Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 118

Monday, March 3 2003

• Re: When to investigate a chazakah
• Re: FW: Proselytism
• Re: fanaticism
• chovat kriat hatorah
• Mah Tovu
• Re: Shoshanas ya'akov
• Re: Mishloah Manot question
• Re: Mishloach monos
• Re: Shoshanas Yakov
• Re: Yigdal
• RE: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
• Re: Midvar Sheker Tirchak
• Birkat haMinim
• Re: Rambam, Immortality, and Mitsvos
• Re: When to investigate a chazakah
• Mishlei - Perek 3
• who is a posek
• Re: who is a posek
• Re: who is a posek
• Re: fanaticism
• RE: who is a posek

This whole discussion has so far omitted the problem of safeiq mamzeir.
There are times when the chazaqah is broken, and mamzeirus must be
investigated.

Like back when most adoptions involved closed books, so that you didn't
know why a baby was given up for adoption. There is a real likelihood
that the child was given up because the father wasn't the husband --
and the woman was married. Poseqim didn't say that one may rely on the
chazaqah. Lehefech: they saw the problem as large enough to recommend
avoiding it and adopting non-Jews to make geirei qatan.

(Today you generally can learn enough to rule out this problem. And as
there are Jewish children available, better they end up in observant
homes...)

I have no idea how much rei'usa must be present before this issue must
be opened. But some threashold must exist.

Now on to the subject in general, a subject I raised a number of times in
the first three volumes. See also <http://www.aishdas.org/book/bookA.pdf>
for a somewhat old version of a manuscript on the subject of birur.

The Sheiv Shema'atsa breaks down the word chazaqah into two forms of
birur: chazaqah demei'ikarah, and chazaqah disvarah. Assuming the state
didn't change vs relying on a rule of thumb for how things behave. There
are nafqa minos lehalakhah. in particular Shema'atsa 6:22 gives weight
to a CdS to break the tie in the case of trei uterei but not a CdmI.

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 12:47:05PM -0500, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: 1) An anonymous piece of meat has been found. We have no idea where the
: meat came from, but depending on various circumstantial evidence such as
: the ratio of kosher butchers locally, presence or absence of simanim,
: or the circumstances involving the finding, halacha may presume it to
: be kosher or not.

Ruba de'isa leqaman trumps both types of chazaqah. The line between
ruba deleisa leqaman and chazaqah disvara is blurry, but CdS clearly
means the more sure of the two, and therefore carries more weight
in birur. But once you throw in that ikka rei'usa, you have the question
I raise above.

: 2) One pound of nonkosher food falls into two pounds of kosher. We know
: for a fact that we have 3 pounds of a 33/66 mixture, but it is impossible
: to separate the food, so the status of the mixture comes into question
: even though the facts of the case are clearly known.

Similarly. See also my whole "ta'am and taste" theory. (That's the text
in the subject line back when we discussed it.) I suggested that pesaq is
not on the metzi'us in some objective sense, but metzi'us in how people
experience it.

This is based on RAEiger's chiluq between kol deparish and qavu'ah.
Rov is a law in determining metzi'us. Qavu'ah in deciding what to
do with something that once had a cholos sheim of issur or heter,
but now we lost knowledge of which.

: 3) A couple has been married. Later on one of them claims that it was a
: mekach ta'us. It is now impossible to determine what their true intentions
: had been back then, so various established chazakos are used to presume
: whether the original kinyan was valid or not.

There are chazaqos disvara. Laws of human behavior in the marrying
community.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 04:37:53PM -0500, Feldman, Mark forwarded from his
father, R Dr. Louis H. Feldman:
: As to Perushim trying to proselytize there is only one reference, which
: is much debated, in the New Testament, Matthew 23:15, which declares
: that the Pharisees "compass sea and land to make one proselyte."
: There are references, both positive and negative, but mostly positive,
: toward welcoming proselytes. There are rabbinic portraits of Abraham,
: and others as missionaries...

