Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 064

Friday, July 19 2002

• Re: hilchos ta'anis 5:7
• RE: Shir Shel Yom
• Re: Milk and Fish together--prohibited?
• Re: Milk and Fish together--prohibited?
• Re: hilchos ta'anis 5:7
• Answering the phone on Tisha b'Av
• Re: Answering the phone on Tisha b'Av
• The purpose of Tisha' be'Av
• RE: Shir Shel Yom/ kriyas hatorah
• Re: Amazing Piaczsesner, Visualizations, Continued - Amazing Chiddush of the LR
• Re: Fwd: RE: Chabad and Ramchal, Magen David
• RE: Milk and Fish together--prohibited?
• Re: The purpose of Tisha' be'Av
• Re: The purpose of Tisha' be'Av
• Re: The purpose of Tisha' be'Av
• Re: `kriyas hatorah
• milchigs + fish
• Re: The purpose of Tisha' be'Av
• A Tish'a B'Av message
• RE: Answering the phone on Tisha b'Av
• RE: Milk and Fish together--prohibited?
• Milk and Fish together--prohibited?
• hilchos ta'anis 5:7
• Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation video presentation "From Golus to Geulah"
• Re: Mogen Dovid
• Learning day/night
• Yom HaShoah
• RE: Shir Shel Yom/ kriyas hatorah

In Avodah V9 #63, Sholom Simon wrote:
> the last sentence (in reference to the last meal on erev tisha ba'av)
says: "v'lo yochal shnei tavshilin."  But don't we eat bread and an egg? 
Isn't that two tavshilin? <

If "tavshilin" refers to the process of bishul, 
then baking (afiyah), roasting, etc. does not produce tavshilin.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

R' Gershon Dubin queried:
> The shaliach tzibur said the wrong shir shel yom. Should I correct him
> privately afterward?

R' Danny Schoemann responded:
> My gut feeling is that it depends on who it is - if it's a youngster /
> newbie then he won't mind it been pointed out, and it will help him be
> more careful in the future.
> If it's a veteran, you will simply be embarrassing him, and he's unlikely
> to repeat the mistake until the next time he doesn't get a good night's
> sleep. :-)>>>

Perhaps, although I would be very careful about how I corrected the
youngster/newbie.

R' Reisman tells over how, when he was in his teens, he once davened
for the amud on Friday night. To say the least, it didn't go very well.
After davening, an older fellow came over to him and said "You did a fine
job; it's just that the tune that you picked for L'cha Dodi didn't work
out so well, but you were really OK." R' Reisman continued to daven
for the amud.

On other occasion when he was also in his teens, R' Reisman lained on
Shabbos morning and an expert ba'al korei stood next to him during the
entire laining to correct RYR's every mistake (of which there were many).
R' Reisman never lained again.

KT
Aryeh

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:02:19PM -0400, Noah Witty wrote:
: Someone told me last night (or le-erev Tish'a Be-Av) that he refrains from
: eating milk/milk products ("milchilks" bela'az) together with fish.  This
: has nothing to do with the 9 days--just a separate minhag.  If  someone has
: mar-ei mekomos for this custom, please "cc" me along with your
: post.

This is standard sepharadi pisqa, that fish and milk is no different
than fish and meat. (So remember, don't serve your S friends that lox
n cream cheese).

I don't recall where it is, but isn't it from the SA?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

>Someone told me last night (or le-erev Tish'a Be-Av) that he refrains from
>eating milk/milk products ("milchilks" bela'az) together with fish....

AIUI, Sefardim do not have any dairy products with fish.  Amongst
chassidim, I believe it is more common not to have specifically milk with
fish, thoug allowing dairy products (e.g. cream cheese and lox would be OK).

As for sources, as I remember it:
The Ben Ish Hai writes about this and cites the Pachad Yitzchak, who was a
doctor, as saying that even butter in the pan to fry fish could be a health
problem.  My less clear recollection is that the Yad Efraim also speaks of
this.

mendel

In a message dated 7/17/02 5:36:39pm, sholom@aishdas.org writes:
> the last sentence (in reference to the last meal on erev tisha ba'av)
> says: "v'lo yochal shnei tavshilin."
> But don't we eat bread and an egg? Isn't that two tavshilin?

