Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 069

Thursday, August 1 2002

• Re: Chezkat Kashrut
• Re: Kashrus and Parents
• Chezkat Kashrut
• Re: Chezkat Kashrut
• Insolvent estates
• Wedding Rings for men
• Wedding rings
• Re: wedding rings
• Re: wedding rings
• Re: wedding rings
• Re: The/A mesorah
• Re: Machlokes resolution and Sanhedrin
• Re: Machlokes resolution and Sanhedrin
• Re: Sanhedrin
• mishnah
• Re: re warming drawers
• re: warming drawers
• Re: houses in chu"l
• Re: Interesting Yerushalmi on the meragalim
• Re: Tur organization
• Re: Innovation
• 100 Berachos
• Re: Learning day/night
• Re: `kriyas hatorah
• Re: Keeping kosher in Israel
• chillul hashem

See the Aruch Hashulchan YD 119 #3, # 9, and #11 on the definition of
who/what is "muchzak b'kashrut".

Josh

Regarding my references to the Igros Moshe, R' Carl Sherer asked <<< But
you're extrapolating from a tshuva that Rav Moshe wrote about parents
relying on their children to a tshuva about children relying on their
parents. Are the two situations necessarily comparable? >>>

I wondered the same thing as I went through the first of those two
teshuvos. But in the second one, Rav Moshe talks about a non-frum butcher,
and he goes into some depth about the level of togetherness required to
be sure that the person really is trustworthy. Look again at the part
I quoted in my fourth paragraph, and it seems to me that geneological
relationships are not as important as the degree of closeness.

Of course, this is only a starting point which one can use to talk
to his LOR about all the other details of any particular situation,
as several listmembers have already pointed out.

Akiva Miller

>Could someone please present some sources on the neemanus/chezkas kashrus of
>a mumar l'tei'avon?  By way of comparison, I might trust a goy because I
>personally know him, yet if he buys an unmarked piece of meat from a kosher
>store, I'm not allowed to eat it.  What happens when a mumar l'tei'avon buys
>such meat?

For starters see Sanhendren 27:1 and Chulin 3:2

"Feldman, Mark" wrote:
> Could someone please present some sources on the neemanus/chezkas kashrus of
> a mumar l'tei'avon?  By way of comparison, I might trust a goy because I
> personally know him, yet if he buys an unmarked piece of meat from a kosher
> store, I'm not allowed to eat it.  What happens when a mumar l'tei'avon buys
> such meat?

In hilchos oso v'es bno the SA rules that, even though a nachri lacks
neemanus, im neeman hu lo and he says that he sold the parent/child
it's assur to schecht that day. I don't know whether neeman hu lo is
a general halachic concept (as RAM's citation of RMF seems to imply) or
merely a category l'chumra. If the former, the distinction would be that
it's not transitive: neemanus is normative, but neeman hu lo is personal.

More to the point, the sugya about mumar l'teavon is the first sugya in
Hullin and at the beginning of hilchos shechita. Our favorite example
when we learned shechita was the shochet who loved lobster (his shechita
is kosher). In your case, if he's not a mumar on lifnei iver (and what
teiavon could there be?), its OK to eat the meat. On the other hand,
the SA's definition of mumar l'teiavon is so restrictive as to render
the category nonexistent.

David Riceman

[Forwarded by RGS. -mi]

Dear Gil

I'm hoping you may be able to help (recall, you helped me with some
Talmud-Maths sources). I'm doing some research on divisions of insolvent
estates - the interest is generated by the fascinating discussion in
the Talmud on the topic in Ketubot 93A (a man has three wives and dies,
one claims 100, once claims 200, and he last claims 300.)

The basic question is : How do you divide an insolvent estate up to all
creditors when there is not enough to go around? The obvious answer is
a split in proportion to the size of each claim, but are you aware of
others in Jewish (or secular, modern or ancient) texts? For example,
methods which consider the number of different claims, not only the $
amount of each claim?

