Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 029

Friday, November 3 2000

• Re: Tenth Man
• Re: Free will
• Re: Fwd: Insight 5761 - 5
• RE: Tenth Man
• Question about P. Noach
• Re: Taninim Gedolim
• Re: laisez faire gov't
• Which animals were on the teiva?
• Kiddush intro
• Which animals were on the teiva
• RE: Which animals were on the teiva
• RE: Fwd: Insight 5761 - 5
• Re: Tenth Man
• Which animals were on the teiva
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Kiddush intro
• Re: Tenth Man
• Re: Question about P. Noach
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• Re: 85 letters makes a sefer kadosh?
• RE: Kiddush intro
• Re: Which animals were on the teiva?
• RE: Tenth Man

From: gil.student@citicorp.com
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n169.shtml#02>
> I have the problem of how many people I have to wait for before starting
> chazaras hashatz. I believe it is black on white in the Shulchan Aruch that
> without ten people who have finished davenning it is almost a berachah
> levatalah (some allow with nine) but there is always pressure to start
> before that. The obvious answer is to daven very slowly so that I am the
> last to finish. However, when you have a minyan metzumtzam and one guy is a
> v-e-r-y l-o-n-g davenner that is not possible. 

To return to a topic that was discussed almost one year ago (waiting for
ten people to finish shemona esrei before beginning chazaras hashatz)
I just came across this issue in Halichos Shlomo. According to RSZA,
"b'shas hadchak," you _can_ include those people that are still davening
their shemona esrei.

(Certainly, l'chatchila, you must wait for ten (including the chazan), and
it is proper to wait not just for ten, but for a majority of the tzibur to
have finished.) 

KT
Aryeh

On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 03:20:41PM +0200, Eli Linas wrote:
: >Bechirah is limited by the laws of teva, and by the situations we find
: >ourselves in. One can't make a choice that never presents itself.

: I think what David says can fit in with the Michtav M'Eliyahu.

I was trying to point out that there are two issues:
1- Those decisions that you don't make because they are beyond your
   nekudah;
2- Those decisions you don't make because you are never faced with the
   choice.

An absurd situation, like the Bostoner Rebbe playing at the Garden,
involves both -- it would never cross the Rebbe's mind to play it, and
he would never be physically allowed onto the court in the garden.

I thought David's original comment, because it was based on this example,
blurred the two.

: I think what David says can fit in with the Michtav M'Eliyahu. For example,
: when a frier...

First, frai vs frum isn't an all-or-nothing. So I'm not sure why his being
a BT or another being an FFB is an issue. It's all about moving the nekudah
upward.

:                                               A few years down the road,
: when he's made peace with his decision not to play, this is no longer a
: free will choice, just like it's not for an FFB. 

And don't the same things happen outside the observant community? People
do teshuvah from cheating on taxes or eating on Yom Kippur successfully
enough that as time progresses it wouldn't even cross their minds
again.

This goes back to removing this all-or-nothing barrier. Every person
faces progress and r"l regress no matter where they are currently. What
differs is which battles are fought, not the process of battle.

Which is why I disagree with your statement about who excercises bechirah
most often. It's whoever is in the most moral flux, regardless of where
they are on the frumometer.

In a later email REL writes:
: what you say, just because he no longer has the choice doesn't mean
: he's not rewarded for it - in other words, he is not "punished"
: by losing out on the schar that he otherwise would have had if he had
: to continually confront this issue. There are other details to it as well.

As I mentioned in passing earlier, I disagree. One gets reward for
being in a place where this isn't a decision, but where there is less
tza'ara, there will be less agra. This is the whole reason for them
being judged kichut shel sa'ara -- for them this is the parallel
battle that the bigger issues are for us.

All this is lifi REED, not my own personal shitah. I don't understand how
REED can separate conscious decision from unconscious ones, saying this
requires bechirah and this doesn't. All decisions involve both levels,
just to varying extents.

