Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 070

Wednesday, December 12 2001

• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: yeshiva system
• Re: Out of context
• Re: yeshiva system
• Re: yeshiva system
• Re: yeshiva system
• eiva and the global village
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: Avodah V8 #69
• P'lishtim
• REED
• Re: yeshiva system
• The Rav as Social Worker
• hats
• Re: Ur vs. Or
• The Wealth of a Navi
• Another aspect of neis Chanukah
• Bimheirah biyameinu
• Re: Ur vs. Or
• Re: A Dichotomy Between Rav and Social Worker?
• Re: Out of context
• Re: Comparative Liturgy

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:36:15pm ESTShlomo goldstin@netvision.net.il
writes:
> What I claim is that there is no such thing as a requirement to follow Shut
> as opposed to independently (or only in agreement with some Rishonim)
> returning to Shas.

Please Clarify:
1) May I return to Shas and disregard all subsequent Torah and reformulate
psak?
2) Does Subsequent consensus count?  
Or may I:
A) replea this issur of Kitniyyos
B) restore Ma'ariv to reshus 
C) call women to the Torah as long as I can overcome kavod hatzibbur
IOW ignore precedent and restore the din to the era of the Talmud?

If either assumptoin is wrong, please expand as to how

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/10/01 6:25:55pm EST, yadmoshe@012.net.il writes:
> 1) Based upon a conversation I had with Rabbi Ronny Greenwald about this
> letter , Rav Dessler (in consultation with the Chazon Ish) was noting
> that after the holocaust it was critical to rebuild Torah leadership as
> well as appreciation for Torah scholarship...

> Rabbi Greenwald pointed out that this approach has succeeded but now
> that we are no longer facing the same crises...

AISI I was mechaven to R. Greenwald.  But WADR it's no big deal, because 
anyone with a feel for the historical context were made would/could have it 
figured out.
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:36:21pm EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> I am not sure anyone can be wise - it seems from the Rambam that there is 
> an element of predestination for chochmo, not for tzidkus. I think this is 
> borne out in Chazal.

This is hinted at by the 4 sons at the Seder . The Chacham's counterpart
is the Rasha. Both are clever enough to figure out that the ritual is
questioanble. The Chacham goes in and asks a question and so does the
Rasha. It seems that intelligence is not the factor in what separates
them, but there underlying attitude. This is the yir'as Shamyim which
is in eahc person's hands

OTOH, the Tam is not playing on the same level of sophisticaiton as
either the Chacham nor of the Rasha.

So HKBH can gie a person chachma whether they become a proverbial Chacham
or Rasha is up to them

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

On 11 Dec 01, at 23:45, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>> 1) Based upon a conversation I had with Rabbi Ronny Greenwald about this
>> letter , Rav Dessler (in consultation with the Chazon Ish) was noting
>> that after the holocaust it was critical to rebuild Torah leadership as
>> well as appreciation for Torah scholarship...

>> Rabbi Greenwald pointed out that this approach has succeeded but now
>> that we are no longer facing the same crises...

> AISI I was mechaven to R. Greenwald.  But WADR it's no big deal, because 
> anyone with a feel for the historical context were made would/could have it 
> figured out.

If that's what he meant, why would he not have said so? 

-- 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.

--- Eli Turkel <Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu> wrote:
> As Prof. Low pointed out many gedolim in the past were not produced by
> the yeshiva system. However, this is irrelevant as today almost nobody
> learns at home with their fathers anymore...

I hate to defend REED's position because I disagree with it so strongly
but, let me be devil's advocate and say that REED might agree that Gedloim
are not made by the Yeshiva system alone. They DO need special training
through individual attention given by other Gedolim becoming a Talmid
of the CI or Brisker Rav etc. But the only way to have a resource for
that training is to have a "pool" of Talmidim from whence the potential
Gadol can be drawn. That pool is why REED requires his version of a
Yeshiva system. It is in order to maximize the numbers and assure that
the maximum number of potential Gedolim are available for development
so that the few that DO survive will indeed be the best and brightest
which is what Gadlus requires.