Thus far, I have stumbled upon a method used by the Rambam, and another
by the Rabad - both linked the discussion on auctions in Erakhin 27B. I
also know of the disputed garment problem in Baba Metzia 2A. But that's
as much as I know. Surely the modern idea of splitting the estate in
proportion to the claims appears somewhere in the Talmud.

I am not fussy regarding the exact relevance of a particular text. If
anything can shed some light on the matter, I'd be grateful for it (e.g.
in the contested garment problem, the validity of the claims is in
dispute, unlike the insolvent estate problem where there is simply not
enough to go around - but both consider disputed ownership of something
with some sharing of the spoils.)

Please pass this email around to people who might be able to add
something.

Thanks in advance.
Amnon Melzer

Rav Herschel Schachter advises men to wear wedding rings to work, if
they work in mixed-gender, secular environments. This minimizes problems
of unwanted attentions from women. He did not address specifically the
issue of begged isha.

Daniel Schiffman

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Some time ago we discussed briefly double ring ceremonies. Leaving that
> debate aside, what is the hakpada in some circles for a man not to wear
> a ring after marriage? I've been told it's chukot hagoyim but, if so,
> why is it any different for a woman? AIUI the custom of using a ring in

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
> I would think it's Begged Isha. 

From: Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il>
> Why? in secular/non-Jewish circles many (most?) men wear rings. Wouldn't
> that take it out of the geder of Begged Isha?

There is a pair of teshuvot in Igrot Moshe YD parts III and IV.

In III, he bans the double-ring ceremony, for a variety of reasons.

In IV, someone having read the first teshuva, apparently asked if
just wearing the ring was a problem, and RMF said that there is
no problem in wearing the wedding ring, it's not chukot hagoy.

I don't have the IM at home, maybe someone who does can supply
the details - I read these teshuvot years ago, just after YD IV
came out.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

In a message dated 07/28/2002 1:08:37am EDT, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> Do we determine whether something is Begged Ish or Begged Isha based 
> on the standards of the surrounding society? 

Interesting question - for example the m"b in 91:13 (really following many
earlier sources) defines acceptable hatting/clothing for tfila based on
the time and place and how one stands in front of gdolim. I wonder if
anyone is aware of sources that define this as Jewish gdolim?(That's
not what I was taught as a youngster). It's at least a second degree
relationship since historically it's clear that our mode of dress is
impacted by the outside world -both in style and in our desire to be
considered presentable (iirc R' Moshe was quoted as saying somewhere
in Europe the bnai yeshiva(?) all had canes because this was considered
the respectable mode of dress)

KT
Joel Rich

> But I think in EY the presumption is that surrounding society is solely
> Jewish. 

When I asked about that the LOR said LAD Jewish regarding normal usage.

Akiva

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2002 at 14:38, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>> what is the hakpada in some circles for a man not to wear
>> a ring after marriage? ...

> I would think it's Begged Isha.

The gemara in Shabbs (first perek) discusses men wearing women's rings
on Shabbos, and doesn't raise that as a problem.

David Riceman

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote <<< What WE consider Normative is so influenced by
Bayyis Sheni through the Talmud etc. that lacking those elements they
would be beyond the pale of what we would consider Jewish - even if
technically they were not "wrong". >>>

His use of the word "technically" leads me to suspect that RRW would
agree with the following clarification: They would *appear* to be beyond
the pale, but because they would be within their rights to follow their
own mesorah, it would be incumbent upon us to publicize and make sure
that they are accepted as Bnei Yisrael, and not ostracized in any way.

This would be a difficult project, accepting them as Bnei Yisrael,
while exempting them from Chanuka and Purim, yet such would be our
responsibility, as I see it. Such are chevlei hamashiach.

Akiva Miller

Reb Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Regarding the question raised as to how could there be an unresolved
> machlokes while there was Sanhedrin I have found two suggestions.
>
> 1) Most of the debates recorded in the gemora refer to the period when
> in fact there was no Sanhedrin.
<snip>
As you note, Hillel and Shamai lived while there still was a Sanhedrin.
Also, don't we need beit din hagadol for kidush ha'hodesh?

