Avodah Mailing List

Volume 11 : Number 028

Wednesday, June 18 2003

• Re: Minhagim
• Re: Persian Era/Kiddush HaChodesh
• Re: Persian Era/Kiddush HaChodesh
• Re: Women, talis & tefillin
• kohannim and Y'T in chutz la'aretz
• duchening/shabbat
• Re: Just one Posuk - Tehillim initiative with a new twist !
• Re: Perikah and Te'inah
• Re: perika u-te'ina
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• Re: Revadim Project
• Re: Revadim Project
• re: Defining ervah: woman's hair covering
• re: schar ve-onesh
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Persian Era
• Re: Persian Era
• Kohanim Gdolim
• Re: Persian chronology
• Re: Tanach
• Re: Persian Era/Kiddush HaChodesh
• Sod ha'Ibbur

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 09:52:50PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
:: However see Taanit 26b which implies certain minhagim were grass roots.

: Where the gemora explains the difference between halacha,minhag and nahagu.

Ah, now I found it. Thanks for bearing with me.

I see the distinction to be:
halakhah: what you teach people in public to do
minhag: what you teach people to do if they ask, but do not proclaim
    as mandatory in the streets.
nahagu: what people do, and you shouldn't correct them

BTW, notice that this chaqirah is phrased in terms of nafka
mina lema'aseh and not conceptual difference.

You seem to be discussing the concept of "nahagu", not "minhag".

-mi

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

R' David Riceman wrote <<< It's true that Ibn Ezra introduced base 10
representations to the Hebrew speaking world; I don't know how widely
disseminated the idea was during the middle ages. >>>

Gematria of the alef-beis jumps from 8-9-10 to 10-20-30, and from
80-90-100 to 100-200-300. Would this be accepted by a culture that had
no concept of Base 10 number representations?

Yet we do consider gematrias (like tzitzis=613) to have been known even
in Moshe Rabenu's time, don't we?

Alternatively: Meleches Koseiv derives from the marks (numbers?) placed
on the kerashim of the Mishkan so that each would be in the proper place
upon rebuilding. Does anyone know of a source which describes the system
they used? For example, did they start with Aleph, and then after they
used Tav, they continued with Double Aleph (and so on), which would
prove noting about the number system? Or did they go from Tes to Yod
to Yod-Alef?

Oh... scratch the above examples... Wouldn't an even better example be
how the Torah itself uses words like Esrim and Sloshim? (Granted that
these are words and not numerals, but is it too big a jump from one to
the other?)

Akiva Miller

On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 10:04:34PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: R' David Riceman wrote <<< It's true that Ibn Ezra introduced base 10
: representations to the Hebrew speaking world; I don't know how widely
: disseminated the idea was during the middle ages. >>>

: Gematria of the alef-beis jumps from 8-9-10 to 10-20-30, and from
: 80-90-100 to 100-200-300. Would this be accepted by a culture that had
: no concept of Base 10 number representations?

They worked in base 10 math. For that matter even Roman Numerals are
base 10. Parallel systems are used for number I through IX, the tens
X through XC, hundreds of C through CM, etc..

However, the base 10 number representation requires having 10 different
digits (with values 0 through 9) that can appear in the 1s column, 10s
column, 100s column, etc... (Technically one needn't use the same 10
symbols in each column, though.)

Gematria doesn't qualify because it doesn't have a zero. 10 is written
in only one column. Multiplying 202 * 50 is easier than quf-alef * nun.
Compare:
	  202		 QY
	 * 50		* N
	-----		---
Or try subtracting where you need to borrow from the 10s to the ones...

-mi

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

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> On Tuesday 17 June 2003 12:57, SBA wrote:
>> From: Arie Folger <>

> What did I write on this topic? I didn't get involved at all in this
> thread.

What about this?

From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
> RCS wrote:
>> Now if you ask me WHY the poskim hold that men can control flatulation
>> and women cannot (or even whether that is physiologically correct = based
>> on the science known to us today), I cannot tell you. But it is clear
>> from the MB in 38:13 that he took women's lack of control over flatulation
>> as a given.