HM

In a message dated 12/12/01 3:58:49am EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
>> AISI I was mechaven to R. Greenwald.  But WADR it's no big deal, because 
>> anyone with a feel for the historical context were made would/could have it 
>> figured out.

> If that's what he meant, why would he not have said so? 

Beapashtus even memros from amoraim etc. need a "ahcah bmai askinanon"

This is what the Rambam terms davar mitoch daver or what I would call
havanah or INSIGHT

The word EDUCATION implies a "bringing out " process. Many many schools
are instructing and inculcating but NOT educating.

One of the ikkar Avodos of RYBS and his school was the ability to read
between the lines.

Illustration: (from a ver yold Jewish Press Tales of the Gaonim"

once upon a time a Rav in Europe was dying. He wa asked: "Who should
succeed you?" The Rav answered: "Maybe Rabbi Meir..." and he expired

The town took him at his word and sought a new Rav named R. Meir.
Until one day another Rav explained them (using Havananh and Insight)
that the dying Rav did not MEAN literally R. Meir, but he was murmuring
TO HIMSELF maybe the Hlachah was like R. Meir who is chosheish lemai'uta
and that as a gosses he still has a chance to live!

The town immeidately realized how right he was and selected him as
the next Rav. they realized that his insight was just what was needed.
Par'oh saw this in Yosef, too BTW. (sorry I do no remember the precise
name of the Rabbanim in the story)

Carl, had YO Ubee nthere you might have asked: "nu why didn't the original
Rav make this clear?"

Well guess what? Almost everything in TSBK and even TSBP has layers of
meaning and taking things overly literally will lead only to "nevuchim",
It takes the Rambams' of th world to explain what is MENAT and not what
is said. It is probably why RYBS himself was frustrated with being
misquoted and warned people to accpet qutoes ONLY from Talmidei Chachamim.

On a much simpler level, a former member of Avodah/Areivim once explained
to me thusly:

You cannot understand a person whose IQ is 30 points HIGHER or LOWER!

In Between the Gaonic level of REED, RYBS and GRA are middle level bright
people. So if GRA is IQ 175, the next level is 150 and he explains it
to IQ 125 and he explains it to IQ 100....

Sometimes Sifsei Chachamim explains an obscure Rashi quite elegantly. You
COULD ask why didn't Rashi make himself clear? At HIS level he was clear.

So was the dying Rav clear IN HIS MIND

So was REED clear in his own way. it is possible that REED meant what
he said ledoros. It is UNLIKELY that those who accepted REED's model
did so ldoros. The point is even if REED di not mean it for Hora'as
sha'ah the Yeshivos that implemnted it DID so lehora'as Sha'ah.

In Arvei Pesachim, the Gmara paskens like R. Yosei re: eating erev YT
but like R. Yehuda who is machmir legabei Erev Pesach. The ukimta is
legabie hefsek s'eudah. Nevertheless, the Gmara picks and chooses WHICH
Tanna to follow based upon the CIRCUMSTANCES. the need to be mafsik is
not so important legabei stam YT and Shabbos but it IS legabei Pesach!
So the Tannaim took extreme positions but hte psak pikced and chose.

Similarly, even if REED took an extreme posiiton, we lich'ora accepted it
ONLY because of the dire situation post 1945! It does not mean we should
be bound to this model ledoros! This is like paskening like R. Yehuda
DAVKA erev Pesach but being more like R. Yosei the rest of the year.

Now if 500 years of the RED model had passed and EVERYONE took it or
granted tht this ws the definitive model forever, I might concede your
point. But 30-50 years is not enough time to presume a permanence is
at work. Insofar AISI, the matter is still very much in flux.