Bread is baked?

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

Some people hesitate to say "hello" when picking up the phone, though
I have heard it argued that this is not said as a greeting but merely
as a way of saying "I'm on the phone." Has anyone heard any psak in
this matter?

In any case, a simple solution is to say "(family name) residence"--i.e.,
I would say "Feldman residence."

Moshe

On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 10:35:08PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Some people hesitate to say "hello" when picking up the phone, though
: I have heard it argued that this is not said as a greeting but merely
: as a way of saying "I'm on the phone." ...
: In any case, a simple solution is to say "(family name) residence"--i.e.,
: I would say "Feldman residence."

What element of greeting someone is prohibited?

"Hello" is not a wish for the other's welfare. This seems to be the norm
for greetings, such as "Shalom Aleichem" or Bo'az's "H' Imachem" or even
"Goodbye" (if you think of its origin as "God be with you").

If it's simply the act of acknowledging their arrival, how is my saying
"Berger residence" or anything other than the business at hand any
different?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger              Look down, please, from heaven at the camps of the
micha@aishdas.org         holy [victims], ten-fold those who were counted
http://www.aishdas.org    leaving Egypt. Restore our holy Temple, and console
Fax: (413) 403-9905       us doubly. Uplift us, and bring us to Zion and J'lem.
9 Av, 1932nd yr of exile               -- R' Shelomo Halberstam of Babav zt"l

We were discussing on Areivim the problems of group 9 be'Av observance
and the fact that it can lead to socializing.

As part of his post there, Avi Burstein wrote:
: On Tisha b'Av we as individuals don't need consolation. We are meant to
: be focusing on our loss to impel us to improve our state of being and
: our interactions between our fellow man...

I wonder about that last part. Is the ikkar kiyum of 9 be'Av about
teshuvah, or about aveilus?

The 7 deNechemta connect 9 be'Av to Rosh haShanah, to "teshuvah season".
I would therefore like to suggest that 9 be'Av is pre-teshuvah, not
teshuvah itself.

The question could be viewed in an entirely different way: Is 9 be'Av
a ta'anis (and therefore a day for teshuvah) that has other inuyim or
is it a day of aveilus which is expressed by inuyim -- one of which
happens to be fasting?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger              Look down, please, from heaven at the camps of the
micha@aishdas.org         holy [victims], ten-fold those who were counted
http://www.aishdas.org    leaving Egypt. Restore our holy Temple, and console
Fax: (413) 403-9905       us doubly. Uplift us, and bring us to Zion and J'lem.
9 Av, 1932nd yr of exile               -- R' Shelomo Halberstam of Babav zt"l

From: Stein, Aryeh [mailto:AStein@wtplaw.com]
> Perhaps, although I would be very careful about how I corrected the
> youngster/newbie.
<snip>
> On other occasion when he was also in his teens, R' Reisman lained on
> Shabbos morning and an expert ba'al korei stood next to him during the
> entire laining to correct RYR's every mistake (of which there 
> were many).
> R' Reisman never lained again.

I've always wondered about this.  Ramo in S'A OC 142:1 states that if the
baal kriyah made a mistake (1) which changes the meaning "machzirin oso" but
(2) otherwise "go'arin bo."  I've always understood this to mean that in case
(2) one should say aloud the mistake and if the baal kriyah goes back, fine,
and if not, it's OK.  Was R' Reisman implying that if the baal kriyah is a
newbie, we shouldn't even say the mistake aloud in case (2)?  (The only time
I'm quiet in that case is when the boy is becoming Bar Mitzva, as I know that
his relatives, etc. may get offended.)

