Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 146

Friday, April 11 2003

• Something on maggid
• RE: Re: How long should it take to clean a refrigerator for Pesach?
• Re: Children and Mechiras Chometz
• What's the "lishmah" of talmud Torah?
• Re: On the Matter of Masorah
• Sheitel
• Re: Sheitels
• Pesach shiurim
• RE: oral and written traditions
• Re: Tefilin on CHM in EY
• children's chametz
• Re: Sheitels
• Re: Sheitels
• medicine and Torah
• RE: oral and written traditions
• Re: oral and written traditions
• Eiruvin 2:4
• Re: oral and written traditions
• Re: Oral and Written Traditions

Lehagid, in contrast to other related roots. I don't think it's what
RYGB was looking for, though...

-mi

Daf-Hashavua
Produced by the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue - London (O)
Editor: Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis
Sent by Rafael Salasnik, BriJNet
...

THE SEDER
Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis

There are seven separate terms used in the Bible for communication
between people. Each one has its own special connotation:

1.OMER -- saying

This is a soft-spoken, pleasant communication.

2.DABER -- speaking

This is a strong form of communication which is usually a powerful
address given by a leader in a position of authority.

3.SICHA -- conversing

Here one engages in a chat with another. This term is sometimes also
used for prayer.

4.METZAVE -- commanding

Here an imperative is used.

5.LEHODIA -- informing

Coming from the root which means knowledge, here one imparts information.
This need not be a special or memorable experience.

6.LESAPER -- relating

Here one tells a captivating story which holds the attention the listener.
One of the gems of the breastplate of the High Priest was sapir --
sapphire, which comes from the same root. In the same way as the sapphire
stone dazzles and illuminates so, too, the story becomes an impressionable
and memorable moment. Students will often remember a story far more than
they will recollect dry facts that are presented to them.

7.LEHAGID -- telling

This term comes from the same root as nagid -- a leader. It implies
leadership through personal example.

The two terms that we use for our Seder experience are lesaper and
lehagid, indicating that the Seder must be an outstanding educational
experience which involves stories that captivate and inspiration provided
by parental example.

As an outstanding audio-visual educational event, the Seder brings Judaism
to life, not through regular, drab and ordinary communication processes,
but through the most exciting, lively and impactful transmission of the
beauty and magic of our traditions.

[Copied to Avodah. Maybe we should move this discussion there?]

Moshe wrote:
>If you put a hot milchig pot on a surface which once absorbed
>fleishig food and is not a ben yomo, is this a problem?

That would be a "not bar not" of heiter which is mutar even for a
ben yomo. But on Pesach chametz is assur so a "not bar not" of chametz
would be assur. Eino ben yomo doesn't help because we are gozer eino
ben yomo atu ben yomo.

Gil Student

In  Avodah V10 #144, From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
> Suppose one has a child who lives with his/her parents, BUT this child is
> over the age of bar/bas mitzvah, ... had a paying job... and used some of 
> that money during the year to buy his/her own chometz (cookies, candy), and
> has personal storage areas for personal items (desk drawer, jacket
> pocket) where he/she may have put that chometz at some point in the
> year...

> It seems to me that such a child owns that chometz ...
> wouldn't it be a good idea for the
> child him/herself go to the Rav and add his/her name to the list of
> people selling their chometz? ...

I would like to preface my remarks by saying that the above passage would
have been less unwieldy if you had posited a child of a specified sex and
used the relevant set of pronouns consistently. You could have thrown
the desired sop to the feminists by positing a girl and using "she,"
"her" and "herself" as your pronouns.

Now to substance. The question you ask is a good one, and I will be
interested in seeing what other people respond. It reminded me of a
different question, one I asked Rabbi Bensinger, the rav of my shul,
last year. My son had a stash of candy that had been given to him by
friends when he had surgery, and even though he didn't feel well enough
to eat the candy, he refused to part with it. He used some of it to bribe
his sisters to do small errands for him, but weeks passed, and still the
keren kayemes lo. My usual rule is that if I buy nosh for a child and
said child does not consume it immediately, after three days it is hefker.

