Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 070

Monday, August 16 2004

• Re: Lice
• Agodos Chazal
• Re: Og Melech Haboshon
• Re: WAS Creation and Evolution
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• RE: Og Melech HaBashan
• RE: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• Torah and Science
• Re: T'cheiles
• Re: T'cheiles
• RE: Michael Behe: *Darwin's Black Box*
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Emanationism
• Re: Lice
• Re: Lice
• Re: WAS Evolution and Creationism
• Re: Age of the Universe and Creation
• Re: Lice
• Re: T'cheiles

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 11:54:43AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: >2- It's not the topic at hand.
: >We're discussing a rejection of the gemara's pesaq, that it reached a
: >false maskanah. That's very different than saying that a shitah which
: >did not become the gemara's pesaq can be both a false understanding of
: >Torah and still be within the mitzvah of talmud Torah.

: I don't understand why this is not the topic at hand and I simply don't
: understand the distinction you are asserting. Lice is a psak apparently
: based upon a false premise...

That's the rub. Asserting that a machloqes can include a false opinion is
different than believing a maskanah can. We invest effort to understand
"hava amina"s even though we know they are strawmen, and aren't true. If
you think of a rejected shitah as akin to a hava amina getting to the
final pesaq, there is no surprise in the intro to the IM.

But to question the maskanah? A different beast entirely.

:                                                             If one
: accepts Tosfos's view that the value of pi is incorrect in Shas than
: it follows that halachic conclusions based upon it are also incorrect.

Umm... Even the ba'alei Tosafos don't call for correcting the conclusions.
They point out it's an approximation, not an error.

You continue with something that seems to be based on the assumption that
my drawing this chiluq means I think it outside the pale to reconsider
pisqei chazal. I wouldn't do so myself, as R' Dovid taught me a different
derekh. However, as I wrote in my earlier email, I can't think it outside
the pale to do so as I can't place RAYKook and RMKasher in that category.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
> ...BTW the Gemoro there also relates that a Malach teaches the baby
> Torah whilst in the womb - but before birth gives him a slap (or similar)
> and he forgets it..

> This, to some, may also sound metaphoric. However, many of us old enough,
> remember that there was actually a child in Jerusalem who when taken
> to cheder at the age of 3 proceeded to quote "Kol Hatorah Kuloh". This
> went on for a while - until the late Belzer Rebbe zt"l did something to
> him and he forgot it all..

> This boy - named by the press as the "Yeled Peleh" has a first cousin
> here in Melbourne who knows the story well. Our previous Rav - who lived
> in Jerusalem at that time - "farhered" the boy - Shas, Poskim Rishonim
> and Achronim!!!

I found this 4 year old discussion re the Malach teaching the Torah to
babies in the womb, in the Avodah archive.

How does this go down with [those who consider themselves of] the Rambam's
'Kat shlishi'..?

From: Kenneth G Miller kennethgmiller@juno.com
> If someone wants to say that a 10-amah-tall Moshe Rabenu was some sort
> of miracle, fine. But to say that even a one-mile-tall Og was miraculous
> presupposes that he was human, and in actuality he *might* have been
> descended from other pre-flood species.

That's what the Torah seems to say - and therefore?

SBA

<hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> hmaryles@yahoo.com posted on: Aug 13, 2004:
> > There is no physical universe at all. It is all a "dream" in the "mind"
> > of God.

R. Zvi Lampel:       
> How about putting it like this:
> 'V'Hashem Elokim Emmess'--He alone is the
> reality and none other has reality like His reality. Meaning,
> there is no existing Reality besides Him which is like Him." 
> (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Yesoday HaTorah, 1:4)

I never said that Bishop George Berkley's Philosophy is incompatible
with a Torah Hashkafa. This comparrison shows that the two views are
quite consistent with each other.