> 2) An alternative explanation found in Chikrei Lev (Y. D. 1:88 page 444-)
> accepts that in fact Sanhedrin existed after the Churban. He says that
> unresolved debates resulted from not being able to kill zakein mamre. In
> other words without the ability of Sanhedrin to kill or at least to
> threaten to kill dissenting individuals there was no way to assure
> acceptance of the majority position of the court. He notes, however, that
> Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel represent a problem to this proposal since
> in fact Sanhedrin still had the ability to execute at that time. He cites
> the Meiri (Sanhedrin 88b) that Zakein Mamre only applies to a single
> individual disputing the rulings of the 71 judges of Sanhedrin. If
> there is even a single judge who agrees with him then he can't have
> the din of zakein mamre and thus can not be executed for dissent. Thus
> Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel could not be resolved by threat of capital
> punishment since there were too many dissenters.

Yelamdenu rabeinu, I was under the impression that the halakhah of zakein
mamre applies to zaken, i.e., a member of the sanhedrin, not any ordinary
Jew. The reason would be because a member who refuses to follow the rule
of the Sanhedrin undermines it more than anything else. Its authority
moral comes from the common agreement of all members to abide by the
final decisions. If so, the entire argument would not fly (does that mean
I am wrong, or that only Meiri disagrees with my reasoning, or what?).

> He asserts that the
> Ramban aggrees with the Meiri. Thus only the realistic threat of death
> or actual execution will get talmidei chachomim to consistently abandon
> positions they feel are valid and not simply the view of the majority.

> Thus according to both approaches post churban Sanhedrin could not force
> resolution of disputes simple on the basis of its authority as Sanhedrin
> - - but could encourage acceptance by other means such as persuasion,
> loyalty of students or use of social sanctions as we find today.

I must say that if you do resove the two issues I raised above, especially
the one re: zaken mamre, your expose will be very convincing (no wonder,
you apparently based it on solid sources ;-)).

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> how could there be an unresolved machlokes while there was Sanhedrin

Actually it is very possible that the psak of a Sanhedrin could induce
more machlokoth than it could solve. Consider the following example
(I may not have the details of tumas meis correct, and if so I hope
someone will correct me, but I trust the issues in hilchos Sanhedrin
will be clear).

The Sanhedrin votes on whether a kohen may ride in an airplane whose path
leads it directly over a corpse. Members of Sanhedrin (henceforth MSs)
are divided into three parts:

25 MSs, and no more, believe that aluminum is not a matecheth, and
therefore the airplane cannot transmit tumah inside itself. Call this
group A.

25 MSs, none of whom are in group A, believe that ohel zaruk shmei ohel
(or is it the other way around?) and therefore the airplane cannot
transmit tumah inside itself. Call this group B.

21 MSs believe neither of the above. Call this group C.

The Sanhedrin votes 50-21 that a kohen may ride in an airplane whose
path leads it directly over a corpse.

Two weeks later a dead sheretz falls into an aluminum frying pan, and
the owner asks his local MS whether he has to tovel it.

If the MS is in group A he says no, aluminum is not a matecheth. If the
MS is in group B he says yes, aluminum is a matecheth. Neither of them
sees any reason to change their mind, since they were both on the winning
side of the last vote.

What if the MS is in group C? He knows that he must change his mind
about either aluminum or ohel zaruk, but he doesn't know which. In fact,
if you add a couple of more cases this may enable a minority of MSs to
overrule a majority by having a few applied cases back-to-back (exercise
for the student: construct such a case).

David Riceman

David Finch wrote:
>One of the things that makes talking about the Sanhedrin tricky (pre-
>or post-churban) is the unstated assumption that the Sanhedrin exercised
>an independent jurisdiction over a a Greek-style "polis" based on Jewish
>civil, criminal, and religious law. This was only partly true, part of
>the time, under certain circumstances. Much of the Sanhedrin's civil
>and criminal authority was granted (or delegated, or simply tolerated)
>by Roman administrators, who at one time withdrew from the Sanhedrin
>the power of capital punishment (see Sanhedrin 18a). While on certain
>strictly religious matters the Sanhedrin operated independently, it's
>dangerous to assume that on other matters the Sandhedrin didn't keep an
>eye out for its Roman protectors.