Second, one should be aware that in every middah people are going to have
different nekudos, and multiple middos are involved in each decision. So
the whole picture is far more complicated.

IOW, I would address distance from various bechirah points, not the
yes-or-no of being at a single nekudah or beyond it. (A second retreat
from black-vs-white in one email.)

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:38:33PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: 1) Totally altruistic
: 2) In order to better one's Middos
: 3) In order to gain compensation.
...

Isn't #3 a causal consequence of #2?

: Reason #1 is perhaps the highest level.  But according to those who say
: "schar mitzva mitzva" that a mitzva contains its own intrinsic reward then
: #2 might be suggested as a valid alternative to #1.  After all isn't one
: entitled to feel good about a mitzva?  Unless you say "lechach notzarta"!?

There is a difference between being entitled, and doing mitzvos "al menas".
It should remain viewed at a side-effect, not a goal. Just as we could say
about #3. Yes, you're entitled to the sechar, but you shouldn't be driven
by it.

Except perhaps for mitzvos bein adam li'atzmo.

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RW
> Can you cite the specific siman?

According to RSZA, "b'shas hadchak," you _can_ include those people that are
still davening their shemona esrei.

KT
Aryeh

Why is it that when HKBH benches Adam (1:28), it's "peru urvu umil'u
es ha'aretz vikivshuha", but when speaking to Noach (9:1) there is no
mention of kibbush?

R' Aharon Lichtenstein offers the idea that kibbush's potential is
both litov and not. For a Noach who ran "vayichal" -- to get drunk
and enjoy olam hazeh, the latter would dominate.

However, was the berachah just to one man? Isn't it ledoros? I'm
sure Noach alone couldn't possibly have fulfilled "umil'u" in just
one dor. And what does this mean WRT RYBS's limud that "vikivshuha"
is a call to master the world technologically, or RSRH's that it's to
enlarge the human niche? (As per the "outside" male gender role we've
discussed int eh past.) Why wasn't Noach explicitely given this
mandate to teach to his children?

-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 Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

RRW:

>I have always assumed that the Taninim Gedolim (Breishis 1:21) is not
>the fish of Rashi but great lizards - i.e dinosaurs that indeed did
>not survive a churban such as the mabbul. And it is also possible that
>since some of those lizards dwelt in swamps and were therefore aquatic
>in a sense.

Nessie?

Eli

RMB:

>It would seem that the Rashbam supports laissez faire economy. What
>then does he do with the power given to ziknei ha'ir to fix prices? And
>of course, what about hasagas gevul -- a di'Oraisa aimed at minimizing
>market competition?

Zeh lo kasha: kahn totally free market, kahn with minimal government
intervention and regulation - much like in the States. I think that it's
universally accepted that the former doesn't work too good.

Eli

R' Aryeh Kaplan's views on the age of the universe and the mabul are
contained in a post-humous collection of essays entitled, "Immortality,
Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe - A Kabbalistic view"
published in '93 by Ktav Publ. in association with the AOJS (Association
of Orthodox Jewish Scientists).  In it he cites the early kabbalist, R'
Yitzchak of Acco (who is credited with authenticating the Zohar after it
was "published" by R' Moshe de Leon), with the calculation of a 15
billion year age of the universe based on equating 365,250 human days
(approx. 1000 years) with 1 "divine" day as per Tehilim 90:4 (and
365,250 ordinary years in 1 "divine" year) - together with a much
earlier kabbalistic assumption that our world is the start of the
seventh great sabbatical cycle of 7,000 "years".  The product of 42,000
"divine" years and 365,250 ordinary years per "divine" year gives 15.3
billion years as the age of the universe, which is close to the best
current scientific estimate.  The book cites the full text of R'
Yitzchok of Acco (Otzar ha- Hayyim) on this topic and provides a
translation.

