: According to the Shulchan Aruch, "Women recite the blessing for the Torah"
: [Orach Chaim 47]. This is in spite of the fact that they are not required
: to study (this has been discussed by later commentators, such as the GRA and
: Magen Avraham). According to the Ramban, who compares the Torah blessing to
: blessings of thanks, the fact that both men and women recite it once a day
: is reasonable. However, according to the approach of the Tosafot, that this
: is a blessing on a mitzva, a woman, who is not obligated to study Torah,
: should recite the blessing each time she starts to study. The Noda B'Yehuda
: in fact writes that this should be the case (in his commentary on Berachot),
: although he was not able to find a source for this from the early sages.
: 
: In the Shuchan Aruch of Chabad it is written that women should recite the
: blessing of the Torah, "since they must study their own mitzvot, in order
: to know how to perform the mitzvot they are required to do and in order to
: avoid prohibitions. They are also required to pray, just like men." And the
: most recent rabbi of Chabad wrote that women are similar to men in that they
: are obligated "all day long... and therefore, it is enough for them to bless
: once a day, like a man." (Commentaries on the Talmud, volume 1, chapter 2).

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@inter.net.il>
>> I noticed in the Belzer Luach (or maybe in their weekly Torah sheet)
>> that one of their Dayonim paskens that we be so mechaven
>> when saying Shehechyonu.

>> Is this a chiddush or a generally known and accepted practice?

> I don't know. When Rav Nebenzahl refers to "the Rav zt"l," I 
> assume he is referring to RSZA, whom he considered his Rebbe 
> muvhak (IIRC, when I was a bochur in HaKotel, Rav Nebenzahl 
> used to spend afternoon seder learning with RSZA). If so, I would 
> assume this is brought in Halichos Shlomo?

Yes, it is brought in Halichos Shlomo (p. 46).  While shmitta does not
warrant its own shehechyanu, one should have it in mind when making the
bracha on RH evening. (And it also mentions that R' Elyashiv agrees with
this.)

Similarly, RSZA was noheig with his sons not to give them their tefilin
until their 13th birthday (until then he explicitly lent it to them).  Thus,
when putting on their tefilin on their "bo bayom," they were able to say
shehechyanu without any safek (see Biur Halacha at siman 22 (d"h kaneh)).
When making this bracha, RSZA instructed them to have in mind the fact of
their becoming a bar mitzva that day and how they are zocheh to "kabalas ol
torah v'mitzvos."

KT and GCT
Aryeh

The "Al Chaits" are in alphabetical order.  How come we substitute a shin
for a samech?  Are there no sins that start with the letter samech?  I'm
sure there is a good reason for this; I just don't know it.

KT and GCT
Aryeh

RM Feldman wrote:
> But I would think that there are plenty of dinim bein adam l'chaveiro that 
> apply to non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  E.g., embarrassing them.  Are you are 
> arguing that we can learn from the cases of lashon hara and ona'as devarim 
> that there are no halachos bain adam l'chaveiro that apply to them?
     
I'm not arguing anything.  Just asking an open question.  What is the issur of 
embarrassing?  Is it part of retzichah?  If so, it would certainly apply to 
non-frum Jews and non-Jews.  I think R. Daniel Feldman discuses the issur in his
book The Right and the Good.  I'll have to b"n look it up.  What other halachos 
bein adam lechaveiro can you think of?  Cursing - venasi be'AMCHA lo sa'or.  I'm
just thinking out loud - and not thinking so clearly either.  Someone else, 
please step in.

Gil Student

On Mon, Oct 02, 2000 at 12:45:40PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: Those who recite Machnisei Rachamim are not praying to Agents in terms of a
: prayer. They are requesting aid and assistance that the prayers get
: delivered OK.

RSRH notes that there was a deity in the Mitzri pantheon named Apis. Apis's
supposed role was to bring prayers up to the gods, and bring their blessings
down to earth. Since in their culture (given their state of making reins for
horses) they used oxen to pull carts, Apis was associated with an ox.