Illustration: It seems obvious BTW that Lakewood was originally far
more elitist in the 1940's 50's etc. than it is now. The evolution
makes sense. That said I would ALWYAS want some form of elitist training
for the truly gifted. The questoin is: do they need comletely separate
institutoins or can they be accelarated within the same Yeshiva? As I
pointed out, Ne Yisrael had an "elter bachur" track that was a defacto
elite track. From what I can tell it was quite good.

Back to TIDE and Torah only. AISI, the next RM Feinstein need not
learn secular studies himself IF he can get a shutfus with a Phd like
RMD Tendler to guide him on those tehcnical matters. RM Feinstin was
groomed as a Gaon in lamdus AND he was open-minded enough to consult
TIDE types to get to the bottom of tricky biological issues.

IOW, ideally the elitists are NOT so "ivory towered" to be too
independent. That's why ideally Torah Only and TIDE need each other.

If you foster ONLY gdolim and not TIDE leanred types, you will have
great fountain of water in a desert, accessable to the very few. You
need intermediaries in the hierarchy of things . Between Moshe Rabbineu
and the Am were Sorei Alaphim down to Sarei Assoros. You have structure
and hierarchy and a form of Trickle Down Torah.

That is why many of RIETS rabb'im were themselves NOT TIDE nor TuM. Rather
they were Torah only who were trickling down Torah to TIDE types.
The modern TuM has to get SOME Torah from a Torah only source and then
"syntehsize" it. So you need Torah purists.

IMHO you don't need a LOT of Torah purists. But you do need experts.

BH we have many roshei yehsiva and it is IMHO senseles to sacrifice
everyone else.

'nuff said for now <smile>
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> Israel is not the US and I'm not sure this is correct. Is there an
> inyan of being nice to goyim "mishum eiva" in a state whose government
> is controlled by Jews?

The issues of mishum eiva are found on page 225 of Yad Moshe

Rav Moshe (Igros Moshe OH $ # 79 page 158) "A person who is a position to
save a non Jew on Shabbos and desists...creates a problem of eiva gedolah
... I am astonished at the Chofetz Chaim (Mishna Berura #330:8)... Today
there is danger to life in every locale. Also from the fact of instant
worldwide publicity by means of newspapers...which can lead to Jews being
murdered anywhere in the world. Therefore today the failure to help is to
be viewed as creating not just a sofek sakkana [which permits a doreissa]
but as sakkana mamash..."

He also notes [p157] that the gemora (Avoda Zara 26a) in which Abaye gives
a rationale for not helping on religious grounds, "Such a justification
for not assisting another would not be accepted as a valid explanation in
our country either by the sick and his relatives or by the government..."

Daniel Eidensohn

RRW> Please Clarify:
> 1) May I return to Shas and disregard all subsequent Torah and
>    reformulate psak?

YES

> 2) Does Subsequent consensus count?

NOT MUCH 

> Or may I:
> A) replea this issur of Kitniyyos
> B) restore Ma'ariv to reshus 

These two are a post-Shas development of minhag. Minhag is not midina
d'gmara. If anyone claimed mdina dgmara that kitnius is assur or maariv
is hovah; yes it could be revisited.

Kol Tuv,
Shlomo

>> If the Torah, in Bereshit, were anachronistically retrojecting the
>> Pelishtim of later times into the period of the Avot, the two groups
>> would occupy the same geography and be otherwise similar to each other.

> The last paragraph is a non sequitur, as the conclusion does not
> necessarily follow from the premise.

If, as the Bible critics hold, the Torah is anachronistic, then why indeed
would the Torah place the fictional Pelishtim of Breshit in a different
locale than the real Pelishtim of the later books.

> I read a number of years ago in JUDAISM quarterly an article by
> someone whose name I can't recall who offered a novel thesis regarding
> the wife-sister motif of Avraham and Yitzhak. He wrote that Avraham's
> deception of the Pharaoh and Yitzhak's deception of King Avimelech of the
> "Philistines" foreshadowed Bnei Israel's later enslavement by Egypt and
> their woes at the hands of the (real) Philistines.

On the latter, the idea originates in Cassutto.