The above book also contains a translation of the long essay on
resurrection by the Tiferet Yisrael (the Hebrew text is provided as
well) in which Rav Yisrael Lipschitz accepts the evidence of geologists
(Cuvier) in the early 1800s of several very large scale upheavals of
life on earth.  He cites the finding of mammoth bones in Siberia,
dinosaur fossils in the US and Europe, and shells and fossils of sea
creatures on the tallest mountains as evidence of the prior worlds
mentioned is some early kabbalistic writings.  Moreover, he interprets
the second verse of Genesis in the light of these findings.  He
concludes that the Torah deals only with the latest creation and
mentions the previous ones (including early man) only in passing.

In chapter 2 of this book, "Longevity and Immortality in Judaic
sources", R' Kaplan postulates that the sharp decrease in longevity
listed for the descendants of Noach resulted from their interbreeding
with those of "other tribes" when they migrated and settled in the
Mesopotamian valley (p.22).  Clearly, he believes that the mabul did not
cause world-wide destruction.

The critique of the Tiferet Yisrael's views described above by the
Netziv has been mentioned by some posters.   The latter's accounting for
dinosaur fossils as a product of cross-breeding of disparate species who
perished in the mabul is quite a stretch.  The explanation of Rav
Lifschitz has the advantage of simplicity and being in accord with the
physical facts known then as well as now.  Now we know that the
dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago as a result of the massive
upheaval produced by the asteroid impact in the Yucatan - long before
the advent of modern mammals or humans.

Yitzchok Zlochower

Is there any halachic validity to not breaking up complete sentences when 
reciting a bracha?  Specifically, the introduction to the kiddush on Friday 
night begins "Vay'hi erev vay'hi voker yom hashisi" but ignores the first 
part of the pasuk, "Vayar elokim es kol asher asa, v'henei tov meod."

I believe the mishna brura brings down the fact that one should recite the 
first part of this sentence (in an undertone), but I've never seen anyone do 
this.  

Similarly, there are some who begin the Shabbos morning kiddush with "al kein 
berach" instead of "v'shamru"--also an example of starting in the middle of a 
sentence.  While this isn't as widespread, it clearly has some basis in 
minhag.

Can anyone shed some light on these practices?

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

>>Rather, Rashi is maskim to his understanding based on 
the Gemarah in Zevachim. Rashi's rayah that Noach learnt 
the torah is from the fact that Noach was aware that 
there was such a concept of tamei/tahor by animals since
this idea doesn't apply to B'nei Noach.<<<

The Netziv in Harchev Davar discusses this gemara as 
well.  Netziv also adds that based on pshuto shel mikra
the idea of 'tahor' here means 'tamim' (as opposed to
ba'al mum) - even though a regular korban for a ben 
Noach is kosher even if it is a ba'al mum, that is only
because it is not l'ratzon and on a bamah which is not 
reiach nichoach, but Noach's korban which was reiach
nichoach had to be tamim. Not sure what you mean that
it doesn't apply to ben Noach - it applies l'gabi the
din that they cannot be makriv an animal which is a
tamei ba'al mum?

R' Chaim Brown wrote:
	<<The Netziv in Harchev Davar discusses this gemara as 
> well.  Netziv also adds that based on pshuto shel mikra
> the idea of 'tahor' here means 'tamim' (as opposed to
> ba'al mum) - even though a regular korban for a ben 
> Noach is kosher even if it is a ba'al mum, that is only
> because it is not l'ratzon and on a bamah which is not 
> reiach nichoach, but Noach's korban which was reiach
> nichoach had to be tamim. Not sure what you mean that
> it doesn't apply to ben Noach - it applies l'gabi the
> din that they cannot be makriv an animal which is a
> tamei ba'al mum? >>
> 
> 
	I understood the Maharsha to mean tamei/tahgor l'gabei issur achilah
and that halacha did not apply to Bnei Noach. In thinking about it, it is a
little problamatic. L'chorah the whole point of diffrentiaing between tamei
and tahor was for purposes of bringing a korbon not for eating. So if a Ben
Noach could only bring a tahor (kosher) animal as a korbon, then Noach
should ahve known there was a difference. This Maharsha seem sto imply that
a Bne Noach could bring a non kosher animal as a korbon.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avodah@aishdas.org [mailto:owner-avodah@aishdas.org]On
Behalf Of Micha Berger
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 12:56 PM
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
Subject: Re: Fwd: Insight 5761 - 5