Also, if one encounters a newbie baal kriyah who is clearly inattentive and
doesn't have either the ability or patience to prepare properly (as the one
in charge of laining in my shul, I often know), is it so terrible to
discourage such a person from laining in the future?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 08:29:03AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:                                         ... It provides theoretical
: justification for the Piaczsesner's parctical eitzah - essentially a
: metaphysical application of the theory of relativity to the worlds of
: perception of HKB"H, i.e., how you perceive Hashem is reality to you, and
: applying eilu va'eilu...

Relativity is an overused metaphor. This is more that reality is
inherently subjective. And the qushya asked here seems insurmountable.
Since reality is subjective, someone who holds the more philosophical
notion of G-d would be prohibited from still referring to the model he
had as a child.

More problematic, im kein ein ladavar sof! Not every belief is objectively
true. Not even every possible way of reading the chumash. There is no eilu
va'eilu allowing the trinity to exist. How is a tripartite division of
G-d any worse than assigining Him the manifold parts that make up a body?
If the Torah's anthropomorphications are meant as idiom, then not even
peshat in the pasuq ascribed a Hand to HQBH. One is simply misreading
the pasuq; just as a j4j-nik does when he finds the trinity in the words
of Shema.

In any case, I would have made a chiluq made by neither admor.

People believe things on different levels. They can know things
cerebrally, and yet emotionally react on a different set of
assumptions. Such as a 9 be'Av dilemma I face: while I can reason about
the importance of qorbanos, I can't bring myself to /feel/ the loss. (As
I mentioned last Yom Kippur, the loss of the ability to relate to the
loss of qorbanos is itself something to mourn during tefillah. And that's
how I avoid the problem.)

Even leshitas haRambam, the text of the Torah still says "yad al keis
Kah". The navi still reads "charbo shelufa beYado, netuya al Y'laim".
No matter how much we are called to intellectually believe that there is
no Divine Guf, we are also called to develop an emotional relationship
that invokes feelings based on one.

I would have said that the Rambam could answer the Raavad's complaint
along these lines. Yes, one may say in davening "yadcha peshuta leqabeil
shavim". But that is only with the logic of the heart. The logic of the
mind knows otherwise. Do we have any reason to believe

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger              Look down, please, from heaven at the camps of the
micha@aishdas.org         holy [victims], ten-fold those who were counted
http://www.aishdas.org    leaving Egypt. Restore our holy Temple, and console
Fax: (413) 403-9905       us doubly. Uplift us, and bring us to Zion and J'lem.
9 Av, 1932nd yr of exile               -- R' Shelomo Halberstam of Babav zt"l

On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 09:20:49AM -0400, RYGB forwarded the following:
: This statement: "Ramchal stresses Avodah on Sheleimus Ha'Adam, Chassidus
: stresses Avodah on Dirah B'Tachtonim and Bittul." is also inaccurate.
: R' Nachman, Pshischa, Ger, Mei HaShiloach, all stress Shleimus HaAdam...

No one denies one or the other. Every chumash has both "his-haleich
lefanai" and "veheyei samim". The siddur still asks Hashem "vetaheir
libeinu" and "le'avdecha be'emes". The question is whether one sees
deveiqus as a component of being tamim, or if temimus is a means to get
closer to the Borei.

And in fact, the Ramchal takes the deveiqus fork, not temimus. As is
clear from the haqdamah to Mesilas Yesharim; he tells you the goal of
the book is to aid one in finding deveiqus.

And, while he seems to speak of temimus in the first sentence or two, the
Ramchal later defines it for us, "hasheleimus ha'amiti hu raq hadeveiqus
Bo yisbarach." He then quotes the pesuqim "Va'ani, qereivas E-lokim li
tov" (Teh' 73) and "Achas sha'alti... shivti beveis Hashem ... lachazos
beno'am H'..." (27).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger              Look down, please, from heaven at the camps of the
micha@aishdas.org         holy [victims], ten-fold those who were counted
http://www.aishdas.org    leaving Egypt. Restore our holy Temple, and console
Fax: (413) 403-9905       us doubly. Uplift us, and bring us to Zion and J'lem.
9 Av, 1932nd yr of exile               -- R' Shelomo Halberstam of Babav zt"l

> I don't recall where it is, but isn't it from the SA?

