Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 050

Thursday, November 27 2003

• Re: questions re laining
• Re: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos
• Re: Difference Between Seichel and Da'as, take II
• Re: Names of wives of Taanaim and Amoraim
• Re: Tachanun or not (correction)
• Re: Tachanun or not
• Re: Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?
• Re: Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?
• Re: questions re laining
• Re: questions re laining
• Re: Islam, Xianity, and Us
• tchelet section
• Re: Golden Rule
• wives of tana'im and amora'im
• Re: New survey
• Musaf
• Re: berachah for women
• Re: Tachanun or not
• Re: Musaf
• Re: Musaf
• Re: nursing and what fathers can do
• Re: nursing and what fathers can do
• Avos, Imahos, and Terach

R Yisrael Dubitsky wrote:
...
> Exactly how old is that mesorah to read the melody of Ashkenazim?
> (Yekkim? Shirah? Yamim Noarim?) Sephardim? Yemenites? etc??

How do you measure the age of a branch on an evolutionary tree? At
what point was it sufficiently like or dislike the current to count?
...

The rest of your post might qualify as an argument for why halakhah
must posit that devarim shebeleiv einam devarim. It's just not doable
to have the full peshat of a pasuq. As for derashah -- I'm not sure
that's part of leining at all. At what point is the line crossed
between TSBK and TSBP? The chiyuv to lein is only of TSBK.

Which brings me to my last point: While I understand the desire to
lein in a way that maximizes the impact of the story, I'm not sure
that's the point of trup. This is TSBK, the package is as significant
as the content. There is a power to chanted text. While the chant
should match the semantics, choosing dramatic tone over chant might be
playing down the textual, bikhtav, aspect of the experience.

Also, much of Torah has little naarative to dramatize.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Igros Moshe YD IV #28.1 page 214-215."Concerning Scranton... Therefore
> even though that everyone knows my views **according to din** that
> it is necessary to separate boys and girls even at very young ages
> when possible as is done in New York.

Wouldn't RMF's shitah also apply to the workplace?

Or, to put it another way, don't most of us not hold like RMF on this?

-mi

I read my last attempt, I can't see how anyone else could have understood
it.

Chokhmah:
	Tanya: initial unformed insight
	RSRH:  accumulate knowledge
	BDB:   wisdom / technical skill (think Par' Terumah)

Binah:
	Tanya: developement of initial idea to completion
	RSRH:  reason / understanding (from bein: to distinguish, and
	       boneh: to contruct)
	BDB:   discern (from bein, as per RSRH)

Da'as:
	Tanya: Knowledge
	RSRH and BDB -- couldn't find a reference.

	The Tanya's shitah is one of progression: chokhmah + binah yeilds
	da'as. This makes da'as akin to zikaron, that which is known.

	I would elaborate further. Two shitos about the Eitz Chayim
	are either that Keser sourced Chochmah and Binah or Da'as is
	their synthesis. I would therefore like to propose that da'as
	is knowledge in its role in shaping future thought.

	The same notion would explain why women who "da'atan qalos" aren't
	supposed to be morei hora'ah. "Da'as Torah" (in the non-idiomatic
	usage) is a necessary component of the ability to pasqen.

Seikhel / hashkel:
	RSRH: applying understanding
	BDB:  consider / understand

	That I summarize RSRH's position (I checked, RMClark's dictionary
	does something similar) as "*applying* understanding" is
	significant. Theoretical understanding, or understanding the
	principles is binah. This is using it to solve a problem.

	Note that with the definition I proposed for da'as, RSRH would
	have made a clean progression through devash: dei'ah - knowing how
	to reason, binah - reasoning, haskeil - applying that reasoning.

Higayon:
	RSRH: imagine / speculate / deeply meditate
	BDB:  music (eg: higayon bekhinor) / meditation / plotting

Eitzah:
	RSRH: aim for a goal

Tevunah:
	BDB: the object of knowledge (the known, or that which could
	     be known)
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

IIRC, there is a funny story involving the wife of Babu ben Buta
in Nedarim with respect to his request that she feed his rebbe.