> Suggestion of Rav Aryeh Klapper of Harvard Hillel & Maimonides (doing
> great work in Talmud curriculum development there) is that it refers to
> the fact that before the advent of running water, women would constantly
> be soiled from handling leaky diapers.

We had this situation in our shul. The minhag was that a kohen went to
mikvah before yomtov in order to duchen b'tahara. Apparently people found
out that they were neglecting their onah responsibilities, in order to
remain 'tahor' for duchening on Shabbos. As such, some banned duchening
on Shabbos Yom Tov, to make a very clear statement of priorities.

the question is - can we say batel ta'am - batel hatakanah? A story is
told about RYBS during his first years in Boston when he insisted that
kohanim duchen on Shabbos Yom Tov, going against the minhag of the shul
at the time. IIRC, he felt that it was a minhag ta'us.

Elly Krimsky

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> In most MO shuls in Chu"l that I've attended, the minhag nowadays(not
> so 30-40 years ago) is to duchen when yom tov and shabbat coincide.

> Does anyone know the source of the minhag not to duchen in this
> situation?

IIRC [and 'al regel achas'] it is brought in the MA on SA seeing that
Shabbos is leil onoh and men did not go to the mikvah on Shabbos [in
those days] - they refrained from duchening..

I understand post-war it was introduced in Williamsburg by the SR and
Pupa Rov z'l and it spread from there.
OTOH AFAIK, Lubavitchers did have a minhag to duchen on Shabbos and
Yekkes and Os - still don't.

SBA

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> I still don't understand it. I recently had the unfortunate opportunity
> to be in a hospital waiting room and learned Gemara intensely. Call
> me a Litvak, but that is what I think R' Chaim Volozhiner would do.
> Does anyone know what RYBS did in such circumstances?

No I can't. But I can tell you that for centuries yidden having been
saying tehillim at every eis tzoroh...Even the gedolim venoroim.

And if there were one or 2 who didn't - they must have had their reasons -
but were definitely a miuteh demiuteh.

SBA

R. Gil asked whether the Mitzvah of Perikah u'Tei'nah is operative
with regard to helping someone unload matresses loaded on one's car
(and not just with animals). The Minchat Chinuch 80 (who gives the
source from a RALBAG in Parshat Mishpatim) indicates that:"hu ha'din
im hu b'atzmo rovetz tachat massa'o". The RASHBA (Teshuvat haRashba I
252, 256 and 257) also holds that one is mechuyav (d'oraita) to help
a human to unload sechora. Tosfot Rabbenu Peretz (Bava Kama 54b) holds that
thgis is only a mitzva d'rabbanan.

The ROSH  Bava Metzia 32a clarifies that only one who is *batel mi'melacha*
is mechuyav b'prika.

Josh

From: "Gil Student" <gil@aishdas.org>
> As I was walking home yesterday, I came across someone down the block with
> beds and mattresses tied to the top of his car that he was unloading.
> This seemed to me to be the modern equivalent of a loaded donkey...

> I later wondered whether perhaps the specific mitzvah de'oraisa only
> applies to an animal that is loaded because it has the added issue of
> tza'ar ba'alei chaim....

Although not in the context of a psak halakhah, Rav Aharon Lichtenstein
makes a comment that would seem to be highly relevant in a discussion of
this question in his essay, "Centrist Orthodoxy: A Spiritual Accounting"
reprinted in Rav Lichtenstein's new book, By His Light, on p. 249.

The key lines, written by Rav Lichtenstein, are as follows:

"We came to a corner, and found a merchant stuck there with his car.
The question came up as to how to help him; it was a clear case of perika
u-te'ina (helping one load or unload his burden)..."

I'm not sure how closely it is fair to read Rav Lichtenstein's words in
what is clearly not a psak halakha context (he brings the story not in
order to discuss perika u-te'ina but in order to discuss the reaction
of some youngsters who witnessed this as well), but he does call it a
"clear case of perika u-te'ina," and there were no animals in sight,
or at least none that he mentions.

~Sammy Groner.