I gave my son a much longer grace period, but finally I told him that
if his candy was not gone by the week before Pesach, it was going to be
hefker. Then I asked R' Bensinger if I had the right to do it, since my
son was over bar mitzva, and it WAS his. R' Bensinger said that even if
he was a kattan I would not have the right to do it (uh oh). He added that
even though I could not confiscate the candy or declare it hefker, I COULD
charge my son rent for the space it occupied. [The rent could be payable
in candy.] Also, since I was worried that the candy might attract ants,
I could spray bug spray all over it, even though it would render the candy
inedible. But I could not eat the candy without the kid's permission.

Toby Katz

The following dialogue was a tangent off an Areivim discussion about
academia and talmud Torah. In the context of describing academia as
being objective, and Talmud Torah about subjective, I wrote...

Mi #1:
:> Limud Torah is built on the emunah that the challenge isn't in determining
:> the truth of Torah, but in internalizing that truth. It therefore aspires
:> for *subjectivity*.

This statement, which I took as a given without even realizing it,
underlies a more extreme one that I make later, and what brought me
to think the discussion belongs here.

RYZlochower:
:     [Micha] makes the study of talmud as a matter of attempting
: to internalize the belief in the validity of the various elements
: constituting each page of gemara. I thought that talmud study was
: primarily an intellectual inquiry - albeit in a religous mode, rather
: than an act of worship using one's intelligence. The latter attitude,
: I would think, is better reserved for the study of Tanach - a subject
: much neglected in the yeshiva world.

Hereafter (except where noted), my reply:

Yes, you captured my position.

Personally, I have written in the past that learning Torah for the
intellectual joy inherent in grasping complex but elegent ideas is
shelo lishmah. I compared it to the complaint about Carlbach minyanim
generating a false hislahavus; that it's easy to confuse getting caught
up in a tune with getting caught up in HQBH.

RYZ cont:
:                                                   The latter attitude, I 
: would think, is better reserved for the study of Tanach - a subject much 
: neglected in the yeshiva world.

My father jokes that the nevi'im must have been C. After all only they
learn 'em...

Nach is undervalued by all of our community, at least in boys' education.

In any case, I obviously disagree. Both to the lack of learning of Nach,
and to the idea that this approach is not for the learning of halachic
lamdus.

But then, perhaps that's the /real/ underlying chiluq between Brisk
and Telz...

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 03:13:18PM -0400, Brown, Charles.F wrote:
:> The Rambam failed to find a basis to the current practice, rather
:> than finding that the basis was a faulty assumption.
: 
: The Rambam tells you the basis for the Geonim's practice - "mesores hi
: b'yedeihem ish m'pi ish" (Shmita 10:7)...

But he doesn't find the savara for this mesorah.

:                                         And the Rambam tells you exactly
: the point of contention: was there a count of yovel or only shmita during
: the 70 years between bayis rishon and bayis sheni and post-churban?

Which is not undermining the basis of the minhag. The basis is a mesorah,
not a sevarah. To argue minhag ta'us you'd have to deligitimize the
mesorah; or, find the mesorah's source in sevrah and show that /that/
was a mistake.

Or at least, kach nir'eh li. To really get to it, we'd have to look
up minhag ta'us, see when it applies in two domains:

1- What is a minhag? Only textbook minhagim, or also pesaqim that are
particular to a kehillah? (Like we might say Sepharadim are nohagim to
only eat chalaq.)

2- What is a ta'us? A mistake in metzius only? Also in sevarah? Must the
sevarah be identified, or is an argument that no sevarah is possible be
enough?

I'm arguing particular answers to these questions based on the cases
under discussion, and because it was mistabeir to me a priori. But I
think that those are the terms under which we need to debate this issue.

