Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 088

Tuesday, January 14 2003

• Re: avot/mitzvot, sanhedrin
• Re: Melo Kol Ha'aretz Kevodo
• Re: melo chol haaretz Kevodo
• Hebrew grammatical question
• re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Torah Question---Parashas Bo
• Re: moshiach
• Re: moshiach
• On the origin of drashot
• Pshat vs Drash
• Re: ein osin g'raf shel rei'i l'chatchila and plastic shopping bags for diaper disposal
• Mishnah Berurah and Chasam Sofer
• Re: MM
• Re: RMF vs. RSBA
• re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Re: tkufaseinu
• disposable cup for kiddush or for netilas yadayim
• Animal Suffering
• Re: avot/mitzvot, sanhedrin
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Re: avot/mitzvot, sanhedrin
• sanhedrin
• Re: Tzitzit question
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question
• Re: Hebrew grammatical question

On 10 Jan 2003 at 9:17, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> 1. How do we understand the gemora that says the avot kept kol
> hatorah, even drabbanans(which avot,which mitzvot...).
> 
> 2. How did the sanhedrin in yerushalayim interact with the other
> batei dinim including those of the shvatim(what cases went where, what
> independent authority existed..)

Rav Asher Weiss has an entire Chapter on this (42 - the first one in 
VaYishlach) in his Minchas Asher on Sefer Breishis.

-- 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.

At 09:25 PM 1/12/03 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> I do not know how the LR could have critcized a volume of MME that was
>> not published b'chayav.... It is customary in L circles to
>> say that the Gr"A held of tzimtzum k'peshuto, but I have yet to see where
>> this Gr"A might be. The MME about tzimtzum b'ratzon (with a source!) seems
>> very reasonable.

>page 484 of the fifth volume it states "Behold I have already mentioned
>in a letter to R' Yitzchok Masmid published in the fourth volume of the
>Michtav M'Eliyahu letter 13 page 324 that there is a question whether
>there was a substantive dispute between the Baal HaTanya and the Gra
>regarding tzimtzum."

>If you look at the fourth volume you will see a letter on this subject
>dated 5698 which is the year that R' Masmid was a guest of R' Dessler
>in London according to the note in the fifth volume. The Lubavichter
>Rebbe's letter is dated 5699.

I understand that the material in vol. 5 followed the rebuttal by the
LR of the letter in vol. 4.

Several interesting nekudos that arose from last evening's brief perusal
of R' Eliachs' "HaGa'on" on Chassidus and the Gr"a.

1. The Gr"a didn't really hold of the system of ha'aloas nitzotzos - I
see that the Ba'al ha'Tanya attributes that to his attitude towards Toras
ha'Arizal, and that there are semuchin l'kach in R' Chaim Volozhiner.

2. I am underimpressed by the capacity to conclude any definitive
understanding from the published snippets of the Gr"a on tzimtzum. All one
sees is that he was sholel the "everywhere" theory (as in the "heretical"
song "Hashem is here, etc.!), which is not even, it seems the shitta of
Chabad (whose is it anyway?).

It seems that if there was some theory of "tzimtzum k'peshuto" it was
of some writer called the "Mishnas Chassidim."

YGB

The issue of the meaning of Kavod is older that the Gro and the Besht. It
ultimately goes to the question of the relationship between G-d and the
physical matter. As R. M. Kasher had shown, there are many references
prior to the Besht that imply his position.

It seems to me (and if I am misunderstanding this, can someone more
knowledgeable enlighten me), that this goes to the machlokes among the
mekubolim (see the new sefer Yadid Nefesh, Part 8 who quots this form
Amud hoavodah and form Derech Mitsvosecha) whether the material world
is the last stage of emanation out of Malchus or came into being as a
disconnect, in a new act of Creation. The first Tsimtsum created space,
the second created keilim and this act created matter. My impression
is that the Gro held the lattter view although I am not sufficiently
knowledgeable to cite a source in the Gra'ws writings. The Besht could
find G-d in the material as he held that it was also a direct emanation,
the end stage of Elokut. It is not that R. Chaim Volozhiner followed the
new ideas of the Besht over his own teacher but that he took a side in
an older machlokes.

