Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 031

Wednesday, June 2 2004

• RE: sheitels and AZ
• Re: kal vechomer
• Re: rov
• Re: Godol Me'Rav-Rabbi, Godol Me'rabbi-Rabbon, Godol Me'rabbon-Sh'mo
• Nusach shmoneh esreh hakadum b'eretz yisrael
• RE: Avodah V13 #30
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• tied back or braided
• Bameh Madlikin and Hassidic custom
• RE: Bameh Madlikin and Hassidic custom
• Re: VIDC
• orla
• Marei Mekomos on Water Issue
• RE: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• Re: sheitels (or shaitlach)
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• sheitels and AZ
• Re: Disputing Previous Generations

>> You have conflated two senses of the word "shame".  [--RDR]

> Irrelevant. - RTK

No. It's very relevant. Even though your response was to my post, I
wasn't interested in bothering to explain why you were misunderstanding
(conflating :) the notion of being shamed. But RDR said it well. The
sotah incident is about embarrassing her by standing her up in front of
everyone and making her do something that is against the public norm.
That's why it's embarrassing. It's just like how women are embarrassed
in certain neighborhoods to be seen in a tichel instead of a sheitel.
Not that there's anything inherently wrong with it (although I'm sure they
can come up with many rationalizations to make it seem so). Some women are
embarrassed to be seen by their own children with uncovered hair. There's
nothing wrong with that, AFAIK (according to most mainstream opinions),
but it's become an accepted norm to them that they'd be embarrassed to
violate (even though the violation is private!).

> I have proven what I set out to prove, that the Torah assumes it
> is embarrassing, shameful or whatever word you care to use, for
> a woman's hair to be uncovered.

Again, if a woman is supposed to be embarrassed about having her hair
uncovered then unmarried women are supposed to be embarrassed too.

Yes, you already told us that "unmarried girls are not really supposed
to go around with their hair loose and flowing either", which I'm not
sure exactly where you get that from (other than the 'that's how its
supposed to be' rulebook), or possibly because it is more tzenua to not
make oneself as attractive as long and flowing hair can make one. But
even if that is so, it still flies in the face of your claim that women
are supposed to be embarrassed about exposing their hair. Such behavior
is called for not because one is supposed to be embarrassed of anything,
but because we would like them to be more modest about their beauty. No
one, no matter how attractive they are, is supposed to be embarrassed
about their beauty, even if we do ask them to not show it off. Such a
notion smacks of Christian undertones.

If you want to, you can tell us all again how married women are different,
experienced, etc. and I do believe it's a wonderful Torah to tell kallah's
but I'm sorry, although it's very inspiring, it's not a proof of anything.

Avi Burstein

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:39:36AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I have always found the kal vechomer very weak on straight logic grounds.
...
: This a purely formalistic argument that does not account for the specific
: case. Frequently it is obvious that A has property X because there is
: a connection between them. In no way does that mean that B should have
: the chumra to which it has no connection.

Except that my understanding is that when one can find a cause for x
in the case of A that doesn't exist for B, we either reject the QvC or
find a C which lacks that special motivation from which we can make a
QvC between the tzad-hashaveh-bein-A-veC and B.

QvC must be a rule in sevarah, as there are times we apply it on halachos
without the underlying pesuqim. Does it make sense to speak of derashah
without a pasuq to darshen?

OTOH, the rule of derashah called QvC would seem to me to be a different
thing, as QvC has limitations (ein oneshim al hadin, for example) that
sevarah does not.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 11:09:08AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: If bittul be-rov determines the safek how does chozer ve-naor work?

Chozeir veni'ur works not in a case of bitul, but in what I called "kol
deparish" and RML subsequented quoted RYBS as calling a "heter hanhagah".

This is exactly why one needs three kinds of rov, not two.