BTW, literally speaking, shinui would be a change of minhag even if
it's identifying a minhag ta'us. Chiddush would be instituting a hanhagah
where the mesorah is silent, not promoting one way or the other.

RHS seems to be assuming that a minhag ta'us is considered as much a
vacuum as no established minhag at all.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

When I suggested about a week ago that it is more objectionable to be
attracted to married woman than to a single one, I did not quote the
source as I had not have the opportunity to check it. I can now expand
on this point.

Please see the Rambam in Pirush Hamishna to Sanhedrin Ch. 7 twhere he
says tha histaklus is mutar to a pnuah because he can marry her; there is
only midas chassidus as per a posuk in Iyov to avoid it. Something.similar
is quoted in Even Haezer 21,3

Some chaveirim asked id there is another example of ervah of a woman
that is asur only for a married woman. In fact, histaklus (or lhaalcha
habotah) seems to be that other example.

In this regard, the Netsiv suggests ib his commentary to 10 commandments
that one who looks at married woman is over lo sachmod. SO can there
in fact be two halachoos: most erva is osur because of hirhur but two
sutbypes, histaklus and hair also osur because of of the woman belonging
to another?

Is it significant that hair covering is learned out in the context of
Sotah, a woman whose bound with her husband is at adissolution point.

Reactions?

M. Levin

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:36:56AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: This is simple aiui - ONCE the Torah requires that women cover their
: heads it CREATES the condition of "saar b'isha ervah"! And it is NOT
: the other way around that "saar b'isha ervah" created the requirement
: for women to cover their hair!

Thank you. NOW I get the other way of understanding it.

This is RMShulman's point too, no?

-mi

The question of determining the shiurim madated by Chazal is pertiinent
all year long, but it comes to the fore on Pesach. What is the shiur
of a rivi'it of wine or of a kazayit of matza or moror? The following
is for discussion only since I am neither a rav and certainly not a posek:

The substantial differences that we see today in estimating these
shiurim can be attributed to the question of changes in the size of eggs.
The volume specifications of a revi'it is 1.5 eggs, while a kazayit is
either 1/2 or 1/3 of an egg (machloket Rishonim). These shiurim are
also defined in terms of length measurements in that the minimum shiur
of a mikva is 1x1x3 amot which is taken to define a volume of 40 seah
or 40x24x4 revi'it. This gives 10.8 cubic etzba'ot pre revi'it (an
etzbah is 1/24 of an ama). The question, then, is what value to use
for the ama and etzba. R' Chaim Na'eh gives the smallest value, R'
Moshe Feinstein a somewhat larger value, and the Chazon Ish gives a much
larger value. The differences are such that the ratio of the largest to
the smallest when cubed (to give a volume) is more than a factor of two.
These differences, in turn, can help explain the alleged discrepancy
first raised by Harav Yechezkel Landau (Nodeh Bi'yehudah in his Tzelach
commentary on Pesachim) on the shiur of a revi'it based on etzba'ot and
on eggs. The Tzelach appears to use a large estimate for the etzba
such that the revi'it based on etzba'ot is twice that based on eggs.
He concludes that the size of eggs is half what they were in the days
of Chazal. This view received the support of the Gra and the Shulchan
Aruch Harav (R' Shne'or Zalman of Liadi) in his generation, and of the
Chazon Ish (and Brisk), more recently. I have not seen an account in
writing of the method used by Haroav Landau to measure etzba'ot (not an
easy measurement to make accurately). However, I have heard that he
took an average of the measurements of the largest and smallest-boned
Jewish men in Prague. Such a simple method will work only if the
size distribution is symmetrical and a balanced choice has been made
of the high and low representatives. If etzba size is determined by
placing thumbs on a ruler then a bias is introduced by virtue of the
thumb distortion due to pressure. A bias is also introduced by using
only Ashkenazim - particularly those living in Slavic countries where
large bones are common. The Aruch Hashulchan, Mishna Berura, and Harav
Moshe Feinstein have noted the inconsistency of doubling the size of
a revi'it to 3 eggs with the estimate given by Chazal that it amounts
to a cheekfull. There is yet another factor to consider. The Aruch
Hashulchan, writing in Lita at the beginning of the last century, mentions
that the eggs in his lifetime had undergone a considerable increase in
size since the introduction of a new variety of hen. It is reasonable
to assume, therefore, that egg size has, indeed, increased since the
days of Harav Landau. There seems to be little reason, therefore, to
double the shiurim based on modern large-sized eggs. Reference should
made to the views of the Aruch Hashulchan (hilchot Pesach, Challah,
and Shabbat), Mishna Berura (Bi'ur Halacha - hilchot Pesach), and R'
Moshe's responsa (Iggrot Moshe) as well as the earlier authorities.