From: "Gil Student" <>
>>Another, related point from the same article:  R'
>>Gil Student recently wrote that a maried woman
>>who leaves her hair uncovered, relying on a minority
>>opinion (cited in a recent article by R' Michael
>>Broyde), "is not sinning."  Based on my reading of
>>R' Neustadt's article, such a woman IS sinning.

>That is precisely the problem with R' Neustadt's article.  But I'll let
>others argue this issue.

Pardon?

Are you saying that oncovered hair is OK?

SBA

SBA wrote:
>Pardon?
>Are you saying that oncovered hair is OK?

No.

Gil Student

At 01:58 PM 6/17/03 +0300, Pinchas Hayman wrote:
>I suggest that the student open Beit Yishai of Rav Shlomo Fisher to
>page 112, the note at the bottom, to understand the point. Rav Shlomo
>Fisher, and Rav Dov Lior, and many others, including Rishonim we bring
>in our booklet of sources, hold that okimtot are definitely not peshat
>in the source being interpreted....

While RSF is certainly a great gaon, the quotation of a work that
appeared in the late twentieth century - which, BTW, few of us in Chu"l
can access - is a very weak reed upon which to base the legitimacy of
an approach. Ditto for RDL.

As I understand Dr. Hayman's perspective, I see no difference between
it and the Conservatie approach to their "halacha." We do not: go about
"defining the circumstances of earlier pesak in a way that allows for
later pesak." We have no right to engage in such definition. We may
seek to understand the circumstances, but we ay not necessarily come
to the right conclusions, thus eliminating any concrete significance to
our understandings.

YGB

I looked up the source that Pinchas Hayman quoted. It is in Derashos
Beis Yishai vol. 1 p. 114 and is a beautiful essay by R' Shlomo Fisher
advancing the idea that halachah as we know it is binding because we
have accepted it upon ourselves. RSF says exactly what Pinchas Hayman
said he did, and I do not want to diminish that fact. However, I am
somewhat puzzled by RSF's statement because I would think that based
on his approach he would come to the exact opposite conclusion. The
following are my thoughts, for what little they are worth.

RSF argues against both R' Elchanan Wasserman's and the Chazon Ish's
approaches to the reason why we cannot disagree with Amoraim and why
Amoraim could not disagree with Tannaim. He suggests that just like
at kabbalas ha-Torah we accepted the Torah and made it binding on
ourselves and our descendants, so too we accepted on ourselves the
conclusions of the Talmud which can therefore never be disputed. This
acceptance, RSF says, was not at a specific gathering but rather was
an ongoing sociological phenomenon. While he does not say as much, one
would presume that he would apply the same to many customs and halachic
rulings throughout the ages that have been universally accepted. However,
and he demonstrates this point clearly, this only applies to halachic
conclusions. When the halachah is not concluded in the Talmud, or
when the Talmud discusses the reasoning behind mitzvos (ta'ama dikra)
or theology, there is no acceptance of the conclusions of the Talmud and
we are not bound by them. Thus, for example, we find Amoraim disagreeing
with Tannaim regarding derashos (i.e. derivations) of halachos. While
they were bound to the halachic conclusions of the Tannaim, they were
not bound by either the reasoning behind the halachah or the biblical
source of the halachah. I don't recall RSF saying this but one could also
point to the Rambam's frequent use of rejected or alternate derashos in
his Mishneh Torah.

Based on all this, one would conclude that Amoraim could not reject the
halachic conclusions of Tannaim. Therefore, an "okimta" of limiting
a received halachah to a very specific circumstance would seem to be
precisely the rejection that was not allowed. If the Mishnah (Gittin 48b)
says that a woman's kesuvah is paid from ziboris, the worst type of land,
and Amoraim recognized that this was a general statement regarding all
kesuvos but disagreed with it and wanted to limit it to the sole case
of when the heirs pay the kesuvah on behalf of their deceased father
(49b), then this is precisely a case in which the acceptance of previous
halachic decisions should be binding. If the Mishnah intended to rule
that a woman's kesuvah is from ziboris then an Amora cannot dispute
the ruling. Utilizing ambiguities in the wording of the Mishnah does
not change the pesak that the Tannaim issued! However, if the Amoraim
were only trying to qualify the actual context of the Mishnah's ruling
then there is no rejection of an accepted halachah. They were simply
struggling to understand the cryptic wording of the Mishnah.