Rishonim and Hazal certainly did connect the Pelishtim of Bereshit with
the later Pelishtim. See Rashbam Breshit 22 (going back to Midrashim)
inter alia.

The questions on the issue I posted on a chronology list ("Chrono")
and here are some replies:

>>Basically the way I have always seen it:

Pleshet (Philistia) is the name of the region and anyone living there
or who had lived there was called a Plishti (Philistine). Based on
Deuteronomy 2:23 ("and the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza,
the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt
in their stead") I deduce that the original Plishtim who were around
in the days of Abraham were the Avvim while the ones after the Exodus
were the Caphtorim. Both are called Plishtim because they lived in
Pleshet. Possibly the land was only called Pleshet after the Caphtorim
arrived, in which case calling the Avvim Plishtim is an anachronism,
but the same sort of anachronism as the expression "Native Americans"
for people who were around long before Amerigo Vespucci gave his name
to the region.

I have never seen any convincing argument that the post-Exodus Philstines
were Greek. Maybe seren is related to tyranos, maybe its not, and even
if it is, it doesn't seem to be closely related enough to be considered
"Greek" as opposed to merely Indo-European (assuming that tyrannos is
really Indo-European and not borrowed from a non-Indo-European language
:-) Achish = Anchises is thumbsuck. The idea seem to come from the
insistence that Caphtor is Crete when it is more likely Coptus in Egypt
(ae-GYPT) since they are derived from the Egyptian Casluhim in the Table
of Nations. Bejamin of Tudela identified Damietta in Egypt (is this the
same as Coptus?) as Caphtor.

 From what I understand there is archaelogical evidence of Greek culture
in Philistia but depending how one dates strata, this could simply be
from the Hellenistic period.

- Colin

http://www.zenaptix.com/
mailto:colin@zenaptix.com
>>>>>>>

>>I agree with Yehoshua Etzion's view, in his book HaTanakh HeAvud (The
Lost Bible), that the Philistines were an Egyptian people in the same
way that the Arameans were a North Semitic people. That the evidence for
an Egyptian empire in Israel during the Late Bronze Age really reflects
Philistine hegemony, and that the Greek Philistines scholars see as having
arrived at the beginning of the Iron Age were merely Greeks who settled
in Philistine cities, and Grecoized them. An early example of Hellenism.

I translated (to the best of my ability) the relevant section from
Etzion's book and posted it to my website, for anyone interested.
It can be found at http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/philistines.html

As far as the earlier Philistines having Semitic names (Avimelekh), I
don't think that means they were a Semitic people. For one thing, it
may be that Avimelekh was merely a Hebrew approximation of the king's
actual name/title. For another, his army commander was named Phikol,
which was definitely not a Semitic name. And the link between tyrannos
and seren is weak bordering on lame, in my opinion.

Lisa
lisa@starways.net

>>>>>>>>

Those interested in reconciling the discrepencies between Chazal and
conventional chronolgy, I would advise to check out Lisa Liel's website
above.

Shlomoh

With regard to REED

I read the letter by R Dessler differently than perhaps others do. REED
was not sayingthat one should go because he might be a gadol, or that his
presence in the bet midrash is beneficial to the potential gadol, or that
the yeshiva system (as an institution) was the best to develop gdolim.
Rather, the community should not give options to people outside of torah
study, except becoming a small tradesman or the like. Therefore, anyone
with any potential will not be tempted to devote his energies ot anything
else. The issue is not that there should be a 100 backbenchers in the
bet midrash for every gadol. Rather, if those back benchers can instead
have professions that are at all intellectually or socially attractive, a
potential gadol might choose not to stay and learn. Whether the learning
is done in a yeshiva or privately is irrelevant to the argument. (This,
I think, is consisttent with RYGB's understanding that REED and the CI
actually supported various PAI and people becoming small tradesman etc)
This argument was clearly stronger after the shoah, with the destruction
of yeshivot and the need to develop gdolim. However, as made by REED,
it seems to be a universal one - he ontrasts it with the Frankfurt shitta
- is there any evidence that REED viewed this as only a horaat sha'a?