Correction:

I had written See M"A O"C 457 s"k 3, the right M"M is O"C 417

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Yitzchok Zirkind <Yzkd@aol.com> wrote:
> gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

>>As I finished davening for the amud this morning, someone coming
>>in asked me if I had said tachanun. To the answer in the affirmative
>>he said something to the effect of "the molad" whence I deduced that
>>whatever source he was quoting (he didn't say but it clearly was not his
>>own invention) considered Rosh Chodesh to begin to some extent from the
>>time of the molad.

> See M"A O"C 457 s"k 3 (also Lkutei MaHaRYaCh)

You mean 417, which talks about fasting on YK Katan, and cites the
mekubal R"Y Sruk as stopping his fast at the time of the molad.

But if you read the whole thing, he explicitly says that fasting is
related to the waning of the moon; in that light R"Y Sruk's custom is
understandable - once the moon has stopped waning and begun waxing,
it's no longer appropriate to fast, even though it's not yet Rosh
Chodesh.  IOW, it's not in any way that it's already Rosh Chodesh and
the simcha of R"Ch overrides the fast, but that the reason for fasting
has gone away and indeed has been reversed.  This logic would obviously
not apply to Tachanun: we don't say tachanun on Erev R"Ch because of
the moon's waning, so when the moon stops waning there's no reason to
stop saying it.

> WRT to extending this to
> Tachnun see Taamei Haminhogim pg 56 (last paragraph on pg).

I haven't got one available - what does he say, and does he address
the objection above?

-- 
Zev Sero                    Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
zsero@free-market.net       They go well together, but are completely
                             different concepts.		- James Lileks

In a message dated 11/25/2003 8:07:32 PM EST, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> It is an item which goes into the mouth and does not come out, and
> for no medical reason that I can think of. It is taken purely for the
> taste and/or to make one's mouth taste/smell/feel better. How is that
> different than an candy mint? Or better, a sugarless candy mint (which
> has no nutritional value).

For researchers :-) see O"C 210:2 Klei Nosi'im, Kaf Hachayim, Mishna
Brurah note Shaar Hatziun # 30.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Kenneth G Miller wrote:
> I don't understand the hava amina. Obviously, it *is* a good
> question because several prominent rabbonim have been quoted here as
> responding "I don't know". But it seems to me that it does need to
> be kosher and does need a bracha.

I, OTOH, have the opposite problem.

First, there is a disagreement between us on metzi'us. You wrote:
> It is an item which goes into the mouth and does not come out, and
> for no medical reason that I can think of. It is taken purely for
> the taste and/or to make one's mouth taste/smell/feel better.

They are a solid form of Listerine mouthwash. They're antiseptic. You
can only consume tiny amounts before your intestinal flora will
rebell. Those slips are way less than a kezayis, because most of use
couldn't handle a full one.

Samer reason why you're not supposed to swallow the liquid form.

My question is why do we think they're ra'ui la'achilah? Is it an
achshevei issue, since they're flavored?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905

R' David Cohen wrote an important and detailed post about the pros and
cons of those who lead the davening and choose a tune different than
has been used in the past.

He wrote <<< There are also a number of special "Lecha Dodi" tunes,
one of them specifically for Shabbat Shuvah. >>>

This reminded me of a 1996 post to Mail-Jewish about a
shul which considered <<< abolishing the custom of singing
Lecha Dodi on Shabbat Hazon to the melody used for Eli Zion
Ve-areha >>>. A committee was formed to research the idea, and
a summary of the results appeared in Mail-Jewish, archived at
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v25/mj_v25i64.html>. The committee
uncovered a number of points which I found very interesting, and very
surprising, and it is a rare Shabbos Chazon that I don't review that post.