R' Reuven Margoliyos wrote an essay titled "Batei HaMishpat BeYisrael" in
which he claimed that the Sanhedrin was not a civil authority and the Jewish
people had a separate, "chiloni" court that dealt with civil matters. I've
never seen it inside but he quotes it in some of his later works.

Gil Student

> Mishnah was intended to be a readily memorizable form of halachah
> pesuqah. Azoi zogt the Rambam I cited earlier in defining shelish
> bemishnah. The fact that the requirement for memorization made them
> overly mnemonic for later doros doesn't change Rebbe's intent.

However, the recent daf yomi says we do not rely on psak from the
mishah. It is less clear why not.

Also there is a debate between R. Nassan and Rebbe about the exact
wording of the mishnah. In fact Rebbe is arguing with R. Nassan who was
a generation before him. Hence, it is clear that already at this time
there were doubts as to the exact text of a pre-existing mishna.

We also see a number of places that Rav and Shmuel argue about the text
of the Mishna even though Rav learned the Mishna directly from Rebbe.


Regarding the Sanhedrin it is clear that there were eras of extended time
when the Saducees controlled the Sanhedrin. What happened to kiddush
halavanah, moadim during that era? what was the status of machloket?
Similar during the time of Roman persections there was obviously no
standing Sanhedrin.

The famous Rif on blowing shofar on Rosh Hashana that falls on shabbat
seems to assume that Yavneh had the status of a standing Sanhedrin.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

Reb David Brofsky wrote:
> however, i have also been introduced the the "warming tray". many students
> relate that their parents place food into a warming drawer. any thoughts
> or observations on this phenomenon? do some american poskin argure that
> a nonadjustable (or garufed) warming drawer may be similar to a warming
> plate, which r moshe permitted hachzara onto lechatchila?

Rav Ovadyah Yosef holds that if the warming tray cannot be adjusted and is
not used for cooking (as opposed to a slow cooker, which is used, well,
for cooking slowly ;-)), is neither me'hzei kimevashel, nor mevashel
(assuming that the food being put on top of it is totally dry, since
Ashkenazim are more restricive as to what they consider yavesh. A kugel
qualifies), an is thus OK even for Ashkenazim. Rav Willig cautiously
agrees, and there are some Ashkenazi poskim who concur (but I can't
remember who). Acc. to rav Willig, this is similar to kdeirah 'al gabei
kdeirah 'al gabei pa'h (blekh), which is OK for Ashkenazim lekuli 'alma.

Arie Folger

>>>...while one can justify leaving food in b/f shabbos as long as
one grapples with the thermostat questions, returning food to an oven
on shabbos moning seems to be a wide spread yet extremely problematic
practice.....<<<

See: <http://www.asbi.org/ReHeatShabbat.html>

where a MO rabbi warns his congregants against warming food in ovens on
shabbos morning. He also discusses warming drawers. Ayin sham.

KT
Aryeh

In a message dated 7/24/02 1:57:57pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> There is a teshuvos Chasam Sofer addressing the question; I don't recall
> the location or the answer (I saw it about 30 years ago!) but maybe
> someone could find it with a BarIlan.

R' Ruvein Margliyus in his Mkor Chesed on the Sefer Chassidim (Tzavah
16) brings the C"S in Y"D 138.

In a message dated 7/22/02 3:46:03pm EDT, dr@insight.att.com writes:
> The Shlah (at the end of masseches sukkah) says that one should not (I
> think he means it as a middas chassidus rather than an actual prohibition)
> purchase a house in Chu"l which has more room than one needs right now.
> I mentioned this to my wife when we were house-hunting several years ago;
> and she responded that need expands to fill available space.