However, RSF arrives at the opposite conclusion. I don't understand how
or why, but he does.

Gil Student

I get the feeling that R"n Toby Katz doesn't understand R' Gil Student's
objection to what Rabbi Neustadt wrote. Namely:

<<< Some do not cover their hair at all and others do so partially. It
must be stressed that this practice is roundly condemned by all poskim.
There is not a single, solitary authority who finds a leniency for
married women to have their hair uncovered(6). >>>

The way Rabbi Neustadt phrased this, it sounds like he's saying that
"There is not a single, solitary authority who finds any leniency at all,
even for a partial uncovering."

Yet, in his footnote right there, he says <<< 6... It must be stressed,
that even those who are lenient do not allow more then a total of
2 tefachim by less than half a tefach of hair to show (a tefach is
approximately 3.5 inches). See Igros Moshe E.H. 1:58 and O.C. 4:112. >>>

In other words, there ARE lenient opinions to be found, such as Rav
Moshe Feinstein, who allows an area of less than 1 square tefach to
be uncovered.

I believe that Rabbi Neustadt was imprecise with his words, and should
have written <<< Some do not cover their hair at all and others do so
partially. It must be stressed that the practice of not covering at all
is roundly condemned by all poskim. There is not a single, solitary
authority who finds a leniency for married women to have their hair
totally uncovered(6). >>>

Those who want to read Rabbi Neustadt's full article can find it at
<http://torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5756/naso.html>

Akiva Miller

R' Eli Turkel asked: <<< Modern medicine has increased the life span
from about 50 years in the year 1900 to about 75 years in recent years
(depending on country and gender). Does that imply that people have
become more virtuous in the last 100 years? >>>

It seems pretty straightforward to me. The longer lifespan is the direct
result of the technological wisdom which HaShem has bestowed upon us in
recent centuries.

Exacty *why* He chose to enable these myriad advances is an interesting
question, but irrelevant for this thread. The important thing here is
that it would not have been possible for medical science to have advanced
unless their experiments had a good success rate.

If the doctors had a certain discovery or idea, and HaShem made sure
to keep the survival rate the same before and after, then the doctors
would have been forced to conclude that this new thing was a failure,
and medical research would have been effectively stifled.

Thus, in order to allow medical knowledge to advance, HaShem was "forced"
to allow the lifespan to increase, corresponding to the cumulative
total of the many individual advances. (Think of disinfection, vitamins,
antibiotics, to name just a few.)

Akiva Miller

RDE wrote:
> R' Schwab has stated that history should not be falsified - though
> information can be concealed

Did I suggest anything else? I said that RSS still preferred his
hypothesis over the simple interpretation of AZ9, and he found no problem
of falsifying history provided one knew how to interpret the aggada there.

> If there is a clear need and/or Divine command. R' Schwab was very much
> concerning with honesty.

See above.

> I think a more reasonable explanation of what
> R' Schwab said to the Basil Dayan

Basel, the city, not the spice ;-)

> was that he simply could not conceive
> of a more reasonable explanation but that the universal criticism of his
> views made it unacceptable and therefore he was forced to retract it. In
> other words he was not committed to his hypothesis but he also could not
> accept the view that the disparity was not a serious problem. If there
> hadn't been pressure he would have maintained his hypothesis since he
> could not conceive of a valid alternative. This is in fact what he wrote
> in his retraction. If he had truly succumbed to the pressure he would
> have also denied that the problem is a problem.

IOW, he wrote the retraction because he was under pressure, even though
he didn't really retract. The fact he wrote his retraction carefully
merely (what a "merely", halevai oif uns gezugt) means that he worded
it carefully so as not to let an untruthfullness be written by him, even
as it allowed many people to imagine all kinds of untrue things about RSS.