Meir Shinnar

>> AISI I was mechaven to R. Greenwald.  But WADR it's no big deal, because
>> anyone with a feel for the historical context were made would/could have it
>> figured out.

> If that's what he meant, why would he not have said so?

Simple answer is the Michtav M'Eliyahu was not edited by Rav Dessler. It
is a collection of letters and drashos he gave on various occasions
to different audiences for different purposes. The original letter was
written in response to whether a religious teaching seminary should be
established - it was not meant as a comprehensive survey of the nature
of Torah education past, present and future but merely to convince the
reader to accept Rav Dessler's rejection of establishing a seminary. (In
general many of the discussions in Michtav M'Eliyahu seem more oriented to
eliminating the question rather than answering them.) Thus Rav Dessler did
not mean to present the above view in the letter as it would have weakened
the impact of the letter. That is why I did not make the assertion on
my own but rather from Rabbi Greenwald who has had extensive interaction
with gedolim over many years.

                Daniel Eidensohn

There's a maamar on this topic in Seride Eish. I believe the SE argues
that many rabbanim have neglected (and undervalued) the pastoral duties
of rabbanus. I don't have the sefer here, so maybe someone who has
could summarize the SE for the list.

Daniel Schiffman

I was recently in a restaurant and several charedi customers wore
their hats during the meal (some did not).
Is their any reason to wear a hat rather than a yarmulke?
I am aware of the Shelah but this seems to apply only to davening and
saying berachot. When I go to the shiur of R. Zilberstein in BB he wears
his yarmulke in shul but puts on his hat when making a beracha.

If so why would some people wear their hats when in eating in public?

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 12/12/2001

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:41:31pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
>                                      Regardless, doesn't Ur mean fire
> in Aramaic and Or mean light in Hebrew? Therefore, Chag Urim is the
> holiday of fire and Chag Orot is the holiday of lights.

See Yeshayah 44:16, Rashi on Yeshayah 24:15, AFAIK the Aramaic word is
"Nur" (Nura/Nehora), and note the Targum of Eish is Eshasa. and see Yuma
73b (Brochos 4a) WRT Urim v'Tumim.

Yimei Chanukah M'irim
Yitzchok Zirkind

We discussed here in the past the prerequisite of wealth for nevu'ah. It
was debated whether this is literal, or in an eizehu ashir sense.

The avos were for most of their lives wealthy. One notable exception
was Yaakov, from the time he gave Elifaz his money until he acquired
sheep by working for Lavan.

During this time period is his famous chalom with the sulam. This was
at a time not long after he was rendered ani chashuv kemeis!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

One thing I noticed last night. Until the petirah of Shim'on haTzaddik,
the neir of the menorah was daluq perpetually -- literally a neir tamid.

The loss of this neis must have been painful.

And yet, for 8 days, we got to relive this sign of HQBH's closeness by
the hand of his great-grandson...

-mi

I think maybe this should be on Avodah, so I am ccing it there.

In Areivim, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 06:57:52PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
>: Without getting into details, this has to do with Tum'ah related to
>: Mikdash and not Hilchot Niddah, so there is no point in "correcting"
>: this minhag.

>Particularly since this din will be halachah limaaseh bimheirah biyameinu.

This gets me into a pet puzzlement of mine. What we do halacha l'ma'aseh
in hilchos niddah is going to make it extremely difficult for women
bimheirah biyamenu.