Akiva Miller

Thanks to RDC for his learned response to RYD's post. I would only
add a point re BK qualifications and kavanah: all the prerequisites
and desirable criteria which apply to a chazzan based on Halacha and
minhag hamoqom should also apply to a BK, as both are shlichai tzibbur.
Where I grew up, the Synagogue Committee chose the shaliach, and the
Rav presumably had veto authority; in my community, the gabboim usually
choose and the buck definitely stops with the Rav.

All the best from
 - Michael Poppers via RIM pager

A few weeks ago, R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Moslems only use one sheim,
and it's middas hadin. Christians, OTOH, use only one untranslated sheim
(when they use any), and it's middas harachamim. .>>> and R' Gershon
Dubin added <<< Interesting also that Moslems come from Yishmael, the
pesoles of middas harachamim, and Christians from Esav, the pesoles of
middas hadin. >>>

Similar ideas (couched in terms of chesed and gevurah) from the Bostoner
Rebbe appear at <http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5762/toldos.html>.

Akiva Miller

found at  http://www.dafyomi.co.il/  with many articles, audio etc

 From Micha:
> Perhaps this is why Hillel formulated his rule (Mah desani lakh...) in
> the negative....

Re the "negative" side of "v'ahavta l'raiacha," the point
mentioned by Rabbi Weinberg b'shaim CHaZaL may be of interest....
[Mi: URL from Aish HaTorah shrunk to:] <http://tinyurl.com/wokq>.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Yehudis was the wife of Rabbi Chiya (see Kiddushin 12b very top of page)

Elly Krimsky

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> 1. People whom the malach hamoves could not take because they didn't
> interrupt their learning.

David, Rabba.

> 2. Near death experiences-people who went to the olam ha'emes and came
> back to talk about it.

R Yosef, the son of R Yehoshua ben Levi.

> As before, looking in compendia/CD programs is no fair.

Well, for the second question, I didn't remember his name off the top
of my head, but I remembered that it was in a recent issue of my shul's
bulletin, so I looked through the last few months' issues, and found it
here: <http://www.parkslopeshul.org/bulletin/CBJBull.63O623.pdf>.

-- 
Zev Sero                    Security and liberty are like beer and TV.
zsero@free-market.net       They go well together, but are completely
                             different concepts.		- James Lileks

Why the focus in Musaf of Rosh Chodesh davka on the mizbe'ach (mizbe'ach
chodosh betzion tachin) rather than a more general desire for geulah?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Eli Turkel wrote:
> Having grown in a chassidic shul the women I knew all made berachot
> on a mitzvah she-hazman grama. Which chassidim (most?) don't?

R Moshe Shulman, who used to be on list, reports that Tzanzer women
don't. And he gave me the Chacham Tzevi as the maqor.

A L e-friend reported that his wife does, and in fact RZSDworkin
pasqened that a man should say the berakhah with a woman who does not
know how.

This e-friend's Bobover nephew told him that some Bobever women do say
the berakhah for a MASG, some don't.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
micha@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (413) 403-9905

In a message dated 11/26/03 2:04:07 PM EST, zsero@free-market.net writes:
> This logic would obviously
> not apply to Tachanun: we don't say tachanun on Erev R"Ch because of
> the moon's waning, so when the moon stops waning there's no reason to
> stop saying it.

OTOH we don't say Tachnun at Mincha because Rosh Chodesh begins then, so 
there is reason to consider from the Molad,

>> WRT to extending this to
>> Tachnun see Taamei Haminhogim pg 56 (last paragraph on pg).

> I haven't got one available - what does he say, and does he address
> the objection above?

He brings the Minhag and says it should be abolished because it apposes
the Gemara that R"G was Maspid the daughter-in-law [RGD wanat to make a
new survey? :-)]of Rafram on Erev R"C to show that it was not R"C. he
says it has no relation to above.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 11/26/03 2:07:56 PM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Why the focus in Musaf of Rosh Chodesh davka on the mizbe'ach (mizbe'ach
> chodosh betzion tachin) rather than a more general desire for geulah?