RSRH writes this bit to explain Chazal's statement that the eigel hazahav
wasn't an attempt to replace HKBH, but to replace Moshe Rabbeinu. Note
they chose a young ox, an Apis figure. Because they thought that 1- Moshe
Rabbeinu was a middleman between them and Hashem Yisbarach and that 2-
"Moshe haIsh" was not returning.

My point, other than to share this vort, is to point out that asking for
delivery is also a bakashah. One that is serious enough for the Mitzriyim
to consider worthy of its own avodah zarah. (As did the Greeks -- Mercury
was cast in a similar role.)

So yes, you're asking them for delivery, not for the rachamim. But does it
make the problem any less acute?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 08:26:40 -0400 D & E-H Bannett said:
>Are you aware that some Hasidic siddurim omit Yigdal from Shaharit on
>the grounds that it does not portray correctly the 13 Ikkarim.

I'm aware that the Siddur Tehilas Hashem (chabad/Ari) omits the
Yigdal, I was not sure why.
Afaik it also omits the Ani Maamin, too.

And in a sense the very fact that Yigdal is controversial serves up a
point that those siddurim/communities that DO recite it are making a
point, albeit most are not conscious of it.

It is also possible that Chabad (and others) pasken like Albo over
the Rambam wrt to what is an Ikkar or they pasken that ikkarim are NOT
limited to 13 but are more expansive.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Is there any Torah re: being yotzei Simchas Yom Tov with fish?
It is mashma from Behaaloscho that Moshe presumed dgei hayam to
be yotzei bassar taavo.
The question is: is fish a bossor legabei ein simcha ela
bevossor v'yayin?
Lich'ora it might not be in most cases, E.G. the nine days
we do not refrain from fish...

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

Brief machsava on Se'udah Hamfsekes....

We may not eat on YK and we may not eat on Tisha b'Av. In a sense
this deprives us of a an opportunity to observe the day at a forma
ritual se'udah.

It has been suggested that therefore the se'udah hamafsekes is a form
of tashlumin for the meal we may not eat.

Therefore, on erev Tisha b'Av we davka ritualize it as a se'udas aveelim.

And therefore, on erev YK we davka ritualize it as a se'udas Yom Tov. And
there is a inyan of simcha associated with YK, the YomTov type se'udah
hamfsekes is our opporuntiy to be yotzei this inyan via a meal.

This gives us another reason to daven Mincha and say viduy first, in order
to bring some of YK's kedushah BEFORE the meal. And it goes along with
mi'tish'ah bachodesh me'erev. that YK implcitly starts before the 10th,
and so we davka have the meal at the end of the 9th of Tishrei.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

> 1. 51+% - Rov garua - ...
> 2. Appr. 70/80% - Rov bari - ...
> 3. Appr. 90% - This has a miut she'eino matzui...
> 4. Appr. 99% - Even R. Meir would not be choshesh ...
> 5. Appr. 99.9% - This is not a safek and we are not even choshesh ...

I wonder if modern statistical standard deviations could
be applied.

1 standard deviation  - rov bari
2 standard deviations - Ruba d'ruba (IOW R. Meir would not be choshesh)

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 10:45:40AM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
:> 2. Appr. 70/80% - Rov bari - ...
:> 4. Appr. 99% - Even R. Meir would not be choshesh ...

: 1 standard deviation  - rov bari
: 2 standard deviations - Ruba d'ruba (IOW R. Meir would not be choshesh)

If you're speaking of standard deviations, then I assume you believe that
the uncertainty can be modeled as a normal distribution (IOW, a bell curve).
I'm not sure the assumption is justified.

For a normal distribution, the probability of being within 1 st dev
away from the mean is roughly 68%, 2 st dev translates to 95%. Both
numbers are slightly low, but within the same ballpark as those
mentioned.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RR Wolpoe wrote: 
:> 2. Appr. 70/80% - Rov bari - ...
:> 3. Appr. 90% - This has a miut she'eino matzui...
:> 4. Appr. 99% - Even R. Meir would not be choshesh ...
     