On Tue, Oct 31, 2000 at 06:38:33PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: 1) Totally altruistic
: 2) In order to better one's Middos
: 3) In order to gain compensation.
...

Isn't #3 a causal consequence of #2?

: Reason #1 is perhaps the highest level.  But according to those who say
: "schar mitzva mitzva" that a mitzva contains its own intrinsic reward then
: #2 might be suggested as a valid alternative to #1.  After all isn't one
: entitled to feel good about a mitzva?  Unless you say "lechach notzarta"!?

There is a difference between being entitled, and doing mitzvos "al menas".
It should remain viewed at a side-effect, not a goal. Just as we could say
about #3. Yes, you're entitled to the sechar, but you shouldn't be driven
by it.

Except perhaps for mitzvos bein adam li'atzmo.

-mi

--------------------
I agree. In #2 the schar is a byproduct of good behavior.  It's not the
focus, more of a fringe benefit.  However, the long-term hashkafa of having
an enlightened self-interest may be a motivator for people to persist in
"doing the right thing" in the face of mitigating circumstances.  If I know
being "nice" darchei noam is good for MY nsesham my personna, I might
persist in the face of someone eager to aggravate me. 

Illustration: think of Hillel in the bathtub when that nudnik wagered he
could get Hillel angry.  So I can say to myself, Hevu m'taldmiedi Hillel, do
what it takes to devlope Hillel-like characteristics.  And I will benefit in
aquiring greater peace of mind, less agita, more equanimity etc.  

Illustration #2:  R. Moshe Feinstein was quoted as saying:
"Don't say shver tzu zayn a yid say Ziess tzu zayn a yid"
Behaving Jewishly, i.e. doing mitzvos, should be perceived as sweet and not
a a burden.  One of hte reasons for the massive defections from frumkeit
during the 20th centruy has been atributed to those finding Yiddishkeit a
burden  

 
 

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  
 

Agreed, but for how many do you wait after heicheh kedusha?

"Stein, Aryeh E." wrote:

> From: gil.student@citicorp.com
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n169.shtml#02>
> > I have the problem of how many people I have to wait for before starting
> > chazaras hashatz. I believe it is black on white in the Shulchan Aruch that
> > without ten people who have finished davenning it is almost a berachah
> > levatalah (some allow with nine) but there is always pressure to start
> > before that. The obvious answer is to daven very slowly so that I am the
> > last to finish. However, when you have a minyan metzumtzam and one guy is a
> > v-e-r-y l-o-n-g davenner that is not possible.
>
> To return to a topic that was discussed almost one year ago (waiting for
> ten people to finish shemona esrei before beginning chazaras hashatz)
> I just came across this issue in Halichos Shlomo. According to RSZA,
> "b'shas hadchak," you _can_ include those people that are still davening
> their shemona esrei.
>
> (Certainly, l'chatchila, you must wait for ten (including the chazan), and
> it is proper to wait not just for ten, but for a majority of the tzibur to
> have finished.)
>
> KT
> Aryeh

R' Chaim Brown wrote:

> The gemara means he saved those which were not bred with species other
> than their own b'issur, as the gemara says that 'hirbiyu behaima al
> chaya v'chaya al bheima'.
> 
	Also see the Aruch on that gemara (brought down on the side) which
says the same thing.