HM

R' Harry Maryles challenged me: <<< Try this. There is no physical
universe at all. It is all a "dream" in the "mind" of God. ... Since we
must rely on or senses to "prove" an outside world I submit that there
is no real world at all. We are in effect "fooled" into believing that
we are in one. >>>

I give the same response as I did to the "Creation 10 minutes ago"
scenario. That is: Sure, such a thought is very difficult emotionally,
because the information from my senses feels so very real. But that is an
emotional argument, not a logical one. And in any case, there's no nafka
mina: I am obligated to act the same way -- oops! the word "act" is not
relevant in an imaginary universe. correction: I am obligated to make
the same decisions, regardless of whether there's a physical world or not.

I am reminded of R"n Gila Atwood's sig line: "We are pixels in G-d's
imagination." Our reality vs. His imagination -- It's just semantics.

Akiva Miller

SBA asked:
>So how actually does the Rambam expect a person - who wants to be of the
>3rd Kat - to know when the Torah or Chazal are talking plain pshat and when
>by parable??

I think he makes it clear. He writes "It is also clear to them as to
which things are impossible, and which things must be true." The people
in the 3rd Kat are aware of what is physically impossible and what is
physically possible. Of course, with the advance of knowledge of the
world, our awareness of what is physically possible is continually
refined. So perhaps in the times of the Rishonim it wasn't altogether
absurd to believe in a person as tall as a skyscraper, but now we know
it not to be possible.

Note that Rambam says that whatever is impossible must be rejected. He
does not say that, due to miracles, anything is possible!

SBA writes:
>No sofek at all, that the Rambam would tell us to follow the directions and
>hashkofos imparted by the gedolei hameforshim - Rashi, Ramban etc - and we
>won't go wrong. 

I don't think so at all. For example, Rambam certainly differed with
Ramban as to whether magic is possible.
Anyway, in this case, some of the gedolei hameforshim, such as Rambam,
Rashba and Ibn Ezra, say that Og was not several hundred feet tall and
that Aggadic material is not to be taken literally!

SBA continues:
>BTW, how anyone can try a drei this Rambam into saying that he is
>dismissing Rashi [or even worse - telling US to dismiss Rashi!] or to use
>this to say Rashi is wrong - CV - is beyond me...

Let me explain. Rambam clearly states that far-fetched Aggadic material
is not to be taken literally. Following this approach, Rambam does not
take the Aggadic material about Og (and Moshe) literally. Rambam in Moreh
Nevuchim says that Og was only six amos tall and proportioned like an
ordinary person, because anything else is impossible to accept. Rashi, on
the other hand, appears to be saying that Og was bizarrely proportioned
and several hundred feet tall. So, if we follow Rambam's approach,
we either must reject Rashi's explanation, or say that Rashi is only
reconciling the different layers of Torah interpretation and not giving a
literal meaning. Of course, you might choose to reject Rambam's approach
instead.

I notice that you use the phrase "chas v'shalom" with regard to the
suggestion that Rashi can be wrong. Do you mean that this is something
undesirable, or inconceivable? While we must have great respect for
the Rishonim and not treat their words lightly, it is certainly not
inconceivable for them to be wrong, and sometimes it is necessarily the
case. Consider the case of magic, which Rambam rejects outright as folly,
but which Ramban accepts as existing. One of them has to be wrong!

Sincerely,
Nosson Slifkin

> possible theories to explain those facts. Why random mutations appeals
> to them more than an intelligent design is a question you would have to
> ask them.

The answer is obvious -- with "random mutations" you can hope to
understand and model the system.

With ID you can't.

Besides -- who says God can't work via "Random" mutations?

Akiva

--
"If you want to build a ship, then don't drum up men to gather wood, give
orders, and divide the work. Rather, teach them to yearn for the far and
endless sea." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

<hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
> deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
> in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
> He started creating it billions of years ago?

The Torah was not meant as an explanation of how God created the world. He
told us WHAT He did, Not HOW he did it, and used terminology that we could
understand ...at many different levels: Lashon Bnei Adam. But as we all
know Pashut Pshat isn't always as Pashut as it seems at first glance.

Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki explains that when the Torah begins with the phrase
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, he actually
created the the sun and its luminaries then as well (...in one big
bang). But the Pashut Pshat is that he created these luminaries on the
fourth day: (Genesis 1:16 - paraphrased) "And God made the two great suns,
the large one for the day and the small one for the night. Then (Genesis
1:19): "And it was evening and it was morning... fourth day". Rabbi
Yitzchoki knew that it was not likely that the earth was created before
the sun.

But according to you, why not? ...The earth was created and then the sun
during God's creative cycle during the first six days. What difference
would it make? It is a Pchus in God's Infinite creative capacity for Rabbi
Yitzchoki to modify the Pashut P'shat, is it not? After all God can,
K'Heref Ayin, create the entire universe and if He wants to create the
sun on the fourth day... it's His business, no? Who is Rabbi Yitzchoki
or any other human being to say differently?

HM

On Sun, 2004-08-15 at 00:27 -0400, wrote:
> Fri, 13 Aug 2004 Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com posted: 
>>I believe that God would not deliberately fool
>> us by giving us vast evidence that indicate an old universe while in
>> reality he created it 6000 years ago to "look" that way, despite R. Zvi
>> Lampel's argument of it as truth.

> You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
> deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
> in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
> He started creating it billions of years ago?

For the same reason the medrash claims creation started b4 1 Tishrei?
i.e. according to the medrash, creation began before the counting of time.

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 08:52:22AM -0700, Shaya Potter wrote:
: For the same reason the medrash claims creation started b4 1 Tishrei?
: i.e. according to the medrash, creation began before the counting of time.

I can't make sense of your ie. If time wasn't counted yet, how can one
talk about "began before"?

-mi

We have three very related busy threads right now:

Og: What to do when science contradicts a claim in the medrash
Evolution: ... when it contradicts a pasuq
Lice: ... when it contradicts chazal's pesaq

To me, the lines are:
There are no grounds to insist any given medrash is historical.

Pesuqim must be historical unless we had TSBP reason, without the
scientific challenge, to say otherwise. Which is quite clearly the case
with ma'aseh bereishis.

An accepted pesaq can't be based on bad science. It might be
reverse-engineered to bad science, though. I do not believe chazal
would codify something solely on the grounds of a theory of natural
philosophy. It's not just emunas chachamim, it's also a belief in siyata
dishmaya when it comes to pesaq.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Akiva Miller wrote:
>I recall (but cannot find right now) that the Mishna Brurah says that if
>one does not have all four of the Arba Minim, he should take whatever he
>does have (without a bracha of course) as a "zecher" to this mitzvah. I
>think that same would be said if he did have all four but one was pasul.
>I therefore wonder why it was never suggested (or maybe someone did
>suggest it?) that for lack of genuine techeles, we could use kla ilan
>or some other blue dye, so that the halachos of techeles would be
>remembered.

See OH 649:6 and MB there ot 53. It is clear from there that something
which is not the right species (such as a murkav) should never be used,
even if nothing else is available, in order that one not continue to use
it in subsequent years, when all minim are available. Clearly this applies
to kala ilan as well -- it should never be used in tzitzit, so that it
not be continued to be used when genuine tcheilet becomes available.

Saul Mashbaum

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: See OH 649:6 and MB there ot 53. It is clear from there that something
: which is not the right species (such as a murkav) should never be used,
: even if nothing else is available, in order that one not continue to use
: it in subsequent years, when all minim are available. Clearly this applies
: to kala ilan as well -- it should never be used in tzitzit, so that it
: not be continued to be used when genuine tcheilet becomes available.

I see your sevarah. The question is whether it would rule out using
a safeiq techeiles. IOW, does the risk of future error outweigh the
possibility of following the de'oraisa today?

-mi

Akiva Atwood <akiva@atwood.co.il> wrote:
> Besides -- who says God can't work via "Random" mutations?

I used to think that this was a legitimate approach but if you allow for
total randomness you begin to approach the Aristotalian model of God as
the "Unmoved Mover" which is not how Judaism looks at God. We see him
not as passive but as active. If you allow for complete randomness,
then you in essence agree to Aristotle that creation happened merely
by God's existence alone and that ...as he puts it... it is a P'chus to
say that He needed to "act" in some way to "create".

