Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 037

Thursday, November 9 2000

• Re: Techelles
• Re: Bs"d
• Re: Bs"d
• Re: Bs"d
• TuM and Wissenschaft (was RE: Science and Mesorah)
• Re: TuM and Wissenschaft (was RE: Science and Mesorah)
• Re: Bs"d
• Re: chinuch
• Re: Techelles
• Techelles
• kruspadai
• RE: Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• Kiddush intro and parts of psuqim
• Torah and science
• Re: animals / flowers - humor alert
• Re: karbanot
• Re: Questions about p. Noach
• Bilbul Sancheriv
• Re: Bilbul Sancheriv
• RE: karbanot
• RE: Techelles
• RE: Questions about p. Noach
• Re: karbanot
• Re: karbanot
• Re: karbanot
• [none]
• Re: Science and mesorah

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 11:16:24PM +0200, Eli Linas wrote:
: Does anyone know why Rav Kruspadoi is thusly named? I have a suspicion that
: it wasn't his real name. Rabbi Purple? I assume there's a story behind it,
: but haven't ever found anything.

Why did you title this "techeiles" and not "argaman"? Anyway...

What about other suspicious names: Like Rav (great) always discussing
things with R' Zeira (small)?

Did R' Simla'i make clothing?

It's possible that kruspadoi, being a sign of royalty, actually was a name.

-mi

Eli Linas wrote:

> Why shouldn't we? A letter is the main place where it goes. Our posts are 
> basically letters - they're just written on the screen instead of on paper. I 
> know this has nafka minas in other areas, such as erasing Hashem's name. 

R. Seth Mandel can correct me, but R. Hershel Schachter in Nefesh HaRav says 
that RYBS and R. Chaim Soloveitchik did not write BS"D on letters.

Gil Student

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 07:54:40PM +0200, Eli Linas wrote:
: Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with "Bs"d"?

BS"D or B"H is on the top of every page of correspondance. Email doesn't
have pages. I would think that web pages also aren't pages in this sense,
but in either case they aren't mail.

But I find the underlying question interesting: why and when did this
minhag begin? Is there a difference whether the mail is divrei chol
or divrei Torah? Do teshuvos have a B"H/BS"D on them?

-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

From: "Eli Linas" <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
> Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts with
> "Bs"d"?

Look at Igros Moshe Y.D.II #138 page 232

MSB:
> As a side note, I don't see TuM in terms of wissenschaft. I see TuM
> as giving inherent value to limudei chol. (As opposed to TIDE's derived
> value.) Wissenschaft is a term invented by Geiger, and there's a reason
> it originated in that camp. What YU scholarship calls wissenschaft isn't,
> because there are limits to what elements of mesorah they would challenge.
> But it still crosses my personal line far too often for my liking.

How do you view the views of R. D. Z Hoffman, R A E Kaplan, the Sridei
Eish, Maharitz Chayos, v'sayossosom on this matter?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:56:52PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: How do you view the views of R. D. Z Hoffman, R A E Kaplan, the Sridei
: Eish, Maharitz Chayos, v'sayossosom on this matter?

I can't address your question without something specific. Do you have any
reason to believe they took a particular tzad on the issue? If so, what?

-mi

>                              B"H
>>                            Bs"d

>> Can anyone tell me why it's accepted that we don't head our posts
>> with "Bs"d"?

There is a letter from the L. Rebbe to the Ragitchover Gaon on this it is 
printed in the begining of Vol. 21 of the Igros Kodesh.

BTW in Hebrew there are those that perfer BS"D to B"H due to the letter Kei, 
OTOH according to the Yavetz in his MIgdol Oiz (page 25) he holds to be 
machmir on being Mochek anything that alludes to HKB"H.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/8/00 3:21:22pm EST, JRich@segalco.com writes:
> Isn't it generally agreed that the mitzvah of chinuch is "only" drabbanan?

Yes! see S"A Horav 343, also begining of Hil. Talmud Torah and see footnotes 
from the Rebbe there.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/8/00 4:49:32pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>  What about other suspicious names: Like Rav (great) always discussing
>  things with R' Zeira (small)?
>  Did R' Simla'i make clothing?
>  It's possible that kruspadoi, being a sign of royalty, actually was a name.

There is a Sefer from R' Reuvein Margoliyos in which he explains many of the 
names (WRT R' Kruspidoee see Seder Hadoros).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
> Does anyone know why Rav Kruspadoi is thusly named? I have a suspicion
> that it wasn't his real name. Rabbi Purple? I assume there's a story behind
> it, but haven't ever found anything.>>

	Check out Project Genesis' Daf Yomi sheet for this week in which he
addresses Rav Rehumi,  Rav Zehumai,  etc.  Your question might fit right in!