	I also saw an interesting Maharsha on this sugya. The gemara in
Sanhedrin asks how did Noach know which animals did not interbreed. The
gemara brings 2 deios-either Noach brought all the animals and only the ones
which were pure were let in or the pure animals came by themselves. The
Gemarah in Zevachim (116a) brings this sugya down as well. However, the
Maharsha changes the girsa (it fits better w/ the discussion in the gemara)
and says the gemara in Zevachim is asking how Noach knew the animals were
tamei and tohar. The Gemara's answer is the same as in Sanhedrin. However in
this case the gemara says "Like Rav Chisda says..." which leads the
Mahrashah to be midayek that the ikkur teretz was said to answer how Noach
knew which animals were free from sin, but the same teretz applies to the
question about Tamei/Tahor.

	The Maharshah then adds that if you look at Rashi on chumash he
seems to say that from the fact  Noach knew which animals were tamei and
tahor shows us he learnt the Torah. However, the Maharshah says this is not
the pshat. Rather, Rashi is maskim to his understanding based on the Gemarah
in Zevachim. Rashi's rayah that Noach learnt the torah is from the fact that
Noach was aware that there was such a concept of tamei/tahor by animals
since this idea doesn't apply to B'nei Noach.

> I believe the mishna brura brings down the fact that one should recite the 
> first part of this sentence (in an undertone), but I've never seen anyone do 
> this.  
     
I do.  According to the Nefesh HaRav, so did RYBS.

Gil Student

At 05:36 PM 11/2/00 -0500, Gil Student wrote:
>> I believe the mishna brura brings down the fact that one should recite the
>> first part of this sentence (in an undertone), but I've never seen anyone do
>> this.

>I do.  According to the Nefesh HaRav, so did RYBS.

I now only say Yom Ha'Shishi because of the kol pasuk shelo paskei Moshe 
problem. I believe this si also Nusach Ari.

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

> I believe the mishna brura brings down the fact that one should recite
> the first part of this sentence

The Aruch HaShulchan brings that down as the preferred practice, however,
see Shut Chsasm Sofer who justifies the minhag. You have the same
problem saying 'vzos haTorah' by hagbha if you don't finish the pasuk.

-CB

On 2 Nov 00, at 10:36, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> I just came across this issue in Halichos Shlomo. According to RSZA,
> "b'shas hadchak," you _can_ include those people that are still davening
> their shemona esrei.

But what is a "shas ha'dchak?" Something tells me it is not the 
typical working man's Mincha minyan where someone is in a rush 
because they want to make sure they have enough time to eat 
lunch....

- 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

In a message dated 11/2/00 1:02:58 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Why is it that when HKBH benches Adam (1:28), it's "peru urvu umil'u
> es ha'aretz vikivshuha", but when speaking to Noach (9:1) there is no
> mention of kibbush?

Bpashtus perhaps since they required a Heter for marital relations, they 
needed a new Bracha (just like WRT animals they too got a new Bracha (8:17) 
the Vkivshuha is not needed here, not only according to the first Pshat in 
Rashi 1:28, even according to the second Pshat that it teachs us that the 
Mitzva is only on the women, it is still not needed as here the Possuk 
clearly says 9:1 that this was said to Noach and his Sons (excluding the 
women) wheras in 1:28 Adam and Chava were addressed "Vayomer Lohem".

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/2/00 5:32:37 PM EST, zlochoia@bellatlantic.net writes:
> Now we know that the
> dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago as a result of the massive
> upheaval produced by the asteroid impact in the Yucatan - long before

WADR I don't know of such! neither do many who do not accept this 
interpertaion.




In a message dated 11/2/00 5:32:49 PM ESt, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:
> The Netziv in Harchev Davar discusses this gemara as well...
>              even though a regular korban for a ben 
> Noach is kosher even if it is a ba'al mum, that is only
> because it is not l'ratzon and on a bamah which is not 
> reiach nichoach, but Noach's korban which was reiach
> nichoach had to be tamim....