For some sources see EJ Schochet, The Chassidic movement and the Gaon
of Vilna pp.61-66 and my shortly (1-2 months) forthcoming book on the
Shema p. 37-40

M. Levin MD

While answering a post on USENET's soc.culture.jewish.moderated with regard
to the Issur melacha on shabbat of braiding (with ha'koleah being a tolada
of ha'oreg) and then answering a confused person who mixed this up with
ha'kosher, I translated the terms as a verb (weaving, braiding,etc).

Aishdas member Micha insisted that the terms are a NOUN (e.g. weaver,
knot tier). I disagreed and mentioned that the terms in halacha refer
to the activity (e.g. verb). Another Aishdas member (R. Shlomo Argamon)
also insisted that the terms are a noun. I retorted by stating that in Modern
Hebrew this is so (e.g. ha'ofeh could be either a verb OR a noun: one who
bakes or the baker).

Your input would be appreciated.

KOL TUV
Josh

R' Josh Backon wrote <<< ... ha'koleah ... ha'oreg ... ha'kosher, I
translated the terms as a verb (weaving, braiding,etc). ... I retorted by
stating that in Modern Hebrew this is so (e.g. ha'ofeh could be either a
verb OR a noun: one who bakes or the baker). >>>

"Ani ofeh" can mean either "I am a baker" or "I bake", but once you add
the "heh" to the beginning, doesn't that force it to be a noun?

If you'd translate "ani ha'ofeh" as "I am the one who bakes", that IMHO
does not leave "ha'ofeh" as a verb. If you want, you can call it "a noun
phrase composed of a direct object plus a verb", but you can't call it a
simple verb. (I hope a real grammarian can translate that into proper
lingo for me.)

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

From: "Robert_a_miller" <robert_a_miller@mymailstation.com>
: In 10:1, the heart of Pharaoh and the hearts of his servants are
: announced to have been hardened
: In 10:7, the servants try to get Pharaoh to give in to reality
: So in what respect were the servants' hearts hardened?

From: S Goldstein <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> For the "stira" concerning the opinion of the avadim of Paro in the
> beginning of Parshas Bo, see Ohr HaHaim.

See also the Chizkuni.

SBA

Regarding the order of bi'as moshiach, binyan beis hamikdash, and kibbutz
goliyos I have an article covering the ma'amarei Chazal and shitos in
the acharonim. Contact me offlist for a copy.

Gil Student

Eli Turkel wrote:
>I would further state that the order in the shemonei esrei
>indicates that the ingathering of the exiles and other events
>start before Moshiach. Hence, this order goes back to
>anshe knesset hagedola.

Not entirely clear. The Gemara in Megilla 17b-18a seems to say, based on
the order of the Shemoneh Esrei, that first Yerushalayim will be built and
then Moshiach will come. But what is the building of Yerushalayim? This
building of Yerushalayim refers to the building of the Beis HaMikdash,
as evidenced in Pesikta Rabbasi ch. 29 and in Rambam's commentary to
the Mishnah (RH 4:1, Sukkah 3:10, Ma'aser Sheini 4:4, Shekalim 1:3);
see also R' Hershel Schachter's Eretz HaTzvi 18:10 in the name of RYBS.

If so, this implies that the BhM will be built before Moshiach comes.
There are other proofs for and against this idea.

But the Gemara in Berachos 49a says that first Hashem will build
Yerushalayim and then He will be mekabetz goliyos. In other words,
kibbutz goliyos is supposed to be AFTER the building of the BhM.
This means that the "kibbutz goliyos" we supposedly see today is not
THE kibbutz goliyos. You could answer that there will be two waves of
kibbutz goliyos or some other answer.

>However, I argue that current events show that the correct
>order is that partial results are achieved before Moshiach.
>Remember we are talking about Achtalta degeula and the
>Geula itself.