The question of the amount of matza needed for a kazayit has been futher
complicated by the estimates stemming from the Bet Medrash of R' Moshe
and R' Dovid Feinstein. They measure the volume of a given mass of
matzah by placing matzoh meal. in a graduate cylinder or measuring
cup and weighing it (subtracting out the weight of the emply vessel,
of course). This gives the fl. oz per oz (avoir.) of the matza meal.
The average weight of an entire matza (probably - machine) is then
 determined, and the fraction of a matza corresponding to 1/2 of an egg
is computed. My problem with this procedure is the rationale for
using ground up matza for the measurement. They have not justified the
perceived need to eliminate the inevitable voids in either machine or
hand matza. Moreover, the bulk density of a solid will be a function
of the size distrubution of the ground particles and of any compaction
by rapping the cylinder on the table or tamping it down. You can easily
get a 20% increase in apparent density by such methods. Then, what
justifies their procedure? Why is their method intrinsically better
than the prior method of estimating the volume of pieces of matza by eye
(of course, spaces between curved pieces of matza have to be discounted)?
Does anyone know the rationale for taking an olive to be 1/2 the volume
of an egg, when the olives that I see in the supermarket (even the ones
marked giant) appear to be much smaller than thaat? Are there truly
giant olives available in olive-producing countries, or is it that the
eggs were once much smaller?

Yitzchok Zlochower

On Tue, Apr 08, 2003 at 05:45:09PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Arie
: -- 
: If an important person, out of humility, does not want to rely on [the Law, as 
: applicable to his case], let him behave as an ascetic. However, permission 
: was not granted to record this in a book, to rule this way for the future 
: generations, and to be stringent out of one's own accord, unless he shall 
: bring clear proofs from the Talmud [to support his argument].
: 	paraphrase of Rabbi Asher ben Ye'hiel, as quoted by Rabby Yoel
: 	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

Another ra'ayah about the authority of recording in a book, that somehow
that gives power to bind the ruling for future generations. Not the
Bach's point -- something he *takes as a given*!

-mi

On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 06:20:59PM +0300, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
: It is correct that most people do not leig tefillin in EY on Chol
: HaMoed. However, that may be the influence of the Sfardim as much (or
: more) than the talmidei ha'Gra.

Generally, Ashkenazim in Israel only hold by Sepharadi minhagim when it
was also the minhag of one of the two early Ashkenazi kehillos: talmidim
of the Gra or those of the Tzemach Tzedeq.

It could simply be that I was mistaken.

To repeat my old posts on this subject.

R' Yisrael Avraham Abba Krieger (my ggf) wrote a teshuvah when he was
rav in Boston (a role RYBS succeeded him in, RMS was RYBS's predecessor
in RIETS "only") on the subject. He found a connection between wearing
tefillin and writing. E.g. someone like my father, who is generally a
lefty but writes with his right hand generally has the din of a lefty
EXCEPT when it comes to which arm he should wear tefillin. (Lema'aseh,
my father's poseiq ruled differently, that he was a true lefty whose
1st and 2nd grade teachers taught to use the wrong hand.)