Avraham couldn't be a missionary, there was no Sinaitic covenant to
missionize them to.

Rather, this is a ra'ayah that we should be going out teaching benei
No'ach to observe their beris with HQBH. Not making them Jews.

Li nir'eh, in the Romans' eyes, convincing people to worship one
formless G-d would be prosletization. But it's not setting out
to make geirim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:41:50PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:>But what about kana'us for inyanei machshavah?

: Yishme'u oznecha mah she'picha medaber! (or, mah she'yadecha metaktekot)!

: A paradox if there ever was one - Kana'us for inyanei machashava...!

We must be speaking different languages, using our terms differently.

One can be a kana'i on shemiras Shabbos, or dinei kashrus.

One can be a kana'i on rooting out beliefs that imply shtufus or imply
some pegam in the borei.

The latter would be a kana'i on inyanei machshavah, on issues everyone
but RSWolbe would use the term "hashkafah" to denote. No?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
micha@aishdas.org            you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org       happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Dale Carnegie

From: Joelirich@aol.com
<<This seems consistent with the Soloveitchik family practice(R'
YDS having kriat hatorah at mincha if he was travelling in the am, R
Chaim reported to try to get a minyan for kriah when he was travelling
in the am) but from what I can find most poskim hold it's a chovat
hatzibbur(based on reconciling brachot 8a and sotah39a)

<<Does anyone know the basis for holding that it's a chovat hayachid?
Is there any interplay with chazarat hashatz?>>

Not sure if this is quite the same shittah, but I recall RYBS 

(aside: please use the commonly used abbreviations so everyone knows
of whom (sorry, RTK) you speak)

saying that the family held (R' Chaim and down) that kerias haTorah is a
chiyuv of kenesinasa, to the extent that he'd correct every minor mistake
even if it didn't change the meaning. This may extend to a chiyuv perati.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Rich Wolpoe asked the following question:

Mah Tovu is what we say when we enter a shul.  Should we say this if
we are davening outside of a shul?  The Artscroll Mourning Siddur
has it even though it is meant for a shiva house.

Gil Student

In a message dated 3/2/03 1:43:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, micha@aishdas.org 
writes:
>: In my drosho on Parshas Tetzaveh, I focused on the Megilla's inordinate
>: amount of time spent on clothing... Clearly relates to Parshas Tetzaveh
>: that always
>: coincides with Purim or Purim Katan.

...
> Li nir'eh this is not an answer though. There is a cart-and-horse problem
> using it that way.
> 
> The connection, which I agree is pretty clear, would explain why minhag
> Bavel set these parshios to be around the time of Purim. Not why a
> megillah written centuries before this minhag picks up on the theme.

But then you've got the midrash that Achashveirosh wore the Bigdei Kohein 
Godol to the seuda!  See R'Matis Weinberg's Frameworks:Exodus essay on 
Parshas Tetzaveh for more.

Raffy

In Avodah 10:117, R' Joseph Mosseri asked <<< I was told that the mishloah
manot must consist of at least two different berakhot! ... What is the
source for this???? >>>

Rarely does a year go by that I don't hear this question from someone,
and no one (to my knowledge) has ever come up with an answer. This leads
me to suspect that the logic behind it is not halachic and legal. Rather
it is a sort of practical advice.

Namely: There is a real halacha that the two foods must be *different*
foods, and the rules of "what counts as different" can get pretty
complicated. But if the two foods have different brachos, then they
are guaranteed to be sufficiently different that they do not count as
"the same food", and they may be used for this mitzvah.

Akiva Miller

> As a child I was taught by all my Yeshivah teachers that in order to
> fulfill the missvah of Mishloah Manot certain criteria must be met.