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

REL asks:
>Does anyone know why Rav Kruspadoi is thusly named? I have a suspicion
>that it wasn't his real name. Rabbi Purple? I assume there's a story
>behind it, but haven't ever found anything.

I'm not sure why one assumes kruspadoi is purple/techelles...the places
in Onkelos that it appears (in BaM 15:38-39 and Dev 22:12) translates
the word tsitsit, not tekhelet.

According to the Arukh, it is possible that he was so named because he
was especially diligent WRT the mitsvah of tsitsit. Further, as there
was an individual named "Ben Tsitsit" [e.g. Bereshit Rabbah 42:1; Gittin
56a; see the gemara there as to why he was so named but see my comments
further] there is good reason to assume that Kruspadai is the translation
of such. In other places in Hazal his name appears as Krispa, Kruspa
or some such, which suggests to A. Kohut that it was intended to mimic
(?) the secular Greek name Crispus [funny how different threads of Avodah
are so often intertwined!], meaning curly haired. Which might shed light
on the physical description of our Amora in question.

Speaking of which, the gemara in Gittin explains the meaning of Ben
Tsitsit's name: it says "she-haytah tsitsato nigreret al gabei [karim
u-]kesatot". Rashi, in explaining the word tsitsato assumes it means
his talit, the fringes of which shlepped on "cushions of fine fabric,"
because, to quote Artscroll [Soncino, btw, explains it similarly], he was
so rich that "he walked only on cushions fashioned from fine fabric." Ah,
say I, that's fine and good for Rashi to say but now that we know a Greek
word which explains Kruspadai, which might have translated Ben Tsistit
to begin with, one is tempted to explain the gemara's explanation of the
name differently. Namely, it was his long curly *hair*[= tsistit means
fringes, sometimes of human hair; see Yehezkel 8:3], a style of the rich
back then, that shlepped/draped over karim u-kesatot as he *sat*, not
stood. I wonder if my more learned chaverim know of rishonim/acharonim
(I havent had time to look) who suggest such an alternative to Rashi's?

I realize some may wonder what's the nafka minah: perhaps none
le-halakhah, but Torah hi (in its infinite beauty) u-lelomdah ani tsarikh.
Oh boy, I feel a TuM/TIDE thread coming...

Ve-tehezenah einenu be-shuv le-Tsiyon ha-Mesameah Tsiyon be-vanehah,
Yisrael Dubitsky

Seth Mandel
>                                   Actually, RYBS said the whole posuq out
> loud, from the beginning....
> Some of the other places where this shitta was applied by RYBS:
<snip>

> 3) 'Al pi Hashem: the pasuq of "vezos haTorah" ends "beyad Moshe,"
> and that is where RYBS stopped.

> 4) A case that has not been mentioned here: in the birkhos qrias Shma'
> on Shabbos morning, we way "veyom haShevi'i m'shabbeah v'omer mizmor shir
> leyom hashabbos tov l'hodos..." The first pasuq ends "l'yom hashabbos;"
> "tov l'hodos" begins the second pasuq; RYBS used to finish up the second
> by continuing through "ulzammer l'shikho 'Elyon."

As I wrote elsewhere:  yesh lechaliek between #3 (i.e. Chumash) and #4
(i.e.Nach)

Question: did the Rav Zecher Zecher Tsaddik Livracha v'Shaim Reshaim Yirkav
insist on not splitting up psukim only in the liturgy or in  regular usage,
too?

How about the last line of kaddish Oseh Shalom Bimrmov?  Did RYBS insist on
completeing that passuk too?

How about Kedushah?  Kaddosh and Baruch k'vod Hashem?  They are fragemnts in
birchas yotzeir too. 

Aside to Micha:  Isn't every Rav and every Yid who did things one way for
centuries ipso facto arguing against such a revision?  What gives people the
right to presume that these matters were overlooked?  Maybe they were
considered and rejected?  And if they were overlooked, how can we be sure of
anything in our mesorah not containing ta'usim?  If so many people were
wrong about how they understood how to use a passuk, couldn't they be wrong
about other things too?  Is the principle of ein' le'ar'eia al harishonim
appliable here?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
: (Note to Masorah subscibers:
: that might mean, according to the Redaq, that psuqim have to be said
: with their proper trop! Not the tune, of course, but divided properly
: according to the trop, vekm'l.)