There are other possibilities. This could be, chalilah, a temporary
hatzalah from our tzaros but not the keitz. Others, even some on the
list, would argue that the modern State of Israel is a ma'aseh Satan.

>But if Moshiach truly does come in the near future (which
>can still be years away or today) it means that the
>ingathering of exiles that has so far occurred in EY
>was indeed part of the processs of Moshiach.

And Aseres HaShevatim - the "ov'dim be'eretz Ashur"? R' Menahem Kasher
tried to answer this in his HaTekufah HaGedolah by saying that we pasken
like R' Akiva that the Aseres HaShevatim will not return but, in his
Divrei Menahem (vol. 4, teshuvah 13), he admitted that this is shver.

Not to mention that Jews running to EY for their lives is not quite how
the nevi'im describe kibbutz goliyos. See, for example, Yishayahu 60.
Note the order of the pesukim and the way passuk 9 describes kibbutz
goliyos.

Gil Student

Dear 'haveirim,

We have discussed several times before whether drashot are deOraita,
or whether the Tannaim (or Anshei Knesset haGedolah, or whomever, just
take your pick) created the drashot to match what they already knew to
be deOraitot, or whether drashot are simply an art form through which
connaiseurs can expound all the deOraitot by simply reading the Biblical
text properly.

I wish to reopen the debate just a bit, and ask fellow Ovdim how they
explain the following:

The mishnah Sotah ch. 5 begins with two drashot on which Rabbi 'Aqiva
and Rebbi differ. One is how to derive that the waters the sotah drinks
brings curse not only on her but also on her paramour, and the other
one is how to derive that she is not only prohibited from remaining
with her husband, but is also prohibited from subsequently marrying her
paramour. In both cases, R'A stresses the presence of an extra vav,
while Rebbi stresses the double appearance of the term, disregarding
the extraneous nature of the vav.

There is really no difference lehalakhah in the context of sotah
(although there may be differences elsewhere, where the drashah exists
only according to one of these tannaim). If so, why this ma'hloqet?

1) If the drashah is a key to understanding the Biblical text, a
key that anyone could use, assuming he is indeed in the know, then I
understand this to be a fundamental disagreement with farreaching
consequences.
2) However, if the halakhot themselves are part of Mosheh's messorah,
while the drashot are later creations, who cares how we derive something?
3) Even more, if we maintain that the halakhot themselves are the
result of the last Sanhedrin's understanding of the issue, in that case,
considering that both R'A and Rebbi agree on the halakhah, why mention
the drashah? (unless this would be the reason for a subsequent Sanhedrin
to revisit the previous interpretation.)
4) Finally, and this I find least attractive, if we maintain that the
halakhot and the drashot are both deOraita, transmitted since ma'amad har
Sinai, and yet that there is no general principle of drashot, such that
the sum total of all drashot don't have to be consistent in approach, in
that case, why mention the drashah, as the real issue is the halakhah? May
be tis would be material for the gemara, but the mishnah?

Rabotai, lemdeni na, how do you understand this chapter of mishnah?

To add to the confusion, let me point out that some of the drashot
mentioned in the same chapter are clearly "modern" creations. Rabbi
'Aqivah and Rabbi Yehoshu'ah ben Horqenos have innovated drashot which
Rabban Yo'hanan be Zakai did not know, perhaps an indication that drashot
are not that ancient.

Tangentially, all this is somewhat related to our thread on Reb Mosheh
Dessauer/Moses Mendelson, in that one of the important criticisms leveled
against him (same kind of criticism almost cost Malbim his honour, too)
was that the Biur was devoid of the traditional exegesis, replaced by
grammatical analysis and such. If drashot are central to learning the
halakhot (1 and 4, and to a lesser extent, 3) then may be we ought to
stick to the Talmudic exegesis of Scripture, while if 2, and possibly even
if 3, then there would be considerably more freedom of exegesis here. (I
didn't really mean that, as you could undoubtedly cite some rishonim
who held 1 or 4 and still felt free to interpret psuqim according to
their understanding when they were writing 'al haTorah rather than when
writing responsa.)