To wit:

a) today we do not distinguish between nidah and ziva (most women
taking taharas mishpacha classes probably don't even know there is a
distinction, if they have even heard the latter term), must less any
idea of the distinction between the yamei nidah and the yamei ziva and
the distinction between a ziva gedolah and a ziva katana. And yet there
is a korban between them (ie a nidah and a ziva katana does not have to
bring a korban, and a ziva gadola does);

b) we are very machmir in all sorts of ways in hilchos nida due to
minhagim (not just d'rabanans) over the d'orisa position. Yet failure to
bring a korban pesach (which is also a chiyuv on women) when you can is
chayav kares. It is not clear to me whether that chiyuv (ie of kares)
kicks in if the reason you did not bring the korban pesach is because
you failed to go to mikvah and hence were not tahor due to your own
(in)action or whether the kares is only applicable if you fail to bring
the korban pesach when you happen to be in a tahor state. It would seem,
however, that if the latter, then the chiyuv kares is almost meaningless,
as one has to work very hard to maintain a tahor state. If the former,
then if we keep hilchos nidah the way we keep it today, we will cause
a significant portion of our womenfolk to be chayav kares.

I can't say I fancy trying to run the re-education programme that would
seem to be necessary bimheirah biyamenu given that most taharas michpacha
teachers don't have a clue, and yet it would have immediate practical
effect re a) worldwide; and re b) for anybody who is likely to be close
enough to bring a korban pesach.

Unless of course along with the beis hamikdash coming down from the sky,
knowledge of how to comport themselves is also expected to appear in
women's heads. (Which is fine for those who hold that the third beis
hamikdash will appear miraculously, but for those who say it will all
occur naturally, this remains a problem).

Regards
Chana
Chana Luntz

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 03:09:31PM -0500, Gil Student wrote:
:                                      Regardless, doesn't Ur mean fire
: in Aramaic and Or mean light in Hebrew?...

Isn't "shraga" the Aramaic for fire? (Not to mentionthe times it
borrows "eish".)

How do the two words differ in connotation?

About "urim vetumim" -- both words are conjugated uniquely. "Oros
uTemimim/-os" would be the more used constructions for each, no?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:12:23AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I believe R' Chaim Brisker held that the ikkar tafkid of a rav *is*
: to be a "social worker." ...

I find that amazing. Now, had you said "mashgiach ruchani", I would not
be as surprized. One needs both a poseik and a moreh derech.

-mi

On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 07:34:26AM -0500, RYGB wrote:
:> 1- RSM assumes that proving that anyone can be a Moshe Rabbeinu implies
:>    he retracted on the world being for the wise only. I disagree with his
:>    only -- perhaps anyone can be wise.

: I am not sure anyone can be wise - it seems from the Rambam that there is 
: an element of predestination for chochmo, not for tzidkus. I think this is 
: borne out in Chazal.

:> 3- You assume that the people the Rambam limits the point of creation to
:>    are a few YS. I see a limitation, but not necessarily down to a few
:>    YS rather than all who are zocheh.

: That is the mashmo'us of that Rambam in the Hakdomo to Zera'im.

Unless you have a specific makor, we are arguing in these two items
about what the Rambam connotes.

You seem to see his shitah as being very restrictive.

I see him as saying the world exists for those who are zocheh, ie those
who are tzaddikim badin. Which is far more than yechidim, and not a
subject of segulah but of bechirah. As the Rambam says, everyone has the
kisharon to be a Mosheh (albeit not on his madreigah of nev'uh).

:> 2- You assume that the Rambam divorces chochmah from tzidkus. I question
:>    that as both are related to yedi'ah, leshitaso.

: Why? A tzaddik is the subjet of Hil. Dei's, first three chapters.

Yes, but the Rambam defines sechar as the effect of yedi'ah. The whole
tachlis of life is to gain that yedi'ah. yedi'ah and chochmah are
related. In particular yedi'ah of HQBH must include reishis chochmah
yir'as Hashem.

So, if anyone can have the zechuyos of Mosheh, then his level of
yedi'ah is also within our reach (!), why not his chochmah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

Is it possible that this falls under the general tendency in nusach S'fard to 
use more emphatic or descriptive language? I am not in front of an open 
Siddur right now, but whenever I am in a Nusach S'fard Shul, I always get the 
impression that the language is always more impassioned.

Jordan

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


[ 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         ]