RYAAK noted a correlation between those who prohibited one on ChM and
those who prohibited the other.

When my grandfather (Chanel Benayahu ben Chana Elka lirfu'ah
sheleimah), his son, made aliyah, he felt he had to conform to minhag
hamaqom. Therefore he also stopped writing on ChM as according to his
father anything else would be a tarta desasrei.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

 From SA (and Rema and Nosei Keilim)Choshen Mishpat Siman 270, it seems
that it is superfluous for children, even above bar Mitzva, that live in
their parents' home to sell their own chametz. All income and kinyanim
with that money belong to the father.

Shlomo Goldstein

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2003 at 09:36:56AM -0400, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
> : This is simple aiui - ONCE the Torah requires that women cover their
> : heads it CREATES the condition of "saar b'isha ervah"! And it is NOT
> : the other way around that "saar b'isha ervah" created the requirement
> : for women to cover their hair!

> Thank you. NOW I get the other way of understanding it.

I do not think Erva can be created on the D'Orais level. It is an
objective standard. When the Torah tells us something is Erva, it
is Erva. Therefore covering the hair comes BECAUSE of the fact that
it BECOMES Erva after marraige. Tznius in matters of dress, however,
is subjective and can become Un-tznius and subject to Hirhurim if body
parts that are normally noot covered up in most societies are exposed in
societies that customarily cover them up. I pretty sure that in Islamic
couintries where women cover up more of their bodies than even the most
extreme Orthodox Jew, the exposure of a even the Etzbah Ketanah would
cause Hirhur. But an uncovered Etzbah Ketanah is not Erva and uncovering
it in such societies is not a violation of Erva. It is just a violation
of Tznius.

HM

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 04:07:26AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I do not think Erva can be created on the D'Orais level. It is an
: objective standard.  When the Torah tells us something is Erva, it is
: Erva...

First, I am not sure where I stand on the issue anymore. Take the
following only as an argument of plausibility.

I think we ought to ask if everah can be created on a "das Mosheh" level.
You speak in terms of objective vs culturally relative standards. That's
das Moshe vs das Yehudis, not de'Oraisa vs deRabbanon. Even das Yehudis,
whose implementation depends on social norms, is de'Oraisa. Having a
contingent definition doesn't change that.

Therefore it's consistant to argue that if something must be covered for
totally different reasons, it's ervah de'Oraisa qua das Yehudis. However,
this is a feature that is consistant across observant cultures, because
observance would include the causing issur. Therefore it's always ervah.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RET:
> The recent daf yomi had an extensive discussion of remedies for
> various diseases. As Acharonim point out we no longer rely on these
> gemaras for a variety of reasons.

> Why would one be mekayem the mitzvah of talmud torah learning this
> sugya?

The Maharsha asks a very similar question on this Gemara, printed on
Gittin 68b d"h l'dama. He answers so that the Talmud will not be lacking
all chochmos. The Rambam writes similarly at the end of Hil. Kiddush
HaChodesh. See also the hakdama of P'as HaShulchan that the Gra made
an extensive study (and siyum) on chochmos that are NEEDED for Torah,
including music.

Shlomo Goldstein

At 11:21 AM 4/9/03 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>The issue that the rambam addresses in his hakdama to the Mishne
>Torah views the change quite differently, vduk. The methodology of
>interpretation is unchanged. However, people no longer recognize
>                   ... the binding authority of geone bavel. However,
>prior to sof hora'a, hor'aa is based on interpretation, and after sof
>hora'a it is based on interpretation, and the legislative tendencies
>that you cite can crop up to greater or lesser extent depending on
>the interpretive style - eg much of tosfot, which has a very similar
>interpretive style to the gmara. This notion that the amoraic period is
>a seamless continuation of the sanhedrin, while the saboraim and geonim
>consitute a radical break from the legislative period, is, to use a phrase
>that RYGB forces me to overuse, quite breathtakingly radical. One would
>hope that such a radical position could be supported by some authority...