> The item in question is this. I was told that the mishloah manot must
> consist of at least two different berakhot!
...
> It's not in the Megilah, or the Gemara, or HaRaMBaM, or Shoulhan 'Aroukh,
> or anyplace else where I have searched.
> 
> Can anyone help to demystify this?????

I think that this is a miscoception; any two foods even of the same
brocho suffice. As a matter of fact, if I recall correctly, the Kitsur
says specifically "Shnei Minei basar etc).

M. Levin

LAD, the reference to a shoshana ..Yahad is because there are two ways
a people can be constituted.

1. Separate individuals who together possess an added quality expressing
nationhood. Ex. A forest made up of trees. Each can stand on its own
but together adding up to more than a sum.

2. Individuals who are incomplete in and of themselves and whose essence
is that of belonging and interlacing in a group. Ex. Petals of a rose

The piyut expresses the second understanding of our nationhood, also
described by Yakov and not by Yisroel.

M. Levin

I am ot aware of any commentator that understands this word thusly. The
best you can argue for is that it means fashioned out of pre-existent
matter, i.e Ibn Ezra and Ralbag.

M. levin

>: And yet, there are specific cases where we are told TO lie, because of
>: shalom. Is this not a case where the ends (shalom) justify the means
>: (lying)?
>: Again we see that an apparently ironclad rule DOES have exceptions.

...
> I'm not sure how to understand this AlN's take on this 
> gemara in a manner that isn't circular. It would seem to 
> be saying that one must stay away from sheqer, and sheqer 
> is defined by speech that is wrong.

It seems that the explanation is this:

Torah tells us to stay far away from falsehood at all times. Period.
However, to change something in a sentence or to say over an incomplete
sentence ONLY FOR THE GOAL OF PROMOTING SHALOM is NOT sheker. It is
instead furthering Hashem's purpose in this world and thus it is not
sheker, but ultimate truth [as opposed to subjective truth].

With this said, however, it seems to be much safer to err on the side of
emet unless we have asked the opinion of a posek in the matter because
we normal mortals are generally much too nogea b'davar to be sure that
we are really changing the truth a bit solely for the sake of peace or
that what we are doing will indeed in the end will actually promote peace.

---Rena

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 11:13:37PM +0200, Rn Rena Freedenberg wrote:
: Torah tells us to stay far away from falsehood at all times. Period.
: However, to change something in a sentence or to say over an incomplete
: sentence ONLY FOR THE GOAL OF PROMOTING SHALOM is NOT sheker. It is
: instead furthering Hashem's purpose in this world and thus it is not
: sheker, but ultimate truth [as opposed to subjective truth].

Then why do emes and shalom have different voices in objecting to
"na'aseh adam"? It would seem that if shalom defines emes, then the
lack of shalom includes both.

The other problem is that I don't see why "shalom" defines ultimate
truth and not "din" or "tov". So still, I don't see how "midevar sheqer
tirchaq" avoids circularity.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org            remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org       winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                            - Peter Marshall

From: "Shoshana L. Boublil" <toramada@bezeqint.net> 
>> The common nusah of 'Edot haMizrah nowadays is: 
>> (1) Lamminim v'lammalshinim 'al t'hi tiqwa; 

> Rav Rakach in Shulchan HaPanim, notes that the correct Nusach is
> "LaMalShinim VeLaMinim..." and explicitly says that one should not use
> the Nusach of Bavel.

>> (2) V'khol hazzedim k'rega' yovedu; 
>> (3) V'khol oyvekha v'khol son'ekha m'hera yikkaretu; 
>> (4) umalkhut harish'a m'hera t'aqqer ut'shabber utkhallem v'takhni'em 
>> bimhera b'yamenu. 

> should not end with "minim" but rather with Zeidim. 

I am at the moment checking my mail via internet cafes and not mesudar
at all. But on this topic IIRC the Munkatcher Rov z'l writes that one
must mention 'minim' in the brocho.

BTW who are you mechaven on when praying against the 'malchus harisho"?