 -mi

On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 08:08:24PM -0400, Michael Frankel wrote:
: "rabbi" (or ribbi according to rashbetz and levitas) is not a simple
: construct state of "rav". It's rather the Palestinian title for one with a
: palestinian s'mikhoh, whereas "rav" is its exact Babylonian equivalent for
: one with a Babylonian s'mikhoh...                       one only need cite
: the gaonic adage (known from r. shrirah's iggeres): "godol me'rav --
: rabbi, godol me'rabbi -- rabbon, godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo".

But wouldn't this quote prove that the two are not equivalent?

Also, given that rabbon is a conjugation of either rav or rabbi/ribbi
(or both), we already have an example of two conjugations of the same
root being ranked as higher and lower.

: Indeed, if it were really true that rabbi were merely a construct form
: of "rav", then the effect of the construct would be to limit its' scope --
: i.e. rabbi = "my" rav would then be a smaller thing than "rav" who is
: not limited to myself...

I would disagree. "My rav" would mean both "a rav" and "one I chose to
follow" -- more than simply "rav".

That said, I seem to recall RSM or RDB writing something about the loss
of final vowels in many Aramaic words, and "Rav" was given as an example.
I'm quibbling with your "proof", not your thesis.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

I came across this:
<http://www.torahlight.com/pdf/Nusah18EY.pdf>

Can anyone comment on this? Are there variant nuscha'ot? Which period
does this nusach represent? Any online articles about this?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Seth Mandel wrote:
> The issue that needs to be added here (that Dr. Chalamish does not
> address, because it is not the subject he is discussing), is that
> k'gavna did not substitute for Bameh Madliqin.  Saying Bameh Madliqin on
> Friday night was not only the custom of some; it was the custom of _all_
> Jewish communities, Ashk'nazim, S'faradim, Teimanim, and was instituted
> in the times of the G'onim.  As a custom of k'lal Yisroel, it is binding
> on all, and so is recorded in the S.O.

In Yeshivat Har Etzion, which generally follows the nusach known as
"nusach sefarad" (the nusach of the Chasidim), Ba-meh Madlikin is said
after Kabbalat Shabbat. Ke-gavna is then said after the rosh yeshiva's
talk, before Barekhu.

This is the only place, though, where I've ever seen them both said.

 -D.C.

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> Irrelevant.  We can argue back and forth about what exact shade of shame or
> embarrassment she experiences, doesn't matter. I have proven what I set out to
> prove, that the Torah assumes it is embarrassing, shameful or whatever word
> you care to use, for a woman's hair to be uncovered.

You have forgotten what you had previously claimed.  Here it is:
> We actually get dressed for two reasons, because it is a mitzva not to
> be naked and because as humans, we feel shame at being naked. We are
> grateful to Hashem for having the means to cover our shame. Now, it may
> be argued that this sense of shame is only the result of a sin--and is
> associated with death, which entered the world at the same time as the
> sense of shame, and for the same reason--because Adam and Chava messed
> up and distanced themselves from Hashem.

> The Torah seems to assume that women feel a similar sense of shame
> at having their hair uncovered, and might feel a similar gratitude to
> Hashem for providing us the wherewithal to cover our hair.

Your "it may be argued" seems a bit shy, but you seem to claim that
shame at uncovered hair is due "only" to sin. I disagreed with that.

David Riceman

In a message dated 6/2/2004 8:09:44 AM EDT, driceman@worldnet.att.net writes:
> you seem to claim that shame at
> uncovered hair is due "only" to sin.  I disagreed with that.

The sin to which I refer is the sin of Adam and Chava, without which we
would not feel embarrassed at being unclothed. I imagine that if we were
not embarrassed at being undressed, we would certainly not be embarrassed
at having our hair uncovered.

BTW I have just used an argument which is known as an a fortiari type of
argument in Latin or kal vechomer in Hebrew, and to segue to that topic
for a moment--there was some recent discussion as to whether this was a
rule of logic or a rule of Torah exegesis. I think it is a rule of logic.
Just my two cents.

 -Toby Katz
=============

[A fortiori is a rule of logic. The question includes asking whether
QvC is the same thing. Possible differences have already been pointed
out. -mi]

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> Why would she not be permitted to be naked inside the sedan chair?