Arie Folger

-- 
Lehagdil Torah ulehaadirah

You are right in the sense that there exist many different historical
definitions of pshat and drash; the one I provided is ,I believe,
generally accepted in the academia nowadays. The point is that if you
need to know a fact which is not present or extractable by a talmid
chochom form the psukim, this is drash. So, in order to say that Voimesh
Choshech means that Egyptions could not move you must have access to
historical information from Chazal that otherwise is not accessible-
that is drash. If you have to know the Book of the Dead to understand
hardening of the Paro's heart qualifies that as drash.

The different opinions can be found summarized in the beginning of David
Halivni's Pshat a Drash, a book I don't otherwise recommend because of
its clearly heretical approaches. Do you recommend the source that you
quoted? I will order it if you think that it is good.

Your difinition is similar to the Malbim's Omek Hapshat (in his intro)
but it is not universal. See Even Ezra's introduction (derech Hachamishi)
that there are different types of drash; this is probably more corrrect.


Re: Tinok shnishba. I believe that Rabbi Volk of early RIETS discusses
this Rambam at length in his hakdomo to Shaarei Tohar, a multivolume
work on Kodshim.

An unidentified D-mill (millitary democrat? dmill945@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Wouldn't one need to designate some of these bags for trash/diaper use
> before Shabbos to avoid violating "ein osin g'raf shel re'ei l'chatchila"?

Assumnig you keep all these bags to later dispose trash in them, why
would you need to designate them before Shabbat, they are already 'omdim
umeyu'hadim for this purpose?

Similarly, if you use your toothbrush in a way that is permitted, and
do so habitually (e.g. every S), why would you need to designate it for
a permitted purpose, is the toothbrush not designated to that end from
the moment it was purchased/inaugurated?

Arie

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
Subject: Mishnah Berurah and Chasam Sofer

I'm not sure who first stated that the MB never quotes the CS, but it
certainly isn't true. I did a search and came up with the following 33
places. This does not count the references in Sha'arei Tzion.

MB 32:128, 67:3, 75:14, 114:41, 135:18, 143:25, 229:8, 318:39, 386:30,
436:32, 453:7, 509:25, 568:20, 617:6, 618:21, 648:65, 695:24.

Biur Halacha 32 sv harei eilu, 32 sv le-sak'no, 69 sv omer avos, 132
sv kuntres, 150 sv be-osah ha-ir, 154 sv tashmishei kedushah, 271 sv
shel revi'is, 331 sv afilu, 398 sv 283 amos, 409 sv kefi mezono, 448 sv
be-davar mu'at, 448 sv lo mehani, 475 sv be-tibul rishon, 614 sv afilu
latzeis, 638 sv kol shemonah, 648 sv pachos.

Yasher Koach Reb Gil, saving me a big job.

BTW, not only CS - but I have been told that the MB also quotes the Ksav
Sofer (in Hilchos YT).

Also, that the CC's rebbe Rav Nochum of Grodno was a very staunch admirer
of the CS. (Published in his Toldos.)

SBA

Not a very good translation on my part, but it should make the point
that R' Akiva Eiger quoted Mendlessohn and his translation.

Gil Student

Chiddushei R' Akiva Eiger (Zichron Ya'akov:5743), Megillah 17a

What they want, that the congregation should also pray in /la'az/, this
will not be because it is simple that one who understands Hebrew is not
/yotze/ in another language... It also seems to me that women and /amei
ha'aretz/ may not read and pray in /la'az/ because it is clear that just
like one who reads in Hebrew and omits a word or reads out of order,
even if the meaning does not change such as instead of "that God your
Lord gives to you" [saying] "that gives to you God", is not /yotze/.
So, too, in /la'az/ one may not a word or read out of order... The
translators to /la'az/ are not careful with this, as the head translator
(rosh ha-ma'atikim) R"M Dessau on the verse "Shema Yisrael" translates,
"der evige unzer Gott ist ein einig evigess vezen" [as best as I could
transliterate the transliteration]; he changed the word A' ("echad")
to the word D' ("Hashem"). Also, he that came after him, R"Y Bruell,
who at the beginning of his book that was copied by vertlich iberzetzung,
as he turned away greatly from the way of R"M Dessau, he saw to translate
in the order of the verse. Nevertheless, he did not retain the entire
order as necessary. He, also, on the verse "Shema Yisrael" translates
"izt ein eintziger und evger Gott"; he also changed the word "echad" to D'
(Hashem?)...