	Which is how Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky interprets the halacha of
reading krias shema with the trop.

	On RYBS finishing off "tov lehodos lashem" in birchos krias
shema,  did he likewise finish off "lifnei Hashem..." in the vidui
of the avoda of Yom Kippur?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Shlomo Goldstein:
> Concerning Torah and science:  Halakha of course deals with the world around
> us.  No one argues on this point.  What however are the halachic guidelines
> from one area (in your example surgery) compared to another area(treifos)
> can be a valid question.  the CI asks this question in hilchos treifos.
> Saying halacha is out-of-date is an erroneous conclusion.  Perhaps one has a
> valid unanswered question.  Perhaps one is simply ignorant of the depths of
> that halacha.  Neither of these possibilites can change the basic halacha.
> That's why the question from science is not such an earthshattering
> question.

AIUI the Gmoro determines "death" at the point where a feather cannot be
moved by breathing.

Was one poseik's interpretation of certain case of brain death as the
equivalent of being beheaded valid?  Was this revision of a Halachic
principle a stretch over what has been accpeted or merely an extension via a
sevoro of tje the concept of being cut off from the neck up and applying it
to a newly defined situation?



MSB:
> I think there is a fine line between using outside ideas to model concepts
> from mesorah and using them to append concepts onto mesorah. And obviously
> RSRH (and the Gra) disagree with where the Rambam placed that line. RYBS
> placed it somewhere in between.

Granted

But the concept of using outside models or paradigms to ILLUSTRATE what the
Torah meant is nothign new.

I see bringing in science to explain Torah concepts as a logical extension
of using foreign languages to calirfy concepts, such as Rashi did with both
the Targum and Old French.

Yes, one can overstep this and bend the Torah to science, so this is
admittedly  a slippery slope.  But translating the Torah is not necessarily
making it into literature either. So too expressing Torah concepts in
scientific jargon can be merely a method of explication.



On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 04:56:52PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: How do you view the views of R. D. Z Hoffman, R A E Kaplan, the Sridei
: Eish, Maharitz Chayos, v'sayossosom on this matter?

MSB:
> I can't address your question without something specific. Do you have any
> reason to believe they took a particular tzad on the issue? If so, what?

According to Shapiro's Bio of the sridei Eish, Hoffman et. al. felt that
Wissenshaft was esential in an age of "da mah lehashiv". RYGB can proably
elaborate wrt to R AE Kaplan.

Dr. MS Feldblum specifically defended his teachings as in the spirit of R.
DZ Hoffman and Maharitz Chayes.  Actually the Dikdukei Sofrim school of
learning was less controverisal in a way 100 years ago than it is now.

It is true that the Hirschians in Frankfurt never concurred with this train
of thought.  It is quite clear to me that YU follows (wello followeed in my
day) this more TuM model of TIDE that developed in Berlin.

I asked R. Dr. E Kanafogel what the Rav's take on W-T was:
He told me "when it made sense he liked it, when it didn't he ignored it."
Truly W-T is not an end in itself, but it can be helpful/useful to better
underrstand certain concepts and to avoid certain mispercetions.  I agree
with RDE Kanarfogel beshiem the Rav, one needs to use this sutff
eclectically.  Geiger et. al. di not.  They had an anti-halahcic axe to
grind.  But abuse of W-T is not necessarily a reason to omit it.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

In a message dated 11/8/00 4:18:34pm EST, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
> I still do not understand according to you how a chiddush does not ipso
> facto argue on all previous generations because after all they failed to
> state it so therefore it could not be true?!

A true Chiddush was given to Moshe at Sinai (Bofon Shel Ri'ya or Kllal 
Uprat), (we once discussed Mokom Hinichu vs. Loi Matzinu Lshum Poseik).



On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:30:57PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Not a bad point, but think about any eis la'assos.
> Doesn't it undermine a piece of the Torah to preserve the whole in light of
> a threat?  Don't you consider the loss of Jews to seculraims and Reform,
> etc. a threat to Torah?

Heifeiru Torosecha refers to Halachos of Torah not to credebility of Torah,  
Vhevei Mkarvon Latorah not Vhevei Mkareiv Es Hatorah.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
> That explains saying the Korban Tamid or an ordinary chatos. It doesn't
> explain why we have to say Asham Shifra Charufa or Asham Nazir (to take
> a couple of blatant examples). 

Personally, I just say Tamid and Ketores.

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

RRW:
> FWIW I don't see Noach's drunkeness as a result of hedonism.  I see it as a
> depressive episode following his "survivor guilt" or his guilt over not
> intervening on behalf of his generation. 