And an old question; Why the 2 'meheiro's' in "vehazeidim MEHEIRO
se'aker...BIMEHEIRO beyomeinu.."?

SBA

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:03:43AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> : 2. RMG postulates that the Rambam believes that schar mitzva gets one a
> : place in Olam HaBa. I objected that, in fact, the Rambam believed that
> : one gets Olam HaBa through a natural process...
>
> Are we sure that "sechar" is in contradiction to "natural process"?

Not as the Rambam understands it, but yes as RMG understands the Rambam.

> My problem with shittas haRambam is that he is defining yedi'ah in
> intellectual terms. Which would give people of lesser intelligence a
> leg down not only in olam hazeh, but also in olam haba as well.

I'm not sure that in the Rambam's time someone with less intelligence
had a leg down in olam hazah. There are plenty of good reasons to object
to shittas harambam. My own is that his understanding of the nature of
the soul is based on a false understanding of science. Nonetheless,
it is worthwhile understanding his opinion. For the Rambam, BTW, the
issue was knowledge, not intelligence, and since he believed in the
efficacy of summae, I doubt that he thought intelligence a necessary
means of obtaining correct knowledge.

David Riceman

I had a much longer post prepared, but in the spirit of "kol hamosif
gorea", let me go straight to my main confusion:

Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn wrote <<< So we have a number of alternatives 1)
Create a situation where there is no halachic problems - Sefer Yuchsin
2) Permit only those who have adequate information to show they are
not mamzerim and reject the rest 3) Use Reb Moshe's hetair and take
the chance that the information will not be uncovered 4) Don't ask any
questions and hope that no doubts arise later. >>>

Who would endorse #2 of this list?

Rabbi Eidensohn wrote (in Avodah 10:115) that <<< There is no status of
mamzer until it has been established that the person is the product of a
prohibited relationship. Thus the matter should not even be investigated
unless there is a likelihood the information will come out eventually.
>>>

Shouldn't #2 be rewritten to read <<< Forbid only those who have adequate
information to show they *are* mamzerim and *accept* the rest >>> ?

Sincerely trying to understand,
Akiva Miller

Well lechoved Reb Micha's request (and also because I had to look up a
posuk there) ast night I spent some time going thru Mishlei perek 3.

I hope that the points I found interesting enough to note here will pass
the new stringent rules and regulations of our worthy moderators. I
am not being mechadesh anything here - but some of these items were
'chodosh' to me and will probably be so to a few others who are not yet
boki in Mishlei.

1) 3:9 'Kabed es Hashem Mehoynecho'...Usually misread as 'mehoyncho'.

2) Rashi on this posuk: 'mikol mah shechonenocho - afilu mikol oreiv
[al tikri mehoynecho eloh migroynecho'] That last piece [ ] is usually
brought by the collectors of phantom maamorei Chazal. But Rashi has it
here - albeit in square barckets.

3)3:11: Mussar Hashem beni al timos..Rashi explains 'mussar' miloshon
'yesurin'..

4) 3:12 (I thought of RMB here): 'Ki es asher ye'ehav Hashem yochiach,
uch'av es ben yirtzeh'...RM - see Rashi about the good times coming up..

5)3:12 Talking of the Torah "..ki tov sachroh mis'char kosef..." see
Rashi..nice and true pshat.

6) I think our moderators may have DNA'd Rashi on this one. 3:16:
'Orech Yomim biyemino Bismoylo osher vechovod'. Rashi explains it is
about the RWs('mayminim') and the LWs ('masme'ilim') - whom he describes
as learning Torah shelo lishmo...

7) 3:18: 'Eitz Chayim hi lemachzikim bo..'
AIAI there are 2 pshotim on 'Eitz Chayim' - a tree of life - whose fruits
are conducive to living long, or a floating piece of wood onto which a
drowning person holds on to..