Perhaps, Shabbos there is no Mitzvah of Aliya Lregel the Tfila is
Shetaleinu Vsimcha Lartzeinu... Yomim Tovim where there is Mitzva
of Aliya Lregel we say Bnei Veis'cha... Rosh Chodesh with it's main
Mitzva Soir Lchapeir (not Shvisa) which requires Bikar the Mizbeiach
we ask accordingly (R"H and Y"K we follow other Y"T, Shabbos and R"C
Shabbos wins).

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

<<Perhaps, Shabbos there is no Mitzvah of Aliya Lregel the Tfila is
Shetaleinu Vsimcha Lartzeinu... >>

Most of what you wrote is what I was thinking,  this I didn't understand.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In message <200311240100.hAO10Fm27285@heras.host4u.net>,RAM writes:
> Oh, I agree that "the normal rules" still apply. The problem is that we
> have more than one set of such rules.

> The halachos which apply to a husband and his nidah wife are not the same
> as those which apply to other arayos. And these differences go both
> l'kula and l'chumra. For example, a man and his nidah wife are not
> allowed to pass things to each other, though this is allowed for people
> who are not married to each other. Yet a man and his nidah wife *are*
> allowed to be in yichud together (except for the case of a chupas nidah),
> which is not allowed for others.

Agreed. But the poskim very carefully set out where the rules differ.
So, there are discussions and specific statements of halacha on how
yichud is permitted, ditto for passing, etc etc

If there was a major difference between the rules that apply in this
case between a man and his nidah wife, and between the rules that apply
between a stam man and other women, I would have expected that to be
clearly spelled out in the Shulchan Aruch and the poskim, yet it is not.
They clearly all bring the halacha that a man is allowed to be in yichud
with his nidah wife, except for a chupas nidah. They do discuss whether
or not a man may look at his niddah wife when she is fully clothed,
and note that he is permitted to do so, in contrast to the situation
with other women. They also state (those who hold this way) that a man
may not see those parts of his nidah wife that are normally covered.
They do not go on to say, and the rules relating to how careful one has
to be about this are different from the situation with women in general.
If there were a discrepancy, one would have expected that to be spelled
out, because all the other discrepancies are spelled out. It is only if
there is no distinction would you expect no additional comment to need
be made.

> I would certainly not want to be in a room with a woman who was not
> properly clothed. But if I knew where she was in the room, and I was
> careful not to look at her, and I could trust her to tell me if she'd
> move, I don't know that it is actually *assur* for me to be in the same
> room. I can see where it is *inappropriate*, and one could call it an
> unacceptable temptation, but I don't know whether this makes it *assur*
> or not.

I am not sure if it is assur for you, but would have thought it was
assur for her (actually, I would have thought it is the classic women
doing the washing in the river case (Baba Basra 57b)- if there is any
other road, then it is assur for you, if not, then it is not assur for
you to pass by, but it is assur for you to look. Similarly if she needs
to do the washing, and washing cannot be done except in the river, it
is presumably not assur for her, but if there are other alternatives,
such as spinning in the home and not spinning in the market place,
then it is assur for her (see Ketubot 72a)! In relation to this, I note
that ROY in Taharat Habayit (siman 12, si'if 26 quotes R' Shlomo Kluger
in Mei Nidah as discussing a case where the man and his wife were in
dispute because the man wanted to look at the parts of the woman that
are normally covered during nidah, and she didn't want him to (and the
man argued that if he didn't it led to him having shichvat zera, but if
he was allowed to look he didn't, so that to prevent the issur d'orisa,
he should be allowed to look). Now despite the conclusion that what the
husband claims is factually unlikely, there is also a discussion about
the extent to which, if the claim were true, it would be appropriate to
allow this behaviour to go on. And the conclusion was that it was not
appropriate, because for the woman to uncover herself is a violation
of an issur, albeit an issur d'rabbanan, and we don't say to a person
"sin, so your friend will benefit", even though her issur is only an
issur d'rabanan, and his issur is potentially an issur d'orisa.