At 11:38 AM 1/12/03 +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> One of the reasons for being concerning about how Mendelson was viewed
> in previous times is an interesting comment made years ago in the Jewish
> Observer. It asked what in fact was the difference between Mendelson and
> Hirsch? ...

As Dr. Isaac Breuer, in a detailed analysis of the huge differences
between MM and RSRH (Moriah, pp. 130-137) notes towards the beginning
of his analysis in a succinct summation: MM's slogan might have been
"lamrot zot" - despite all the persuasive and legitimate "universal"
arguments, remain true to the laws of Sinai.

> Rav Shurkin mentioned the following story from Reb Chaim who addressed why
> he tolerated Hirsch's deviations....

Very cute. Will have to remember to use that story next time we discuss
why we tolerate the deviations of Brisk... ;-)

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

Certainly in the Mishnah in Shabbos which lists the m'lachos, the words
are nouns rather than verbs, since the verb can not take a hei hay'diyah,
and all the m'lachos have that hei.

"Ofeh" as a noun is certainly not a modern Hebrew invention; it appears
in the Chumash (mashkei melech Mitzrayim v'ha'ofeh).

Recall also that the two millenia we are in are the two millenia of
mashiach (after the millenia of tohu vavohu and of Torah).

The process started in the year 4,000 -- but what step in the process
is that?

-mi

Gershon gershon.dubin@juno.com:
> Does the next step then follow, that he would hold that one can use a
> disposable cup for kiddush or for netilas yadayim?

Interesting - have heard that Rav Dovid Feinstein shlit"a allows the use
of the "hard plastic cups" for kidush. Additionally, I was once present
when Rav Reuven Feinstein Shlit"a said that a "hard plastic cup" even
though disposable - because it is reusable - may be used for kidush and
compared it to a cheap glass - nobody would say that a very inexpensive
glass which some may opt to throw out rather than wash - would be unfit
for kidush - they are both kelim - I imagine the same would hold true
for netilas yadaim.

kol tuv
wac

ps: any info re the muktzah queestion

Even if the pain of animals is less terrible than human suffering,
I think it still needs an explanation.
The following is a rough translation of some lines from Rav Kook that
might shed light on the issue.

"A person stands and wonders what purpose is there for all the multitudes
of different creatures, he does not understand that everything is one
big entity...
If you are amazed about how you speak, hear,smell, touch, see, understand
and feel, tell yourself that all the living things and all those species
that preceded you all influence your entire existence.
There is nothing extra, all is necessary and serves a purpose. You are
in whatever is below you and your connected to and elevated by all that's
above you... " [OROT HAKODESH II pg. 361] see also the previos essay.
According to this maybe the animals' pain somehow affects the world and
brings the Tikun closer.

Yona Rothman

On Fri, Jan 10, 2003 at 09:17:39AM -0500, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: 1. How do we understand the gemora that says the avot kept kol hatorah,
: even drabbanans(which avot,which mitzvot...).

RMMS has a sichah in which he says they were meqayeim the tikun performed
by the mitzvah. Not necessarily the din itself.

In Nefesh haChaim I, RCV has a more traditional view.

-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          

Akiva Miller asked:
>"Ani ofeh" can mean either "I am a baker" or "I bake", but once you add
>the "heh" to the beginning, doesn't that force it to be a noun?

I don't think so.

How about hamal'akh hogo'el oti?