: 1 standard deviation  - rov bari
: 2 standard deviations - Ruba d'ruba (IOW R. Meir would not be choshesh)
     
RM Berger wrote:

> For a normal distribution, the probability of being within 1 st dev 
> away from the mean is roughly 68%, 2 st dev translates to 95%. Both 
> numbers are slightly low, but within the same ballpark as those 
> mentioned.
     
For a lognormal distribution, 2 standard deviations brings us to a rov of 
type 3 instead of 4.

Gil Student

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> 3. Appr. 90% - This has a miut she'eino matzui. No obligation to verify, even 
> lechatchilah (Chiddushei HaRamban and Milchamos, Chullin ch. 1 [probably on 
> Chullin 11b-12a])

> According to the above, if we find bugs in a particular vegetable less than
> 10% of the time, presumably this is a rov of type 3 and there is no
> obligation to check, even lechatchilah. However...

R. Schachter personally told me that #3 applies to bugs. Moreover, he
said that the 90% can be evaluated *after* the vegetable has undergone
a particular treatment, e.g., a chemical rinse which frozen broccoli is
subjected to. From this, and from my conversations with Rabbi Eisen of
the OU (author of the OU booklet on bugs), I concluded that R. Eisen's
conclusions were too machmir with regard to frozen broccoli. (BTW,
my conclusions accorded with what R. Feivel Wagner said to me in the
name of R. Heinemann that frozen broccoli does not need a hechsher.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 11:15:23 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>                                                              asking for
>delivery is also a bakashah. One that is serious enough for the Mitzriyim
>to consider worthy of its own avodah zarah. (As did the Greeks...

I would say it depends how literal you are in taking
machnisei rachamim.  And my post did not remove the problem
it was an attempt to show that it IS a problem on one level
and NOT a problem on another level.

Of course you are arguing from the level in which it is a problem
and so of course within THAT dimension you are correct.

You have to STEP OUT of peshat and into the dimension of
"something else" to justify machnisei rachamim as befitting
the 5th Ikkar.  That dimension is the case of a paranthetical
aside, not a tefilah but a bakasha to the handlers of Tefilah.
to process the tefillos with care.

Note: That following machniesi we swithc to Aramaic (a
language alein to malachim) and affirm the following:
Maran divishmayo LACH mischanenon! Only to YOU Master in
Heaven do we offer our techinos.

I would guess we could was Brisker and say this:
The Rambam's ikkar prohibits TEFILLAH only.  But bakasha is
pashut, after all we do bakashas from people all the time.
So there are 2 (or more) dinnim at work.  Tefillah is davka
to HKBH, bakasha is lav davka.

Now a bakasha to accomplish the miraculous might cross
a boundary.  But it is NOT assur to ask an MD to cure
our child so long as we do NOT expect from him a miracle!

Similarly, we can expect that communication systems do their
job w/o a miracle.  Would we say that a bakasha to a Chazzan/Shatz
"please daven with extra kavvanah" violates the 5th Ikkar?
I doubt it.  Similarly asking the conveyors of tefillos to
pay special attention is not a Tefillah to the mal'achim
rather it is simply a request
that they don't fumble somthing in the process of delivery.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

As promised, here's the text said as per minhag FFdM --
it starts after "v'yayin k'nisko" and replaces the remaining,
"u'shnai s'eerem...eesheh laShaim" segment:
"v'so-eer l'chapair mil'vad olas hachodesh uminchosoh
v'so-eer l'chattos v'niskaihem k'mishpotom
u'shnai s'meedeem k'hilchosom."

All the best (incl. wishes for a g'mar tov) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

From: <MPoppers@kayescholer.com>
> As promised, here's the text said as per minhag FFdM...
> "v'so-eer l'chapair mil'vad olas hachodesh uminchosoh
> v'so-eer l'chattos v'niskaihem k'mishpotom
> u'shnai s'meedeem k'hilchosom."