3:30: 'Al toriv im odom chinom, m lo gemolcho ro'o..'
Rashi: 'Sh'ovar al mitzva haksuvo batorah ve'ohavto lereacho komocho
(I am not quite sure how to learn pshat in that).
Rashi continues: "Umi shehu rosho reshoi ato lesoynoy..."

And so ends todays lesson...

SBA

RYBG presented a rational attempt at defining a posek. However, like
most definitions it has troubles in the gray areas. Just a few questions

"Is approached by thousands of people, which must include significant
numbers of those who are not members of his shul or talmidim of his
yeshiva, for psak (and he responds to their queries)."

The main problem with this definition is that it confuses quality with
popularity. An excellent example would be R. Gustman. Though a recognized
dayan in Vilna in later years in America and Israel he was recognized
mainly by a small group of people. Though he does not fit any of RYBG
categories I for one would consider him a posek on par with the greatest
of our generation.

How would one classify the posek for a chassidic sect. He probably answers
large numbers of frequently difficult questions. For the larger sects
he is even head of a bet din. However, in most cases he gets relatively
few questions from outside his community.

I would not be surprised if the head of the "RCA" bet din (bet din of
America?) meets the criteria of RYGB. How people on the list can give
his name?

Similarly, how would someone classify the posek of Brisk, R. Simcha Zelig,
who was obviously knowledgable enough that RCS relied on his psak. I am
not sure he was asked questions from all over Europe. A similar figure
today would be R. Karelitz of Bnei Brak. He has his own bet din and
answers many questions (I assume mainly from Bnei Brak) but does not
seem to be as well known "world-wide" as R. Eliyashiv or R. Wosner.

Part of the problem is that fame is caused usually by publication of
seforim. I suspect that in many years R. Eliyashiv will not be well-known
(except if seforin are eventually published as occurred after the death
of RSZA). There have been many great gedolim who have not been recognized
by history because they did not publish of which a famous one is R. Nosson
Adler. Even he is none primcipally through his talmid the Chatam Sofer.

BTW I assume the use of "thousands" is an exaggeration as in olden days
there frequently were not thousands available. I have heard figures of
10-30,000 Jews in all of Ashkenaz in the days of Rashi/Tosafot.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 03/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

At 09:36 AM 3/3/03 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>RYBG presented a rational attempt at defining a posek. However, like
>most definitions it has troubles in the gray areas...

...
>The main problem with this definition is that it confuses quality
>with popularity. An excellent example would be R. Gustman. Though a
>recognized dayan in Vilna in later years in America and Israel he was
>recognized mainly by a small group of people. Though he does not fit
>any of RYBG categories I for one would consider him a posek on par
>with the greatest of our generation.

The key line in the above paragraph is the last one.

Yes, popularity is not co-extensive with quality.

However, in a system that recognized "puk chazei mai amah devar" and
"hanach lahem l'Yisroel, im einam nevi'im hem, bnei nevi'im hem," there
is some cognizance that the Hashgacha would not allow a Posek to become
popular and remain unchallenged if his stature was not great.

Thus, popularity does play a role.

RYZG (Rav Gustman) may be well know to aficionados, but I wager that not
even everyone on the Avodah list has heard of him - while I am sure they
have heard of RMF, ROY, RYSE, RSZA, etc.

[Perhaps whether you have rashei teivos recognizable as those of a
world-class Posek on Avodah should be the barometer :- ).]

Therefore "I for one" - and I add that I agree, but nonetheless -
is critical - RYZG is not a priori assumed to bear weight in psak -
although the friends and acquaintances of RET or YGB may, on the basis
of their reliance on our accolades, accept him as such.

>How would one classify the posek for a chassidic sect. He probably
>answers large numbers of frequently difficult questions. For the
>larger sects he is even head of a bet din. However, in most cases he
>gets relatively few questions from outside his community.