'Close' and 'almost' count only in
horseshoes and hand grenades.
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 05:06:10PM +0200, Ira L. Jacobson wrote:
:> "Ani ofeh" can mean either "I am a baker" or "I bake", but once you add
:> the "heh" to the beginning, doesn't that force it to be a noun?

: I don't think so.

: How about hamal'akh hogo'el oti?

"The angel who is the one who redeemed me". The noun clause of the
sentence, telling you who Ya'akov wishes would bless the children.

-mi

On 14 Jan 2003 at 1:57, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:44:16AM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
>: On 10 Jan 2003 at 9:17, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
>:> 1. How do we understand the gemora that says the avot kept kol
>:> hatorah, even drabbanans(which avot,which mitzvot...).

>:> 2. How did the sanhedrin in yerushalayim interact with the other
>:> batei dinim including those of the shvatim(what cases went where, what
>:> independent authority existed..)

>: Rav Asher Weiss has an entire Chapter on this (42 - the first one in 
>: VaYishlach) in his Minchas Asher on Sefer Breishis.

[I asked for clarification in private email, and wrote:]
> On which?

Sorry, you're right. I meant to stick that after number one and 
delete number 2.

Come to think of it, I also have a sefer that deals with question 2.
It's called Avnei Gazit (the one that deals with Hilchos Sanhedrin and
Hora'a - there are several) and was written by someone in my neighborhood,
R. Yisrael Yosef Bronstein.

-- 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.

>This is news to me, and I think the ramifications go way beyond
>Kiddush Hachodesh. To my history-challenged mind, the idea of
>Tzidukim taking over the Sanhedrin is about as reasonable as
>Hebrew Union College taking over the Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah,
>or the Rabanut HaRashit.

>I have to wonder how did such a thing could occur?

The problem is you are associating the Sanhedrin with a religious
court. Instead of Sanhedrin use the phrase Supreme Court of Israel.
It would be the same as if at one point the Supreme Court was all
religious and later was taken over by chilonim.

As to why this happened that was discussed by Gil.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 01/13/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

[Posted forwarded from scjm with permission. The author asks to be CC-ed
on any replies. -mi]

Micha Berger wrote [on scjm]:
> Nit, but I think it's an important point about Shabbos.
> 
> Ha'oreg is "the weaver", haqosher, "the knot ti-er".
> 
> The prohibition is not against doing the action directly
> as much as changing who you are.

Nit on your nit: See how the Rambam classifies the 39 melachos (Hil.
Shabbos beginning of Ch. 7). He uses the verb for the action rather than
the noun for the person doing the action. This differs from the Mishnah,
which uses the nouns.

A pet theory of mine: the Mishnah's terminololgy is in keeping with
the more-widely accepted view that melacha she'eina tzricha legufah is
patur. But the Rambam (in contrast to most others) paskens that melacha
she'eina tzricha legufah is chayav, and his terminology accords with
that view.

Akiva Miller asked:
>"Ani ofeh" can mean either "I am a baker" or "I bake", but once you add
>the "heh" to the beginning, doesn't that force it to be a noun?

I believe that this goes back to an issue we once discussed: Whether
Biblical Hebrew has a present tense or just uses nouns in a way that we
interpret as being a verb.  See the Avodah thread titled "Boneh/Boney
Yerushalaim".

Gil Student

From: Gil Student
>  Akiva Miller asked:
>> "Ani ofeh" can mean either "I am a baker" or "I bake", but once you add
>> the "heh" to the beginning, doesn't that force it to be a noun?

> I believe that this goes back to an issue we once discussed: Whether
> Biblical Hebrew has a present tense or just uses nouns in a way that we
> interpret as being a verb.  See the Avodah thread titled "Boneh/Boney
> Yerushalaim".

The "present" forms are actually participles. Just as in Indo-European
languages, such forms have aspects of both verb and adjective/noun,
and it is impossible to extricate which meaning is "dominant." However,
with he hay'di'ah, it has to function as a noun.

Seth Mandel

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


[ 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         ]