Although the FFdM nusach removes the redundancy (re: "u-shnei temidim
ke-hilchasam"... "milvad... olas ha-tamid u-minchasa"), it also necessetates
changing the actual wording of the pasuk beginning "milvad", which, in
standard nusach ashkenaz/sefard is quoted in its entirety.

It still seems to me that the best way to go is with the ammendation of the
Cheshek Shlomo, who takes out "u-shnei temidim ke-hilchasam" but leaves the
pasuk intact. I am still amazed, at any rate, at the lack of commentary on
what seems to be a blatant mistake in the standard nusach ha-tefilah. Has
anyone else seen any other nusachim which deal with this problem?

EYH

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:19:22 -0400 Eliyohu Hoffmann said:
>Although the FFdM nusach removes the redundancy (re: "u-shnei temidim
>ke-hilchasam"... "milvad... olas ha-tamid u-minchasa"), it also necessetates
>changing the actual wording of the pasuk beginning "milvad", which, in
>standard nusach ashkenaz/sefard is quoted in its entirety.

I have not seen them myself but Baer cites The Roke'ach, and Maharil,
(and also Yosif Ometz...) I suspect they might deal with this issue as
they are the sources of the nusach FFDM here

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

RR Wolpoe wrote:

> Is there any Torah re: being yotzei Simchas Yom Tov with fish? It is mashma 
> from Behaaloscho that Moshe presumed dgei hayam to be yotzei bassar taavo.
> The question is: is fish a bossor legabei ein simcha ela bevossor v'yayin?
> Lich'ora it might not be in most cases, E.G. the nine days we do not refrain 
> from fish...
     
No, fish is not meat.  See the Mishnah on Chullin 104a.

Ein simchah ela bevassar is tied to korbanos, see Pesachim 109a.  Last I 
checked, there were no fish korbanos.

Gil Student

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 16:54:08 -0400 Gil Student said:
>No, fish is not meat.  See the Mishnah on Chullin 104a.
>Ein simchah ela bevassar is tied to korbanos, see Pesachim 109a.  Last I
>checked, there were no fish korbanos.

Good point.  And there were also no chicken karbanos.
So how come chicken is yotzei yedai bassar?
And what about venison?

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

RR Wolpoe wrote:
     
> Good point.  And there were also no chicken karbanos. So how come chicken is 
> yotzei yedai bassar?

Says who?

> And what about venison?

I'd think not.

Gil Student
     

On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:21:39 -0400 Gil Student said:
>> Good point.  And there were also no chicken karbanos. So how come chicken is
>> yotzei yedai bassar?

>Says who?

Mimetics?!
Or are you saying all those who ate chicken only on Shabbos
were never yotzei yedei simchas bossor?

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

On 4 Oct 00, at 17:03, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>              And there were also no chicken karbanos.
> So how come chicken is yotzei yedai bassar?

I'm not sure it is. In Sefer Zichron Shlomo on Hilchos Chol HaMoed from
Rav Francis and Rav Zucker (the Roshei Kollel of the Lakewood Kollel in
Chicago) they bring a Biur (number 1) in the back of the sefer about
Simchas Yom Tov. In Ois daled there, they discuss the kiyum of eating
meat on Yom Tov as simcha, and bring the following m'koros for the
proposition that only basar beheima is sufficient:

Beer Hetev 551:28 in the name of the Bach
Rambam Hilchos Chagiga 2:10
Leket Yosher 157
Pischei Tshuva YD 1:1 in the name of Chavos Yair 178
Rivivos Ephraim 1:350 ois alef in the name of R. Moshe Feinstein
And so the authors also heard from R. Yaakov Kamenetsky

But they also bring Yad Ephraim YD 1:1 who says that b'zman ha'zeh you
can be yotzei with basar oif.

I have not looked up the mkoros other than the Zichron Shlomo, which I
used many years ago to get my wife to serve "real" meat on Yom Tov :-)

-- 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

Gmar Chasima Tova (or Gmar Chatima Tova,
depending on your preference).
May you and yours be sealed in
the books of life, health and happiness.

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


[ 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         ]