OTOH you can say that God created the laws of nature" actively and nature
took it from there.

What the Emes is, I do not know. But my intuition at present is to believe
in some form of intelligent design that followed an evolutionary path
leaving in its wake much scientific evidence... although not conclusive.

I hope that is complex enough for you.

:)

HM

Zoo Torah <zoorabbi@zootorah.com> wrote:
> Now let me get to my objection to the approach that Hashem made the
> world look old. I agree that there is some basis for saying that Hashem
> would have made the world to appear mature. But the world doesn't just
> appear mature - it could be much younger and still be mature. Instead,
> the world shows many previous cycles of existence. There was an age of the
> dinosaurs. There was an age of mastodons and sabre-toothed tigers. This
> indicates history rather than mere maturity.

I've answered this several times lately. The key is 've'en tzayar
kelokenu' - He is the Perfect Artist, and this world is His masterpiece.
A good work of art needs a backstory. How did everything get to be as
it is portrayed at the actual moment depicted? If we had a world that
appeared on the surface to be 'natural', but when we started digging
below the surface we didn't find a backstory, the artificiality of the
world would be apparent. A human artist, having done the surface with
meticulous care, including mountains and canyons that appear to have
been eroded over millions of years, glaciers that one would expect to
have resulted from the climate swings that one would expect from a star
with variable output, etc, wouldn't bother going below the surface and
burying the strange fossils one would expect to find there. After all,
who's going to look? But the Perfect Artist did go to that trouble,
not only because He knew that we would indeed look, but because if he
didn't put it there His work would be less than perfect.

> Incidentally, with regard to the question of why the Torah would have
> portrayed the billions of years as being six days, see Rav Dessler.
> Basically he says that it has mystical meaning, and that it is conveyed
> in simple terms so that even simple people can grasp it, and that the
> time-scale is downplayed to convey its spiritual insignificance.

Why can't we say instead that the layers of fossils have mystical
significance that the moshiach will explain, which is why they have been
revealed just before his time? If (contrary to Cat Faber) G-d wrote both
the Bible *and* the rocks, why interpret the first allegorically and
the second literally, rather than the reverse? Before we made any of
these discoveries, the vast majority of Am Yisrael, including Chazal,
understood the chumash literally, and had no reason not to; how could
Hashem have cold-bloodedly deceived them like that? Surely he would give
the literal truth first, and the nuanced allegory only to a generation
sophisticated enough to understand such things!

I'm not actually arguing the above, since I don't think the science
is allegorical, and am happy to take *both* the Bible and the rocks
literally: the Bible as a historical statement of what actually happened,
and the rocks as a scientific statement of what *appears* to have
happened. But for those who are bothered by the apparent contradiction,
and want to resolve it by saying that only one of the two should be
taken literally, why choose the rocks over the Bible?

In another thread in the same digest, RMB wrote:
> That doesn't necessarily assert that the words of the nevi'im are
> historical. A mashal whose nimshal is true is also true -- as long as
> it was the navi's kavanah to give a mashal.

This is precisely what I've been trying to say about the scientific
evidence for an old world. Hashem was not lying or deceiving us by
creating it, because it was never His intention that we should be led
to believe that the world really did evolve. After all, He told us that
it didn't. Rather, He was like an artist depicting a scene that only
exists in his imagination, and depicting it with complete thoroughness
that a viewer could imagine himself there, and very easily believe it
to be true, if he didn't know otherwise.

Or, to repeat the vort from Jesse Ventura, on whether pro wrestling is
fake, 'is Hamlet fake?'

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I don't understand the Ba'al haTanya's position on the subject. He
> starts out explaining beri'ah in terms of atzilus, but then concludes
> that "ein od milvado" means that there is no Reality besides Him --
> period. Panentheism (the universe is of G-d, but G-d is greater than
> the universe).