The parsha works just as well if Noach was drunk for no particular reason at 
all, except that he was a human, and in psychic decline. Maybe the parsha 
works even better that way.

David Finch

									Bs"d

RCS:
> Is it pashut that the Arabs today are descended from Yishmael? 
> Were they not part of the bilbul of Sancherev?

RYZ:
>  2. Who says the bilbul was 100%.

My Gemara rebbi of many years ago, Rav Yonason Berger, shlitta, once said
that it was nisht pushit to him that the bilbul was 100%. He based his idea
on his observation that the peoples of the countries surrounding Eretz
Yisrael seem to distinctly have the same middos as those attributed to the
peoples who lived there during biblical times. If I recall, he said
alternatively that the land they were in was gorem them having the
characteristics that they had.

Eli

In a message dated 11/9/00 9:58:05am EST, linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il
writes:
> RYZ:
>>  2. Who says the bilbul was 100%.

There was a bit of a Bilbul in what was contributed to me :-)
My addition in that post was sources (Lvush, Tiferes Yisroel) that clearly 
say that it was not 100%.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

[Probably my error. I try to normalize and minimize quoting. Some email
sogtware makes it too easy to quote too much. Or uses indentation for
quotes leading to lots of short, overly indented lines. -mi]

RYGB:
> Personally, I just say Tamid and Ketores.

Nusach KAJ/Frankfort:
Birchas hatorah:  
yevorechecho
Eilu devorim 1 & 2
Parshas Tamid, 
Ppassuk v'shachat oso
Uvyom hashabbas and u'vorshie chadsheichm when appropriate
Perek Ezehu Mkoman
Braisso d' R. Yishamel
Kaddish deRabbonon.

Footnote:
According to Minhag Kaj/Frankfort Kaddish derabbonon marks the end of a
significatn section. As such, kaddish yassom and NOT Kaddish derbbanan is
recited after Pitum Haktores and Perek Bame Madlikin. This implies that
karbannos and Birchos Hashachar are quite separate from the psukei d'zimra
that follow. This is further re-inforced by the Roedleheim's siddur
which places Atifas Tallis and hanachas teffilin before Baruch She'amaor

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

From: Eli Linas <linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il>
> Does anyone know why Rav Kruspadoi is thusly named? I have a suspicion
> that it wasn't his real name. Rabbi Purple? I assume there's a story behind
> it, but haven't ever found anything.>>

Gershon <gershon.dubin@juno.com>:
>	Check out Project Genesis' Daf Yomi sheet for this week in which he
> addresses Rav Rehumi,  Rav Zehumai,  etc.  Your question might fit right in!

And in pashas Vo'eschanan we have the Rav named after this week's Sedra:
Rav Lech (Lach)! (Dev. 3:27) <smile>  

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

RRW:
> FWIW I don't see Noach's drunkeness as a result of hedonism.  I see it as
a
> depressive episode following his "survivor guilt" or his guilt over not
> intervening on behalf of his generation. 

David Finch:
The parsha works just as well if Noach was drunk for no particular reason at
all, except that he was a human, and in psychic decline. Maybe the parsha 
works even better that way.

True perhaps.

But isn't it always true that in *Man's Search for Meaning* we endeavor to
find or assign meaning to events?  To learn lessons thereof?  Also isn't the
Torah serving as a guide to insights into human behavior?  Aren't Midrashim
and Rashi constantly pointing out moral lessons based on the parhsah?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com  

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 05:11:46PM -0600, R YG Bechhofer wrote:
: Personally, I just say Tamid and Ketores.

I try to always include "Abayei hava misadeir", since it runs down the
entire day. At least this way I reference the entire avodah. My father,
who also has problems keeping up with the minyan for korbanos, splits
his "never skip these" list across the week, so that he is guaranteed
to finish even if it takes from Sun to Fri.

If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu", is there
a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?

-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

R YG Bechhofer wrote: 
: Personally, I just say Tamid and Ketores.
     
R M Berger wrote:
: I try to always include "Abayei hava misadeir", since it runs down 
: the entire day. 

I remember hearing R. Mordechai Willig suggesting that parshas tamid and Abayei 
were the bare minimum.
     
: If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu", is 
: there a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?
     
That is why nusach Ashkenaz does not say it at the end of davening during the 
week when everyone is rushing.  Although, it sounds a little non-literal to me.
     