IIRC It's SA, based on the Rambam -- AIUI the Gra says it's a scribal error.

Some chassidim (chabad, for one) also follow the psak.

Akiva

In a message dated 07/18/2002 12:38:57pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> The question could be viewed in an entirely different way: Is 9 be'Av
> a ta'anis (and therefore a day for teshuvah) that has other inuyim or
> is it a day of aveilus which is expressed by inuyim -- one of which
> happens to be fasting?

Rav Kulefsky z"l gave a shiur on this issue a couple of years ago.  Tisha 
B'av is a day when the halachos of Taanis and Aveilus are combined.  

me: The hanhagos of aveilus are more predominant in the morning (sitting on 
the floor, the haftarareading is not Teshuva-oriented) and the Taanis 
hanhagos more predominant in the afternoon.

RMB:
> The question could be viewed in an entirely different way: Is 9 be'Av
> a ta'anis (and therefore a day for teshuvah) that has other inuyim or
> is it a day of aveilus which is expressed by inuyim -- one of which
> happens to be fasting?

IIRC, RYBS held that until chatzos it's a day of aveilus and after chatzos
it's like a regular taanis--a day of tshuvah.  I think it's one of the
shiurim in Shiurim l'Zecher Avi Mori.

Certainly, CC Heritage Foundation, in having video-taped shiurim encouraging
us to improve bein adam l'chaveiro (at least that was the message in past
years), is encouraging classic tshuvah, no?

Moshe

On Thu, Jul 18, 2002 at 12:49:20PM -0400, Feldman, Mark wrote:
: Certainly, CC Heritage Foundation, in having video-taped shiurim encouraging
: us to improve bein adam l'chaveiro (at least that was the message in past
: years), is encouraging classic tshuvah, no?

Which is a good idea on a day when most people are off. Not proof that
their rabbanim hold one way or the other.

-mi

Luckily, (nebech), in shul this morning we had no minyan.

Had there been a minyan, I don't think there would have been seven people 
fasting?

Would there have been a chiyuv to read the regular Thursday parsha?  

This issue regarding an error in Beis Yosef is discussed in Yoreh Deah Siman
87 Taz 3 ans Shach 5

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 07/18/2002 1:07:30pm EDT, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> IIRC, RYBS held that until chatzos it's a day of aveilus and after chatzos
> it's like a regular taanis--a day of tshuvah.  I think it's one of the
> shiurim in Shiurim l'Zecher Avi Mori.

I can't vouch for the shiurim source but he did make this point in a recorded 
shiur on tisha baav - pointing to the differences in the haftora.

Joel

[Forwaded from Areivim -mi]

This is an important day for doing t'shuva. The Rambam in Hilkhos Ta'anis
5:1 says the historical fasts were instituted "to awaken people's hearts
and open up the paths [to encourage people] to do t'shuva."

The novi Yirm'yahu was given a n'vu'ah about the disasters that were
coming for K'lal Yisroel, and we read them this morning. "Behold, I am
sending among you poisonous snakes who will not hiss [in warning], and
they will bite you, sayeth the Lord... Would that.. I would [be able to]
cry all day and night over the dead bodies of my people... Behold... I
shall disperse My people among the nations that neither they nor their
ancestors have known, and I shall send the sword after them until I
[almost] put an end to them." Pretty accurate, and gloomy message,
and reflecting both the Holocaust and the other pogroms over the years,
and also the loss of most of the surviving Jews to Yiddishkeit.

Yet the novi immediately proceeds, right after calling for the daughters
to be taught how to wail for the coming corpses that will fall like
rain, and says: "Thus sayeth God: let not a smart man be proud of his
intelligence, nor a hero proud of his heroism, nor a wealthy man of
his wealth. Rather, let someone who wishes to be proud be proud of his
knowledge of Me, for I am God who does mercy, justice, and righteousness
in the world, for _these_ are what I desire, sayeth God."