See OH 2:1-2, MB ad. loc. SK 1.

>> Not do I see how orlah can
>> possibly be more strict than AZ.

> But it is!

You need another pasuk to disprove the kal vachomer (mah orlah shenisbatel
b201 ...). Does it exist?

David Riceman

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> Why would she not be permitted to be naked inside the sedan chair?

See OH 2:1-2, MB ad. loc. SK 1.

>> Not do I see how orlah can
>> possibly be more strict than AZ.

> But it is!

You need another pasuk to disprove the kal vachomer (mah orlah shenisbatel
b201 ...). Does it exist?

David Riceman

R David Riceman wrote:
> When I was little I used to think the din of dressing in bed was pretty
> silly....

"Din"? Would you argue one is oveir a lav or an asei? And what's the shi'ur --
how is getting up in the morning a problem, but taking a shower not? I'd have
put this on the list of hanhagos tovos in the SA.

..
> Much as I hate to admit it, people get pleasure from appearing
> respectable. That's why so many men strangle themselves with decorated
> silken ropes. Issurei hanaah are assur even for non-physical pleasure.
...

Not all issurei hana'ah. Rei'ach basar bechalav is mutar. Then there's the
whole issue of geneivah of a rei'ach, intellectual property, and intangibles.

...
> What about birchas hamitzva. When I was young one of my rebbeim told me
> we don't make a birchas hamitzva on giving tzedaka because it would make
> the recipient feel bad. I would state a more general rule. We don't make
> birchos hamitzva on mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro.

What kind of sin is uncovered hair?

The way we analyzed sei'ar be'ishah in the past, there are two steps:

1- A gezeiras hakasuv in the parashah of sotah implies that married women must
cover their hair.
2- #1 makes the sight of a married woman's hair rare, and this rarity causes
it to be ervah.

This was the explanation we came up with for why the din doesn't apply to
single women and girls. The din ervah is a consequence, not the cause.

Until I read RDR's discussion of changing in the morning (above) I was ready
to post without sources that the problem of ervah is "lifnei iver". The second
chiyuv in hair covering is not to make it inevitable the for men in your
environs to be oveir on looking at ervah. Now I'm not as sure. Thus my vested
interest in arguing that the se'ifim in question are not actual din. Aside
from the difficulties raised.

But going with this assumption, despite RDR's post, for the moment, #2 would
be a lav ("lo sisein michshol") and bein adam lachaveiro but #1 could well be
an asei (sotah itself is) and bein adam laMaqom.

For that matter, is the Rama saying it's kavod haberiyos even when alone, or
that one has to be aware that one always is in front of an Important Guest? I
took the Rama to be giving a BAlM-diq sevarah, not BAlC.

> <<so why do we make one at weddings? that makes a good wedding - or
> Shavuos - drasha, but it's too tangential for this posting, which is
> already too long>>

> Why not? Brachos are devices to make us concentrate on God. When doing
> mitzvos bein adam lamakom that enhances performance of the mitzva. When
> doing mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro that distracts from proper performance.

If one looks at the introduction to Shaarei Yosher
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/shaareiyosher.pdf>, one finds that R'
Shimon Shkop defined qedushah in terms of commitment to being meitiv others.
That definition applies no less to bein adam lachaveiro than bein adam
laMaqom. I don't know why "asher qidishanu bemitzvosav" is necessarily less
applicable.

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Another point has been raised about a beautiful wig being noy mitzva
> or hiddur mitzva. To me this seems laughable, but I am at a loss to
> articulate why it seems so. The hiddur mitzva is being extra careful
> not to let any of your own hair show. The extra beauty of a wig that
> makes you look as much as possible like you are not covering your hair
> at all--where is the hiddur mitzva in that? Absurd.

Actually, RYGB invoked noi mitzvah. Does anyone know if noi mitzvah and hiddur
mitzvah are the same thing?

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

From: T613K@aol.com
Subject: Re: sheitels and AZ
> 1. Unmarried girls are not really supposed to go around with their hair
> loose and flowing either. It's supposed to be tied back or braided
> or worn with a headband. Or cut short....