Now would R' Shlomo Kluger have held it was any less and issur d'rabbanan
for her to uncover herself if he was in fact trying not to look but
might give into temptation? On what basis would the issur be any less
depending on his mindset?

> If it was not merely "a woman", but was my own wife, there is less of a
> temptation for me to "peek". Just as yichud is allowed as part of a
> normal husband-wife relationship, I have never imagined that I'd be
> exiled from my bedroom, provided I was careful to keep whatever halachos
> apply. Dayenu that we have separate beds, chazal never told me to leave
> the room entirely, did they?

> RCL quoted a certain sefer as saying that a nidah <<< should avoid
> wherever possible nursing in front of him >>>. Note the language: "in
> front of him". Perhaps that author would allow her to nurse while in
> *back* of him. I am not trying to be flippant or sarcastic, but am trying
> to distinguish between what the author says and what he does not say.

Unfortunately I don't own the book in question, so I am somewhat
paraphrasing what was said. The point though is that one can (if
experienced) nurse in front of someone without them seeing any portion of
the body that is not normally covered. (One can also, in my experience
NOT do this while one is still learning on one's first baby during the
first six weeks). The book did not distinguish between the two kinds
of nursing, but since it forbad a woman being uncovered in the man's
presence, and then tacked on the bit about nursing, I would read that
as saying "and she should not nurse in front of him even if she is able
to do it without violating the previous issur of being uncovered".

> From a practical perspective, she wrote <<< it is not unusual for Rob to
> roll over in his sleep, and if he wakes up in that position, ie facing
> towards my bed, he might well see me, and I wouldn't have thought (as
> above) that was an unacceptable risk (would it be acceptable for a woman
> to lie down and go to sleep naked in a bed next to a bed on which some
> stam man is sleeping, or was supposed to sleep, even if when he went to
> sleep he was facing away from the bed on which the woman lay, and even if
> the door is away from the woman's bed? If not, why ought it to be
> different in this case? >>>

> (From context, I presume that when you wrote <<< I wouldn't have thought
> that was an unacceptable risk >>>, your use of the double negative was an
> error, and your intention was that you did think it unacceptable, or did
> not think it to be an acceptable risk.)

Sorry, you are correct.

>  Besides
> the degree of nakedness/clothedness in the two examples, I think the fact
> that the couple is married does make a big difference. There are enough
> harchakos already on the books, we don't need to invent more which Chazal
> could have given but opted not to.

The question though is something an extra harchaka if it is part and
parcel of a harchaka that is the same as an existing halacha vis a vis
women in general, - and the question of what we understand from silence.

> I'll conclude with Rav Eider's Halachos of Niddah, page 249: <<< When she
> is nursing and part of her body [is or] becomes uncovered, he must be
> careful not to gaze. >>> (Brackets his.) Not "he must stay out of the
> room". Not even "he must keep his back to her". Merely "he must be
> careful not to gaze."

Interesting. This could be for one of two reasons. One he holds that the
rules are different between husband and wife regarding how you need to
act, despite the nature of the prohibition being the same (and despite
no such distinction seeming to be drawn in the poskim that I can see,
but I wait to be corrected), or alternatively he might hold, like ROY,
that m'ikar hadin we poskin like the Magid Mishna there is no problem for
him to look (except for extremely limited body parts not in discussion
here) and that the rules that he does not look is a recommended chumra,
in which case, putting a chumra on a chumra would be inappriopriate.

Surely this must have been discussed somewhere, either to say that what
Rob and I were taught in our respective chatan and kala classes is a
ridiculous chumra doing the rounds, or to say it is proper behaviour.

Did nobody else learn this in their respective chatan/kala classes
(is this just minhag a small section of Golders Green or what?)