Now it seems clear to me that this is what we should be doing. As a small
start, shouldn't we consider what we say to other people, or even email
them, or even what we post on this or other lists, in the light of God's
statement that what He wants is mercy, justice and righteousness? Do we
not want to show to every lurker on the list that we are striving for
this? If we could do that with our posts, it would surely bring multiple
benefits: for our souls, for the qiddush haShem of showing Orthodox Jews
really trying to do the right thing, and for the good of the world.

As others have stated more eloquently than I am able: it does no good
to anyone to criticize yenem endlessly, when you should start with the
one you see in the mirror. I will start with myself. I invite everyone
reading this to start as well, and see what together we can do.

Seth Mandel

From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
> What element of greeting someone is prohibited?
> "Hello" is not a wish for the other's welfare. This seems to be the norm...
> If it's simply the act of acknowledging their arrival, how is my saying
> "Berger residence" ... any different?

Hello is not a wish for another's welfare but is a friendly way of
acknowledging the *other* person. Merriam Webster defines hello as
"an expression or gesture of greeting...." In contrast, saying "Feldman
residence" does not acknowledge the *other* person but merely indicates
"I am here." (In the case of a telephone, you're not acknowledging the
other person's arrival but merely indicating your "arrival"--a real
person, not an answering machine, has picked up the phone.)

Moshe

> Someone told me last night (or le-erev Tish'a Be-Av) that he refrains
> from eating milk/milk products ("milchilks" bela'az) together with fish....

The Belz Hechsher in Israel does not allow milk and fish together.
Sefardim also generally do not eat milk and fish together. 

---Rena

>Someone told me last night (or le-erev Tish'a Be-Av) that he refrains from
>eating milk/milk products...If  someone has mar-ei mekomos for this custom,

See Shach on Yore Deah 57:5 AND Yad Efrayim on the same page.

kol tuv
yosef stern

>But don't we eat bread and an egg? Isn't that two tavshilin?

see SA OC chap.527:2

kol tuv
yosef stern

I would appreciate it if one or more of the chevrah would summarize
the presentations. I'm especially curious to hear a detailed summary
of what Rabbi Kessin had to say.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 08:30:38AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:                 As I think I mentioned, Dovid is the seventh (malchus)
: that is me'ached the six...
:                       Hence, Dovid is the mogen.

I would have said, "Hence, the Magein is David's".

The association between David haMelech and Hashem as Magein is nisht
azoi pashut.

It's Avraham Avinu to whom Hashem says "Anokhi Magein lakh" (Ber 15:1).
And this is the idea Anshei Kenesses haGedolah encoded into tefillah.
(No matter how in flux tefillah was until the writing of the siddur,
I don't think people question the antiquity of the actual chasimah of
the first berachah.)

Mosheh Rabbeinu concludes his final berachah "Ashrecha Yisrael mi komakha,
am nosah baH', magein ezrekha..." (Dev 33:29) Zechariah repeats this
berakhah WRT Efraim and Tzion (see 9:13), "H' Tzevakos yigein aleihem"
(9:15). These would imply a Magein Yisrael or the like.

In Mishlei 2:7, "Magein leholechei tom", and 30:5 "Magein hu lekhol
hachosim Bo". Both could be continuing the "botekhim Bo" theme of the
author's father. However, the reference to "holechei tom" could be to his
grandfather, Yishai (Magein Yishai?) one of the 4 who died without cheit.

Then we get to David haMelech, who calls Hashem "Magini veQeren yish'i"
(Shem B 22:3), "Magein Hu lekhol hachosim Bo" (sham 31), and thanks H'
for "vatitein li magein yish'ekha" (sham 36), as well as Tehillim 18's
version of that tefillah. Also in Tehillim are about another dozen
references to HQBH as Magein for botekhim Bo or for David Himself.

So the choice of calling it Magein David seems to be due to the number
of references in Tehillim over any TSBP considerations.

If I may propose a more prosaic explanation...