Rav Meir Brandsdorfer shlita, of the EH has a tshuva in his sefer Kney
Bosem explaining the TA [and some others] minhag of braids.

SBA

From: "Seth Mandel" 
> The answer to that is that Bameh Madliqin was said right when the Sha'Tz
> said qiddush; in many communities in Ashk'naz, it was said concurrently.
> Chasidim abandoned the saying of qiddush in shul, probably because they
> woiuld accompany the rebbe and stand around his shabbos tisch, where he
> would say qiddush.

I doubt that that is the reason.
After all how many non-chassidic shuls is kiddush [or havdolo] made?

The reason probably was that there are no orche porche.

IIRC, the tiny Sydney Adass shul [which is 'official' a CS-
nusach Ashkenaz shul -- still makes kiddush and havdolo.

And once when visiting Sydney and davvening Friday evening
in a 'mainstream' shul [mit kaum a minyan]
- the chazan/gabai/president made kiddush - 
with his cars keys jangling from the belt holding up his jeans.

> When they dropped the old custom of saying qiddush in shul, they dropped
> saying Bameh Madliqin.

And when did the rest drop it?

SBA

I wrote: <<Bameh Madliqin was said right when the Sha'Tz said qiddush; in
many communities in Ashk'naz, it was said concurrently. Chasidim abandoned
the saying of qiddush in shul>>

R. SBA wrote: <I doubt that that is the reason.
After all how many non-chassidic shuls is kiddush [or havdolo] made?>

<<when they dropped the old custom of saying qiddush in shul, they dropped
saying Bameh Madliqin.>>

<And when did the rest drop it?>

At the time of the advent of chasidus, _all_ Jewish communities made
qiddush in shul. The custom of making qiddush in shul was abandoned in
Volozhin, and, following it, in all yeshivos, because in no community
was the yeshiva the community shul where balebatim or guests davened;
the yeshiva was just for the yeshivaleit (unlike today). R. SBA is
perhaps being misled by the situation in Australia into thinking that
most non-chasidish do not make qiddush. In America, all non-yeshiva
shuls that I ever heard of made qiddush 50 years ago, including places
ranging from MO (Young Israel) to right wing (the Agudah in Baltimore,
under R. Heinemann, does, although it is only 20 years old). Nowadays,
many of the rabbonim who have come from Litvishe yeshivos think it is
proper to follow the yeshiva minhog, and not the Litvishe community
minhog, and balebatim won't argue, either because they are from a
chasidishe background, and the chasidim don't make qiddush in shul,
or because balebatim never complain about making davening shorter.

But what I wrote is correct for the period of time being discussed,
namely the end of the 18th century and beginning of the 19th century.

I do not know what you mean by "when did the rest drop it." All
non-chasidish shuls 50 years ago never dropped qiddush nor bameh madliqin.
However, most Ashk'naz shuls nowadays (as opposed to 50 years ago), say
bameh madliqin after qabbolas shabbos, which led to the misconception
that it was "replaced" by k'gavna.

Seth Mandel

[RYGB:]
> I have problems with Brisker nomenclature, and this is no exception -
> what does "heter hanhaga" mean and how does the invention of the concept
> add understanding?

As I understand it and it may not be how others may, there are some cases
when the issur is not botel as such and remains but we have a heter to
disregard it. Sort of a gavra heter, not cheftsa heter.

M. Levin

>RYGB seems to say that if we hold not like ShevS, then any safek orlah
>in chu"l is muttar, so too halacha kdivrei hameikil mtaam safek. Yet,
>vadai orlah btaaruvos is only batel one in two hundred (SA YD 294:22).
>So we see that not every safek, (nor even every rov lhatir) is mutar
>concerning orlas chutz laaretz.

RYGB:
>But a ta'aroves is not a safek: It is a vadai, and bittul - it would
>seem - is a hanahaga that applies to vadai, not to safek.