In the Mkor Chesed he brings this as well, and see Pischei Tshuva (and Tarkei 
Tshuva) Y"D 179 Sif 3.  (Lichora the Diyuk is building not buying as is 
Mfurosh in the Sefer Chassidim).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/15/02 1:42:04pm EDT, charlesf.brown@gs.com writes:
> Interesting machlokes in Yerushalmi (brought in Tos. Sotah 34) between R'
> Akiva and R' Yishmael.  Acc. to R' Yishmael there were 12 meraglim, but R'
> Akiva darshens the double lashon "ish echad ish echad" to double the number
> - there were 24 meraglim!  (P' Devarim just has "ish echad" - see Chasam
> Sofer, which is why this caught my eye to begin with).

> Question: don't we derive from the # of meraglim that an eidah=10?  If there
> were 24 meraglim, the limud is difficult?

This question is asked by no less then Reb Akiva Eiger in the Gilyon Hashas 
on the Tos. in Soteh.

<snip>

> Based on this, perhaps everyone agrees that 12 physical spies went, and
> hence the limud of eidah=10. 

> The machlokes between R' Yishmael and R' Akiva is how to count - do you
> count 12 meraglim because of the bodies, or 24 because of the
> double-neshamos!

See the Mforshim on the Yerushalmi Sotah 7:5 which seem to hold that this
is a general Machlokes all over, so it is difficult to use above argument,
(also BTW note the Machlokes whether the Nsi'im are the ones that were
names or not).

In a message dated 7/17/02 1:36:44pm EDT, RYGB answers:
> I believe the Y-mi says they were the avadim of the other meraglim.

Actually (while not mentioned in Yerushalmi Al Asar) R' Ruvein Margoliyus 
brings in his Margoliyos Hayam Sanhedrin 2a #47 connection to the Breishis 
Rabba 53:10 that he was an underling.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/1/02 2:39:04pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: In addition one could add why he places Hil. Ribis in YD and not (as the 
>: Rambam) in CM.

> Efshar this is a very deep statement. Perhaps because ribis isn't dinei
> mamunos, but rather a din of "achicha".

RCS writes:
>> Efshar this is a very deep statement. Perhaps because ribis isn't
>> dinei mamunos, but rather a din of "achicha".

> AIUI you're classifying Ribis as a bein adam l'chaveiro. I would
> understand it differently. I would understand it as a din in issur
> v'heter, which would explain its placement in YD. The money of Ribis is
> assur just like tarfus or basar b'chalav or nida.

The point of my question was based on RYD's notion that the Tur is based on 
the Rambam, to this my question was if so Hil. Ribis should be put along with 
CM just as the Rambam puts it together in Mishpotim (Malveh vLoveh).  Another 
point WRT Niddah there is a Machlokes whether it is an Issur like other 
Issurim, or it is an Issur Ervoh (which would strengthen the question why it 
was not placed with the other Ervoha in E"H).  However the answer LFAN"D is 
quite explained in the Tur why he put it where he did as earlier posted.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> A question came up on another list about the value of innovation in the
> medieval period.  My first thought was the expression "ein beit midrash
> b'li chidush" (or something like that).  How far back does it go?  What
> exactly was it taken to mean - that people will make up chidushim
> regardless of quality, or that it is desirable that people grow to the
> stage where they can make good chidushim, or what?

IIRC it's a gemara at the beginning of Hagiga (actually a Tosefta) citing R.
Yehoshua.  It is clearly a positive observation.  OTOH "beis hamidrash" there
refers to a lecture by the (co-) head of the academy, not a discussion by the
students.