The soldiers who fought for Bar Kochva used round sheilds. These sheilds
were reinforced in the back with rods in the shape of two overlapping
triangles. This gives a hexagonal area that includes most of the sheild
that is very stable, as Buckminster Fuller fans will attest. These two
triangles were what the soldiers saw, since they were looking at their
sheilds from behind.

The Romans did not. (Which is why their sheilds tended to be rectangular,
rather than a circle.)

The letter delta is a triangle, so another way of describing this sheild
design is a double delta. As in "David", if you throw in a semivowel.

This takes on religious significance when you contrast it to Who David
haMelech actually called "uzi umagini". Turning it into a reminder that
Hashem, not this thing the soldier holdes, is their ben David's Magein.

(For that matter, anything called a MD belongs on one's mezuzah case.)

RYGB traces the significance al pi qabbalah. It relates 7 of the sefiros,
corresponding to the week. The middle hexagon is Shabbos, the sacred
inherent in olam hazeh. Similar to the Maharal's "middle point" of the
three spacial axis (Gevuros H' ch 46). RSRH contrasts the 7 to the 8 of
the messianic "shamayim chadashim and aretz chadashah".

It's first found Qabbalah in Sefer Razi'el haMal'ach. Of course, there
are many diagrams in SRhM, and that doesn't explain why this one would
get its own name or prominence.

The MD progressively gained use in synagogue art until the 18th century.
Interestingly, Shabbatai Zvinikim took it as their symbol, because of
its both messianic and qabbalistic overtones.

In the late 18th cent the limits of the Jewish Quarter of Vilna
were marked with a MD on one side of the marker, and a tzelem on the
outside. Clearly intended as a symbol for "Jew" or "Yahadus".

But then, given Moshe Rabbeinu's berachah, that's an interesting
"coincidence".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Pursuant to the discussion on Areivim if night or day is the main time
for learning, I call attention to today's Daf Yomi, in which, me'inyana
deyoma, 15 Be'Av is mentioned as the time when one begins to add night
hours to the day hours. The peshat in the Gemara, at least according
to the Rashbam, is that the day is ikar, and night should be added
when possible.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

This is not meant as a conclusive proof on the subject of whether Yom
HaShoah is a good thing or a bad thing, but just a data point I picked
up yesterday during kinos.

The following is from a kinah about the 3 towns. It starts with "Mi
yiten roshi mayim".

"Vechi ein lehosif moed shever lesaverah ve'ein lehakdim zulasi lacharah
tachas kein hayom livyasi a'orerah..."

This seems to imply that one may not institute a new day of mourning
for a tragedy.

Gil Student

>>>I've always wondered about this. Ramo in S'A OC 142:1 states that if
the baal kriyah made a mistake (1) which changes the meaning "machzirin
oso" but (2) otherwise "go'arin bo." I've always understood this to mean
that in case (2) one should say aloud the mistake and if the baal kriyah
goes back, fine, and if not, it's OK. Was R' Reisman implying that if the
baal kriyah is a newbie, we shouldn't even say the mistake aloud in case
(2)? (The only time I'm quiet in that case is when the boy is becoming
Bar Mitzva, as I know that his relatives, etc. may get offended.)>>>

I don't think R' Reisman meant to imply anything WRT the halachos of
correcting ba'alei kriyah. He only mentioned these anecdotes to convey
how important it is to be careful when correcting/criticizing someone.
I remember being in one shul for a bar mitzvah, and before laining, the
gabbai made the announcement that the Rav will be paying attention to
the [bar mitzvah boy's] laining and, therefore, only the Rav will make
any necessary corrections and everyone else should kindly keep quiet
(or something to that effect.)

>>>Also, if one encounters a newbie baal kriyah who is clearly inattentive
and doesn't have either the ability or patience to prepare properly
(as the one in charge of laining in my shul, I often know), is it so
terrible to discourage such a person from laining in the future?>>>

I think that such a person should definitely be discouraged from
laining in the future, but, of course, this should be done privately and in
a gentle manner.

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         ]