I do not think this is true. R' Yechezkel Roth, the Satmar Dayan in
BP and lbcl"c R' Neuschloss, the late Skverer Rav in New Square, had
halachic influence well beyond the brand of Chassidus with which they
were affiliated. There are dozens of examples.

>I would not be surprised if the head of the "RCA" bet din (bet din of
>America?) meets the criteria of RYGB. How people on the list can give
>his name?

Almost everyone - I think it is Rabbi Willig.

>Similarly, how would someone classify the posek of Brisk, R. Simcha
>Zelig, who was obviously knowledgable enough that RCS relied on his
>psak. I am not sure he was asked questions from all over Europe.
>A similar figure today would be R. Karelitz of Bnei Brak. He has his
>own bet din and answers many questions (I assume mainly from Bnei
>Brak) but does not seem to be as well known "world-wide" as
>R. Eliyashiv or R. Wosner.

I cannot vouch for RNK, but as far as RSZR goes, his status is not really
his own but that afforded him by Reb Chaim Brisker and Reb Velvel - it
is really the fact that RCB and the Brisker Rav fall into category three
of my definition and that they regarded RSZR's psak as authoritative
that gives it weight.

>Part of the problem is that fame is caused usually by publication of
>seforim. I suspect that in many years R. Eliyashiv will not be
>well-known (except if seforin are eventually published as occurred
>after the death of RSZA). There have been many great gedolim who have
>not been recognized by history because they did not publish of which
>a famous one is R. Nosson Adler. Even he is none primcipally through
>his talmid the Chatam Sofer.

See above concerning RSZR.

>BTW I assume the use of "thousands" is an exaggeration as in olden
>days there frequently were not thousands available. I have heard
>figures of 10-30,000 Jews in all of Ashkenaz in the days of
>Rashi/Tosafot.

I was addressing the contemporary milieu.

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

>Yes, popularity is not co-extensive with quality.

>However, in a system that recognized "puk chazei mai amah devar" and
>"hanach lahem l'Yisroel, im einam nevi'im hem, bnei nevi'im hem," there is
>some cognizance that the Hashgacha would not allow a Posek to become
>popular and remain unchallenged if his stature was not great.

>Thus, popularity does play a role.

One (hopefully) last point is that popularity is a function of time.
Two examples: I believe that the influence of the Gra outside his
immediate circle has greatly increased in the last hundred years compared
to what it was in his lefeteen and for many years afterwards.

At the other end R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor was considered the posek
hador by many of his contemporaries including RCS. I get the impression
that not many non-specialists read his teshuvot any more. As we slowly
approach Pesach RYES had several kulot for kitniyot that I don't know
if anyone certainly in the charedi community keeps. From memory (which
is faulty) even when RMF gave his heter for eating peanut & cottenseed
oil did not rely on RYES. Another area is shemutta where RYES was one
of the mattirim. Few charedim today would accept the argument that I am
relying on the posek hador.

Yes popularity plays some role. MB has beaten Arukh Hashulchan for
whatever reason. Maybe in the future it will change. The influence of
Chaye Adam has changed through the generations.

--
 Prof. Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 03/03/2003
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

At 03:34 PM 3/2/03 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>One can be a kana'i on rooting out beliefs that imply shtufus or imply
>some pegam in the borei.
>
>The latter would be a kana'i on inyanei machshavah, on issues everyone
>but RSWolbe would use the term "hashkafah" to denote. No?

Wasn't that kind of kna'i once called an "inquisitor" and his modus 
operandi the "Inquisition?"

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

From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
> At 09:36 AM 3/3/03 +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I would not be surprised if the head of the "RCA" bet din (bet din of
>> America?) meets the criteria of RYGB. How people on the list can give
>> his name?

> Almost everyone - I think it is Rabbi Willig.

Pretty funny....

You're wrong.  It's Rav Gedaliah Schwartz.  Rav Willig is the sgan av beis
din.  See <http://www.bethdin.org/mission.htm>.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]