Gil Student

> If ketores is an inyan of "uneshalma parim [samim ?] sefaseinu",
> is there a chiyuv misah for missing or repeating a word?

Isn't that one (of the possible) reason(s) we (who daven nusach Ashkenaz)
don't say Ein K'-lokeinu on weekdays when we are pressed for time and
are liable to trip up on the words?

I'd like to share a Kotzker concerning mesoras.  He specifically is speaking
about learning Gemara with Rishonim.

He asks why is it that we do not reject the words of a Rishon when we
find a Gemara against their position. He notes that we find Gdolei
HaDoros ask from a Gemara against the words of a Rishon and we can't say
that this issue was pashut to the Rishon. Rather if the Rishon thought
of this question, he should have commented. Rather the Rishon did not
even think of this question. Yet since the Rishon said what he said and
was not bothered by this question, there must be an answer. Because if
the Aharon is right thast the Rishon is wrong, then the "sechel haTorah"
the Torah-intelligence of the Rishon would have rejected his own premise.
Ad caan.

  This is because every Rishon has this refined sense to what is Torah.  An
important consideration when asking questions in hashkafa or halacha.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 08:50:05PM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: But in the case of the continents splitting, it's NOT a case of trying to
: explain a neis scientifically. We have an established theory, which was
: developed by people who never HEARD of the neis, which seems to contradict a
: Chazal.

The big bang (or inflationary theory) too is a scientific theory
established by people who weren't mekabeil the lima'alah min hateva
version. There, however, the mesorah offers a wide spectrum to work with.

My point is that if we go with the idea that it's a neis, then any
scientific theory is going to be based on false premises. There is
no reason to pay attention to or be troubled by dating made under bad
assumptions.

: In the case of continental drift -- the scientific explanation fits the
: facts. Why assume the Chazal was meant to be taken literally? Especially
: since we know that the Torah (and Chazal) speak in Loshon Bnei Adam.

There is a difference between this and the mabul, but not the one
you pointed out. I lack data to say there is no way to support a teva
explanation of the creation of continents from within mesorah. Given
that aggadita may not be literal, only Hirsch's chiddush insists that
it be a neis.

IOW, there are only two choices: neis or whatever science tells you.
But neis is still an option.

:> Which means that by definition, there are things that we shouldn't be
:> studying with science.

: Agreed -- It's called Metaphysics.

: But everything within the physical world *can* be studied scientifically.

Non-repeatable events, such as nissim, too?

: For example -- Newtonian physics works. At non-relativistic speeds. Within
: it's paradigm, it works. It has to ignore data points generated at
: relativistic speeds -- but that's where Einstein stepped it and expanded the
: paradigm.

Neis, though is the "relativistic speeds" of scientific theory as a
whole. Science presumes the absence of neis, that all obey laws and are
therefore repeatable. There is no way such a system of thought could be
applied to analyze the miraculous with any hope of success.

We have a mesorah that Noach was real, and the mabul was historical. IOW,
the mesorah that some neis occurred. No scientific theory will ever capture
the event with anything approaching accuracy.


On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
: Concerning Torah and science:  Halakha of course deals with the world around
: us.  No one argues on this point.  What however are the halachic guidelines
: from one area (in your example surgery) compared to another area(treifos)
: can be a valid question.  the CI asks this question in hilchos treifos.

As said in earlier conversation (see the references in the archive that
I mentioned yesterday), tereifos is also a 2nd issue -- is "tereifah"
supposed to capture the underlying idea of survival, or once we have
this technical definition, we deal with that.

:                Neither of these possibilites can change the basic halacha.

Both the Gra and R' Kook suggested that they could, but only lechumrah.
As RRW put it, we don't know what other motivations exist behind a
takkanah or p'sak.

: That's why the question from science is not such an earthshattering
: question.

Getting back to aggadita, there is another reason...

The ikkar of religion's niche isn't history or cosmogony. The ikkar is
whether halachah provides a workable value system, whether aggadita
leads to self-fulfillment and a relationship with HKBH, providing a
context in which we can live our lives.

To get back to Akiva's metaphor, relativity and quantum mechanics
happen to contradict when it comes to gravity. But each work very
well in their proper domains. Well enough that we can assume that
any apparant contradictions are due to a minor misunderstanding of
one or both theory. Our confidence in transistors isn't shaken
because they are based on a QM that fails in domains it doesn't
focus on.

Science will never pose an earthshattering question because it will
never ask questions that go to the heart of yahadus. At most, it will
address things on the fringes, that we may have to adjust some minor
misunderstanding.

-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

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


[ 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         ]