Why couldn't we learn Baal Mum from the Korban of Kayin see Rashi 4:3 (Bifrat 
according to the the first Peirush).

Kol Tuv
Yitzchok Zirkind

Eric Simon wrote:
>>From Rabbi Ari Kahn's torah discussion column on Behalotcha:

>>The Mishna, while discusses the ritual sanctity of scripture, teaches
>>that any part of Torah which is erased but retains a minimum of 85
>>letters, (exactly the number in the demarcated section in this week's
>>Torah portion), has holiness, for a "book" remains (Yadayim 3:5).

> The demarcated section in parsha Behaloscha, are the 85 letters between the
> famous inverted nuns.  Based on this, according to Rabbi Ari Kahn, the
> Medrash (B'reishis Rabbah 64:8) says that there are seven books to the
> Torah.  (Breishis, Shmos, Vayikra, Bamidbar up to the nun, the two psukim
> between the nuns, the rest of Bamidbar, and Dvarim).

> My question for you experts (from someone who does not have Breshis Rabbah
> or Mishna Yadayim): is the minumum of 85 letters derived from the fact that
> there are two inverted nuns and the Medrash -- *or* -- is the Medrash an
> _application_ of the "85-letter rule" derived elsewhere?

> (I have cc'd this to R Kahn, and ask that, if he responds: can I share this
> with the list).

The 85 letters are learned from this section in Behalotcha, tradition records
that this is a separate book, this is found in the Gemara of Shabbat 115b-116a,
as well as the Mishna and various midrashim.

Ari Kahn

C1A1Brown@aol.com:
> The Aruch HaShulchan brings that down as the preferred practice, however,
> see Shut Chsasm Sofer who justifies the minhag. You have the same
> problem saying 'vzos haTorah' by hagbha if you don't finish the pasuk.

Al kein Beirach,
Vayihi Erev
Al Pi Hashem beyad Moshe 

Are 3 examples of 3 Half-psukim incorporated into our liturgy despite the 
Principle of kol passuk dol pasak Moshe Rabbeinu...

I have a pet hypothesis on this, but I have only a hunch:

Hypothesis:
The esnachto consititues enough of a hefsek to not violate the rule of Kol
Passuk.  IOW the rule does apply but it is lav davkathe sof passuk.

The only evidence I have is that the liturgy is consistent with this.  

Big exception: the 13 middos.  Starting after the zarko on vayikra is not so
difficult a reach.   
Ending on V'nakeh is a real problem to this approach. Ending on v'chata'ah
would work nicely, but we don't. 

It's one of those things I wanted to reaseach myself if I had more time.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

> Why couldn't we learn Baal Mum from the Korban of Kayin see Rashi 4:3
> (Bifrat according to the the first Peirush).

There it was an agricultural korban - here Noach is told to bring
davka animals for a korban, so it is a chiddush din of beheima tehorah.
(V'aderaba, I might have argued that Hevel b'davka had to bring the best
sheep as oppsed to Kayin, because since he was bringing an animal there
is a din of it not being a ba'al mum, kah mashma lan our parsha that
this is not true...)

-Chaim B.

Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]:
>> I just came across this issue in Halichos Shlomo. According to RSZA,
>> "b'shas hadchak," you _can_ include those people that are still davening
>> their shemona esrei.

> But what is a "shas ha'dchak?" Something tells me it is not the 
> typical working man's Mincha minyan...

Maybe/maybe not.  On the other hand, if there is a minyan of exactly ten
people, and it is known that one of them davens _very_ long, I would say
that this should qualify for shaas hadchak.

One possible eitzah might be to have the person who is still davening to
stop his shemona esrei for a few moments and listen to the chazan say the
first brachah (until Magen Avraham), after which the person can resume his
tefila b'lachash.  (I remember that this eitza is mentioned in the Halichos
Shlomo, but I forget in which context.  Bli neder, I will check when I get
home.)

KT and Gut Shabbos
Aryeh

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


[ 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         ]