Actually, the classic case of safek orla in chu"l is muttar(SA YD 294:9)
is to buy produce that was picked from a field that has in it vadai orla.
So though you are correct that taaruves is with vadai orla; yet , safek
o bchu"l is not very different.

Here it is the din Torah which distinguishes between the two cases.
In the case of buying outside the field, even if half of all of the
production of that field is orla, it is still mutar. Yet in taaruves if
half of the mixture is orla, then eating anything from the entire mixture
is forbidden din Torah. So we see that it is not true to say any safek
of orla in chu"l is muttar. Rather, it is a narrowly defined rule.

Topic Two:
>halacha kdivrei
>hameikil is a rule in psak and is not mtaam safek. See Tos. Shabbos 139a
>d"h lishlach that severely limits this klal. If it were mtaam safek,
>the Tos. would not make any sense.

RYGB:
>But why?

The Tosafos says that the rule of halacha kdivrei hameikil is limited to
species of fruit which are not subject to the restrictions of the halachos;
yet the definition of what is the issur is not included in this rule.  If
the hesber of "halacha kdivrei hameikil" were because we have a doubt as to
how to pasken and therefore be meikil; it should make no difference which
type of halacha is in question (not like Tos).  But if the hesber of
"halacha kdivrei hameikil" were because this is a rule of how we pasken; not
based on the merits of the case, then it could be very limited (like Tos).

Shlomo Goldstein

Binas Adam Shar Isuur Veheter Sif Katan 34, Tuv Tam Vedas Mahd Tinyana
KA S. 53, Mari Mahshas - Shut Mayim Chayim OC S. 259, Aruch Hasulchan 84
Sk 36, Igm YD Chelek Beis S 146, EH Chelek Gimel S 33, From Or Yisroel
Monsy Shanah 5 Gilyon Daled

Avi Burstein <avi@tenagurot.com> wrote:
RTK (I believe): 
> > I have proven what I set out to prove, that the Torah assumes it
> > is embarrassing, shameful or whatever word you care to use, for
> > a woman's hair to be uncovered.

The question arises, "Is shame or embarrassment (as it applies to
Arayos) an innate trait or is it learned?" I think the answer is that
it is learned.

There have been studies done, however, that indicate that at least at
some basic level there is a lowest common denominator of shame. All
cultures, no matter how primitive have at least one area of the body
where they feel embarrassed about its exposure. But the vast differences
between cultures show that areas of embarrassment have great differences
between one culture and the next. In certain parts of Africa for example
topless women are quite the norm and no woman is embarrassed to walk
around that way. In certain Arabic cultures even facial exposure is
a matter of embarrassment for women. But all cultures seem to find
a common denominator of embarrassment exposure of the lower part of
the anatomy. That would indicate that there is some level of innate
embarrassment. Yet I think it is a valid argument to say that even that
lowest common denominator is learned since an extra-societal Tarzan-like
person might not feel embarrassed even if completely naked. I don't know.

I, therefore, do not think it valid to say that the Halacha of covering
hair is a matter of objective embarrassment for a woman. In a society like
that of Meah Shearim it might be extremely embarrassing for a woman to
have her hair uncovered but I suspect that it is an entirely culturally
learned reaction rather than an innate sense of embarrassment. I think it
true that in most Orthodox circles, the embarrassment of having a woman's
hair uncovered is based on cultural factors and not innate personal
ones. One cannot go around one day with hair uncovered and the very next
day (after marriage) feel embarrassed to uncover hair. Furthermore,
since shaitlach are so realistic today and so many are willing to pay
exorbitant prices so they can look as normal in Western culture as
possible, I think the opposite is true. Women want to do everything
they can to make it look like they are NOT covering their hair. So
the embarrassment does not come from a feeling that they look naked.
It comes from a feeling of being halachikly naked.

HM

In a message dated 6/2/2004 10:36:52 AM EDT, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:
> I, therefore, do not think it valid to say that the Halacha of covering
> hair is a matter of objective embarrassment for a woman. In a society like
> that of Meah Shearim it might be extremely embarrassing for a woman to
> have her hair uncovered but I suspect that it is an entirely culturally
> learned reaction rather than an innate sense of embarrassment.