Arie Folger

I'll try one more time to present my disagreement with RAF understanding
of R' Schwab since I think it involves a fundamental difference as to
the legitimacy of lying and concealing one's true beliefs. More important
RAF understanding is in direct contraction to what R' Schwab has stated
is permissible.

1) R' Schwab did in fact truly retract his hypothesis that Chazal were
given a Divine command to lie to conceal the actual number of years

2) R' Schwab realized that his hypothesis was in fact mistaken because
of the universal condemnation of it. The criticism demonstrated to him
that such an explanation is invalid.

3) R' Schwab insisted - despite the criticism - that the problem of the
disparity was still a serious problem. Such a position still left him
open to criticism because it is not the "official" one. SEE Artscroll
"History of the Jewish People Second Temple Era" page 211-212. If he
were merely trying to deflect criticism he would have also stated that
the disparity is not a problem.

4) RAF is asserting that R' Schwab never wavered in his belief that Chazal
lied because of a Divine Command and that he only "retracted" because of
the public pressure and not because he rejected his hypothesis. However
R' Schwab has written that it is permitted to conceal information but not
to lie. According to RAF R' Schwab still believed his original hypothesis
and only "recanted" to avoid being criticized. According to RAF R'
Schwab's action was not in agreement with his publicly stated principles.

RDE wrote:
>> R' Schwab has stated that history should not be falsified - though
>> information can be concealed

>Did I suggest anything else? I said that RSS still preferred his hypothesis
>over the simple interpretation of AZ9, and he found no problem of falsifying
>history provided one knew how to interpret the aggada there.

If he still held that his hypothesis was correct and yet publicly
said his hypothesis was wrong - that is generally viewed as lying.
A privately held preference and yet a public rejection of that preference
is falsification.

>> was that he simply could not conceive
>> of a more reasonable explanation but that the universal criticism of his
>> views made it unacceptable and therefore he was forced to retract it. In
>> other words he was not committed to his hypothesis but he also could not
>> accept the view that the disparity was not a serious problem. If there
>> hadn't been pressure he would have maintained his hypothesis since he
>> could not conceive of a valid alternative. This is in fact what he wrote
>> in his retraction. If he had truly succumbed to the pressure he would
>> have also denied that the problem is a problem.

>IOW, he wrote the retraction because he was under pressure, even though he
>didn't really retract. The fact he wrote his retraction carefully merely
>(what a "merely", halevai oif uns gezugt) means that he worded it carefully
>so as not to let an untruthfullness be written by him, even as it allowed
>many people to imagine all kinds of untrue things about RSS.

Let me try one last time. The criticism indicated to him that he had erred
and thus he actually retracted his hypothesis While the problem of the
dispartity remained a problem and he did not have a better explanation -
he genuinely accepted that his hypothesis was wrong. He did not write
his retraction in a crafty way to allow people "to imagine all kinds of
untrue things". His words were meant to accurately reflect his genuine
beliefs and concerns.

                                            Daniel Eidensohn

On Wednesday 18 June 2003 12:15, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>  4) RAF is asserting that R' Schwab never wavered in his belief that Chazal
> lied because of a Divine Command and that he only "retracted" because of

Nonononono, I didn't say 'Hazal lied. G'd forbid. I said that the aggadah
is obviously not to be understood literally, i.e., that the Persian era
lasted only IIRC 34 years, but rather, that 'Hazal spoke in terms that
could be mistaken for the liiteral pshat, but really mean something else,
perhaps much deeper. This is a standard technique of interpreting aggadah
when the simple pshat ain't working out well.

I believe your disagreement with me to be based on our respective
recollections of RSS's retraction, which I admit not to have seen
in years. But, the niterpretation that RSS didn't mean to retract is
not mine, but the Baseler Dayan's, based upon his confrontation of his
relative, RSS.

> the public pressure and not because he rejected his hypothesis. However  R'
> Schwab has written that it is permitted to conceal information but not to
> lie. According to RAF R' Schwab still believed his original hypothesis and
> only "recanted" to avoid being criticized. According to RAF R' Schwab's
> action was not in agreement with his publicly stated principles.