David Riceman

>>> See Halichos Shlomo, page 271, n. 93, where a shita is brought down
that is mesupak whether the day goes after the previous night for purposes
of 100 brachos.
I didn't see the Halichos Shlomo, but Pashtus Hagemara (Minochos 43b)
seems to imply otherwsie, for if the night follows the day then the
problem is not only Shabbos and Yom Tov, but also Erev Shabbos and Yom
tov. <<<

The Or Zarua (Erev Shabbos 21, Darchei Moshe brings it 249) records a
minhag rishonim of eating cake/mezonos Friday night before kiddush to
be mashlim 100 berachos. The safek got me thinking of how to read
that O.Z. - perhaps he means they are mashlim the 100 berachos of
*Erev Shabbos* (as opposed to learning that the concern was being
mashlim 100 berachos of Shabbos), and the night follows day. This
would explain why there was a rush to get in the 100 berachos that
night (and get involved in possible beracha shaina tzericha and not
eating seudas shabbos l'teiavon) rather than wait until the next day.
And if you argue that this is only by Fri. night since they were mekabel
shabbos early it was still day, then you end up losing many berachos -
ma'ariv of Fri. night would then count for Fri. and not Shabbos, and
motzei Shabbos's ma'ariv would count for Sunday.

Regardless of how you read the O.Z., the last point seems to be true -
the rule of 100 berachos does not stricly follow a day/night boundry,
but is a din in tefilah, i.e. if you daven an early ma'ariv one day and
wait till after tzais to daven the next night, I doubt anyone would argue
that ma'ariv on day #1 before tzais counted for day #1, ma'ariv after
tzais on the next night counts for day #3, and day #2 is short....Such
a sevara would potentially cut ma'ariv out of the count completely for
those who make early Shabbos.

On a different note: women who do not daven ma'ariv will always be short
23 berachos each day....either they eat a lot of snacks, there is some
other way to be mashlim, or for some reason the whole obligation does
not apply to them?

-Chaim B.

In a message dated 7/19/02 1:24:47pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> 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.

Please forgive if I mention something that has been said already.

See Y"D 246:23 and Shach S"K 25, Rambam Hil. T"T 3:13 S"A Horav Hil. T"T 4:8

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 7/18/02 1:08:47pm EDT, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com writes:
> 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?  

1) WRT the amount of fasting people, there are those who hold that 6 are 
needed, the Tzemach Tzedek (Lubavitch) rules 3 are enough. 

2) WRT when not enough Misanim, the Sefer Zos Hatorah (page 612) brings from 
the Imrei Yosher that discusses the Shaarei Tshuvah 566 S"K 4 that seems to 
imply that no reading is done at all, and rules that the regular weekly 
portion is read.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

RHM wrote:
> I'm surprised that Hechsher organizations don't REQUIRE Melicha
> before sale. I beleive that at least here in Chicago and probably
> nationally they do require it. How can they allow meat to be sold
> that has not undergone Melicha to be sold? If meat is not washed
> within three days of Shechita it rendered unKosher if it hasn't
> undergone Melicha.

Unfortunately I did not learn all of hilkhot meli'hah (the maggid shi'ur
had run out of time to cover it all), but I don't remember seeing any
mention of a minhag that we don't rely of the blood drawing qualities
of plain ol' grilling. In fact, I saw quite a number of tshuvot deling
with whether an oven is good enough (don't remember), a broiler(depends,
most broilers - no) is good enough and whether a gas stove is good enough
(yes), etc.

So, I believe that we theoretically still practice broiling without
salting (well, we do salt, but just a little, and that at the time we
put it on the grill), so such prcatice is justified. In fact, once I will
have finished sufficient research to ascertain myslef that we don't have
a minhag to the contrary, I would like to try this.

Even if Ashkenazim do have a minhag against such practice, I can almost
guarantee you that Sephardim don't.

Arie

The other day a friend mentioned an opinion of his friends, that God had
deliberately falsified the apparent age of the world in order to give
people the option of free will. At the time I responded by asking why,
if they believe that God is a liar, do they trust the Torah.

Later I started thinking about chillul hashem. Given modern attitudes
towards falsifying scientific data, most people I know would view the
actions my friend's friends attributed to God as being particularly
despicable. So why isn't accusing God of performing despicable actions
a form of chillul hashem?

So I looked in the Rambam (SHM Lav #63) and found that in order to
perform chillul hashem one must either perform an aveirah or fail to
perform a mitzva. Maligning God just doesn't count.

My question is this: is maligning God an aveirah? If so, what aveirah?

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]