Oh no, it is not breathtakingly radical. It is the underlying reason for
the kabbalah. An epoch came to an end. It is obvious in that Amoraim
discourse on mishnayos - even later Amoraim - while all later sources
discourse on Gemara.

>Those sources hold quite differently than you and are a raya listor - you
>are reading them through a prism that distorts.

I am looking for the prism but cannot see it... :-)

>You are positing two different things:
>1) Psak without reasoning is far less binding than psak with reasoning.
>This, as you know, is a machloket - eg, at least one version of the
>story about rav haim and rav spektor.

Citing oral tradition to validate your position!

The story about Reb Chaim and Reb Yitzchok Elchonon (anecdotal evidence
at best!) has to do with personal psak, and not with the greater halachic
process. RYES issued quite detailed teshuvos.

>2) Oral traditions in general do not have arguments - that is not quite
>true, they sometimes do.

True, sometimes - rarely.

>Again, over the centuries, people have found it valuable to compile
>psakim even without reasons, and many of those psakim are still cited
>(kvar hora zaken). Even today, even without understanding the rationale,
>the fact that someone paskened is viewed as having impact - eg, as was
>previously discussed, RSZA disagreed with the Chazon Ish's reasoning
>about electricity, but still felt bound to at least partially respect it.

The CI did not issue an oral psak on electricity - it is quite printed.
Furthermore, RSZA discussed with him and cites his lomdus - it was not
an oral psak, period.

>Any halachic source that would argue as you do??? We have anonymous
>compilations from the rishonim.

Which we only take as curiosities...

>no, you against (at the least) an explicit rav Shachna (by your shitta,
>an explicit rama..), unless you have another source.

I could doubtless find discourses as to the imperative to issue written
teshuvos - I believe the CS has something famous to say about that, and
the IgM introduction is relevant as well. But my position is that the
responsa literature in and of itself (including Teshuvos Ha'Rama!) and the
process of psak as practiced practically universally argues for my POV.

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

On Fri, Apr 11, 2003 at 07:46:42AM -0400, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:                                           But my position is that the
: responsa literature in and of itself (including Teshuvos Ha'Rama!) and the
: process of psak as practiced practically universally argues for my POV.

And even within teshuvos, what does the author rely on? How often do you
see an author repeating an oral pesaq, other than first-hand?

I'm sure it happens, although none come to mind. But compare those oddities
against the norm of thought that goes into teshuvos, and RYGB's point seems
pretty self-evident to me. New pesaq is overwhelming built on previous
written pesaq.

:-)BB!!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Very basic question on eiruvim.

I study Mishna with a chevrusa.  Last week, I was startled to read, in
Eiruvin 2:4, that a path of a rshus harabim cutting through a partition,
doesn't invalidate that partition, according to Chazal.  Does halacha
follow Chazal here?  I thought traffic _could_ invalidate.

If not, does this apply to a tsuras hapesach, too?

I tried to read and find the answer, but it was very unclear to me.

Thanks,

Sholom

In a message dated 4/11/2003 7:43:27 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> RYGB's point seems
> pretty self-evident to me. New pesaq is overwhelming built on previous
> written pesaq.

Interesting - we've gone from not being allowed to have a standard
written text of an oral law nature(pre horaat shaah or however you
understand Rebbe) to making the written word more powerful than the
oral transmission. Does the posek have to believe his sh"ut (each of
them?) are important enough for future dorot in order to justify writing
them down?

KT
Joel Rich

On 9 Apr 2003 at 12:18, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> and once you're dealing with a written post-ptirah document(or even an
> unauthorized preptirah) you need to seriously consider whether the Rav
> in question changed his mind subsequent to the writers information.

Why wouldn't you have to consider that even if the Rav himself wrote 
it? We have certainly all seen that happen....

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]