Upon reading your post, I noticed that you believe RSS to only have
recanted from his idea of 'Hazal intentionally concealing info, but
that he didn't recant of his acceptance of the relative precision of
non Jewish chronologies. I, on the other hand, along with the Basler
Dayan, understood his disclaimer as *seemingly* implying that he totally
recanted, even from trusting the accuracy of the non Jewish chronologies.

So ... perhaps we disagree about nothing but our interpretation of the
retraction, which, considering our positions, results in exactly the
same masqana of RSS. (is that correct?)

All the best,
Arie Folger
-- 
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 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 Rabbi Yoel
	Sirkis, Ba'h, Yoreh De'ah 187:9, s.v. Umah shekatav.

Et wrote:
> However, I would like to repeat RYGB's question especially on Rambam.
> As mentioned one of the difficulties with Chazal's chronology is that
> Tanach lists some 7 High Priests son after son who officiated during
> the 54 years...
> However, in addition to the standard question Rambam lists Ezra as a Kohen
> Gadol (though he was not a descent of Yehoshua the first of these Kohanim
> Gedolim). Besides adding one more Kohen Gadol who is not on the list (plus
> Shimon haTzaddik who is also not on the list in Tanach) we know that Ezra
> was in Israel for a while and some presumably Kohen Gadol for many years.
> What Rambam will do with the list of Kohanim Gedolim I have no idea.

Is it possible that some of these persons served concurrently? As we know
from Yoma and end of Horayos, there are a number of positions that are all
referred to as Kohen Gadol - Sgan, Kohen Sheavar due to mum or temprary
disqualifications, Mashuach Milchoma. Kimhis had 7 sons who all served as
Kohanim gedolim- how could that be if you do not say something like above.
M. Levin

>I don't understand this post. In my post I established two points of
>contact: the Persian conquest of Babylon and the death of Alexander
>the Great. According to the Greek historians these were several
>hundred years apart, and according to the Jewish historians they were
>around sixty years apart (the exact number is in my previous post).
>In particular, Herodotus claimed that he lived two generations after
>the Persian conquest, and we know from his successors that he lived more
>than 100 years before Alexander's death. According to Jewish historians
>there had been no Persian conquest 100 years before Alexander's death.

Which successors might those be and what is the surety of their accuracy?

YGB 

At 09:44 AM 6/17/03 +0000, Eli Turkel <turkel@post.tau.ac.il. wrote:
(deleted)
>I point out that when we discussed the Gemara equation Ezra, Malachi
>etc. RYGB brought commentaries that this was not to be taken literally
>but only compared the people's qualities. Now we have to take it literally
>that kings with different names are the same person. Baal Hamaor already
>recognized these difficulties and so accepted that Archashast was indeed
>a separate king which would extend the length of the Persian empire. On
>the other hand it would ease the problem that Daniel, Ezra, Mordecai,
>Chagai, Zecharya, Malachi all overlapped and hence where were they all
>when the other stories took place eg Purim.
(deleted)

I am not asking you to take anything literally except for the 70 year
exile and the 420 year duration of Bayis Sheni.

YGB

R' David Riceman wrote <<< It's true that Ibn Ezra introduced base 10
representations to the Hebrew speaking world; I don't know how widely
disseminated the idea was during the middle ages. >>>

I must retract the post which I sent in a few hours ago on this topic.

I misinterpreted the assertion as referring to "a number system based
on powers of ten" (which clearly predates Ibn Ezra). The topic of
discussion was actually "a number system which uses the same digits,
including a zero, in different positions" which is necessary for long
division (but can be of any base).

Akiva Miller

At 10:37 PM 6/12/03 +0000, [Micha] wrote:
>It's the Rambam (Qiddush haChodesh 11:4) who says computing the molad
>is easy, and that sod ha'ibbur is about knowing the math necessary for
>figuring out where in the sky the molad would be for checking eidim.
>RSG already quoted verbatum.

I do not think that is what the Rambam is saying at all. He is saying
that *now* that all has been explicated, it is child's play to construct
a luach - but if you look at the preceding halacha you will see that
arriving at the length of various different cyclical phenomena *is*
part of ShI.

YGB 

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


[ 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         ]