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

On 26 Nov 2003 at 20:58, Chana Luntz wrote:
>> I'll conclude with Rav Eider's Halachos of Niddah, page 249: <<< When she
>> is nursing and part of her body [is or] becomes uncovered, he must be
>> careful not to gaze.>>> (Brackets his.) Not "he must stay out of the
>> room". Not even "he must keep his back to her". Merely "he must be
>> careful not to gaze."

> Interesting. This could be for one of two reasons. One he holds that the
> rules are different between husband and wife regarding how you need to
> act, despite the nature of the prohibition being the same (and despite
> no such distinction seeming to be drawn in the poskim that I can see,
> but I wait to be corrected), or alternatively he might hold, like ROY,
> that m'ikar hadin we poskin like the Magid Mishna there is no problem for
> him to look (except for extremely limited body parts not in discussion
> here) and that the rules that he does not look is a recommended chumra,
> in which case, putting a chumra on a chumra would be inappriopriate.

Or that he's drawing a distinction between looking (short time) and 
gazing (staring, longer time). I would say that he is permitting 
looking that is short and incidental (like when the two of you are in 
your own beds and your husband happens to awaken and see you) as 
opposed to gazing or staring which is longer term and possibly 
(probably) more purposeful. 

I believe that's the difference between "lir'os" and "l'histakeil" 
and that the poskim generally say "l'histakel." 

 -- 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. 

(I just want to share some of my thoughts on recent parshios with the
chevrah. If it sounds familiar, that might be because it is a heavily
revised version of a post I published this past spring in Mail-Jewish
38:53. All comments eagerly welcomed.)

We often think of the relationship of the three Avos in terms of a gradual
refining of Avraham's nature: The best of Avraham went into Yitzchak,
and the best of Yitzchak went into Yaakov. Yaakov was the purified
perfection, whose children all remained true to the G-d of Abraham.

Such is the simplified genealogy of the Patriarchs. But perhaps we've
overlooked something. Have we looked at the genealogy of the Matriarchs?
And are we so sure that Avraham was the very first of the Patriarchs?
Perhaps we should back up one generation.

Avraham was not the first link in this chain. Let's look at his father,
Terach. The Torah (Bereshit 11:31) tells us that Terach left Ur for
Canaan, and Seforno explains that he did so in an admirable search for
spirituality, which Avraham completed. Also, when the Pesach Hagadah
tells the story of the history of the Jews, it quotes Yehoshua (24:2),
who began that story not with Avraham, but with his father, Terach.

Not all of our forefathers had the same "success rate" with their
children. Avraham's "other" son - Yishmael - left the family, and his
descendants have not returned. Nor have the descendants of Yitzchak's
"other" son, Esav. But Terach had two other sons - Haran and Nachor -
and we will see that some of *their* descendants, those sparks of Terach,
*did* return to the family of their brother Avraham.

Our mother Sarah, Avraham's wife, was not merely his soulmate, sharing
his beliefs and convictions: She was also Terach's granddaughter,
daughter of Avraham's brother Haran.

And Sarah was not the only route through which Haran's progeny joined
Israel: His son was Lot, from whom Ruth and David HaMelech would descend
many generations later.

There's more: Haran's other daughter - Milkah - married Terach's other
son - Nachor. Among their children was Betuel, who fathered Rivkah. And
that wasn't Betuel's only entry into Klal Yisrael: His son Lavan fathered
both Rachel and Leah.

These two genealogies work in very different directions. The story of
the Fathers, it seems to me, is one of separating "the ochel from the
p'solet", winnowing the wheat from the chaff, focusing on Terach and
working to expunge all the negative traits. The story of the Mothers,
in very sharp contrast, seems to focus on searching for the sparkling
gems of Terach which got mixed into the rubble, isolating them, and
re-integrating them into the family.

Terach started out towards Canaan, but for some reason never completed
the trip. That doesn't necessarily make him out to be a no-good-nik. He
was like freshly-mined ore, ugly but with great potential, which the next
generations smelted and purified, finally flowering in the Twelve Tribes.

Akiva Miller

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


[ 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         ]