I agree that we do not innately feel embarrassed at having our hair
uncovered, and I even admitted that I would prefer not to cover my hair
if I didn't have to.

You are right that what is covered, and how much is covered, is partly a
culturally learned thing. But the etzem davar that people feel embarrassed
to be naked seems to be innate. Teenagers who were brought up together in
the old Communist kibbutzim, where kids showered together from infancy,
started covering themselves and refusing to shower together when they
reached puberty, all on their own; there was nothing their Commie parents
could do to change human nature.

Take the innate sense of human shame that causes all cultures to wear SOME
kind of clothing; overlay the rules of dress in a given society--say,
a frum, Torah society--and you wind up with people feeling embarrassed
to go outside in a sleeveless dress, a miniskirt--or with hair uncovered.

We had that tznius, we've largely lost it. A yerida in our madreiga,
I claimed and still claim. I also said that the Torah seems to assume
that a woman--at least, a married woman--would be embarrassed to have her
hair uncovered in public. I have no doubt that that's how it used to be.

 -Toby Katz
=============

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
> The consensus,
> IIRC is that safek l'chumra does not apply to mitzvos aseh. Hence,
> als the aseh of Biur AZ, one would be entitled to refrain so long as
> one was using the object in question for a mitzva

When one takes the sheitel off is there a mitzvas biur? If so, the
heter's not very useful.

David Riceman

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> The sin to which I refer is the sin of Adam and Chava, without which we
> would not feel embarrassed at being unclothed. I imagine that if we were
> not embarrassed at being undressed, we would certainly not be embarrassed
> at having our hair uncovered.

You are assuming your conclusion. I asserted that there were two
different sources of shame, and that the shame of having uncovered
hair is the shame of being out of uniform. Imagine a world where women
customarily went naked except that they covered their hair. I assert
that in such context women would be ashamed if their hats were removed.
Of course it's difficult to get empirical evidence (but I suspect there
were analogous cases in Polynesia at one time).

David Riceman

>I'm sorry, which Rambam are we referring to again? In Lulav 8:1 he says 
>that shel AZ lo yittol l'chatchila v'im nottal yatza. Is that the one?

Yes

R Zvi Lampel wrote:
> On the contrary, R' Yochonon himself was the one who
> apparently introduced the idea that contradicting a Tanna is a problem. In
> the Gemara Yerushalmi on Paya 2:6, we find: Said Rebbi Zeyra in the
> name of Rebbi Yochonon, "If you come across a halachah (i.e., mishna)
> whose reason you cannot fathom (ain aht yodaya mah teevah) do not brush
> it aside and replace its law with another one (ahl tafleegeenah l'dvar
> acher). For many laws were told to Moshe at Sinai, and all of them are
> lodged in the Mishnah."

This seems pretty open-and-shut, and I wouldn't have shared RZL's need to
write "apparently" in that first sentence.

So, what do we do with RCS's:
> See Ramban Bava Basra 131a s"v Amar Lei Abayei (starting from "u'l'inyan
> piska") and Rabbeinu Yona Bava Basra 131a s"v Ela Tnai Beis Din Sha'anee,
> both of whom indicate that there are instances when amoraim feel free
> to disagree with tanaim. There's also a Kovetz Shiurim on this...

It would seem to be a machloqes amora'im as to whether the problem of
disputing tannaim was one of authority or kavod.

Later in RZL's post:
> The fact that my CD-ROM searches did not, indeed, come up with examples
> of tiyuvtos posed by Rav or Shmuel, or any of the other common Tannaim
> who flourished before R' Yochonon...

But as you write, they were tannaim. If the composing of the mishnah was a
critical point in halachic authority, then there really was no window between
the event and R' Yochanan. (R' Yochanan was already a musmach at the time the
mishnah was composed, IIRC.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
micha@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (413) 403-9905      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

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


[ 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         ]