As I understand it, this is not a statement of fact but of philosophy.
What do we mean by 'real'? Think of gestures: does a gesture really
exist? Is it an entity on its own? Surely it's just a description of
what someone is doing with his hand. Now think of a picture projected
on a TV screen, which only exists while the electron guns are shooting
a particular pattern of electrons at the phosphor coating; the electron
guns and the phosphor screen exist, but should we say that the picture
really exists, or merely that the picture is something that the electron
guns and screen are doing? Since everything besides Hashem only exists
so long as He is creating it, philosophically the world isn't an existent
entity, it's merely something that Hashem is doing.

Micha Berger wrote:
>That's the rub. Asserting that a machloqes can include a false opinion is
>different than believing a maskanah can. We invest effort to understand
>"hava amina"s even though we know they are strawmen, and aren't true. If
>you think of a rejected shitah as akin to a hava amina getting to the
>final pesaq, there is no surprise in the intro to the IM.

>But to question the maskanah? A different beast entirely.

Where are your sources that such a distinction exists?

>:                                                             If one
>: accepts Tosfos's view that the value of pi is incorrect in Shas than
>: it follows that halachic conclusions based upon it are also incorrect.

>Umm... Even the ba'alei Tosafos don't call for correcting the conclusions.
>They point out it's an approximation, not an error.

Tosfos says that it is an error [and the Gra says chas v'shalom that they
made an error]. As a consequence of using the wrong value of pi there are
of necessity halachic consequences. It is also impossible to assert that
nature has changed in order to justifiy a different value of pi. Would
you sit in a Sukkah that is kosher because it was assumed that pi = 3?

Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:58:45AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: >But to question the maskanah? A different beast entirely.

: Where are your sources that such a distinction exists?

Where are my sources that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu avla"? That a
pesaq gets siyata dishmaya?

: Tosfos says that it is an error...                               Would
: you sit in a Sukkah that is kosher because it was assumed that pi = 3?

Yes. Because, as I said, we generally take it to mean 3 is close enough.
Just as a rectangle or parallelagram that has a diagonal of 1.4 is close
enough to square for hilchos tefillin.

It's not a matter of error, but of degree of precision.

RETurkel has posted on this repeatedly.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com posted: 
>I believe that God would not deliberately fool
> us by giving us vast evidence that indicate an old universe while in
> reality he created it 6000 years ago to "look" that way, despite R. Zvi
> Lampel's argument of it as truth.

From: "" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
> You can believe what you want, but please answer: Why would Hashem
> deliberately fool us by writing in the Torah that He created the world
> in a mature state, in six days, 5000 years ago, while "in reality"
> He started creating it billions of years ago?

Very good question.
And also may I ask, why, in all Torah shebeksav and TSBP, 
which touch on virtually every possible subject, this matter is not 
really broached?    Why?

And, BTW, what are we supposed to do about the gemorro in 
Chagiga [11b]  about not discussing matters pre-berias ha'olom?

SBA

Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
> 've'en tzayar kelokenu' - He is the Perfect Artist, and this world is His
> masterpiece.
> A good work of art needs a backstory. 

> ...artificiality of the world would be apparent. 

> ...the Perfect Artist did go to that trouble,
> not only because He knew that we would indeed look, but because if he
> didn't put it there His work would be less than perfect.

Can you explain why dinosaurs had to be part of the Artist's
painting? Based on your explanation, dinosaur fossils HAD to be put into
the "painting" by the Perfect Artist because it would not have been the
masterpiece that it is. What is it about dinosaur fossils that would
make the world incomplete without them? No one would ever think there
is something wrong with the world if dinosaurs or their fossils had
never existed.

This way of looking at creation is overly simplistic and
unsatisfying. Your insistence on this explanation is similar to
the atheists insistence that the world must have been created by
spontaneous random sudden mutations that ended up wih a single celled
organism evolving into the human species. When you confront them with
the unsettling astronomical odds against it they simply say there is
no hard evidence that God exists so why resort to a " Spiritual Force"
that has absolutely no proof whatsoever for its existence.

Your belief in the Pashut Pshat forces you to make assumptions that
defy all evidence and logical deductions thereof. Why did Rashi need to
explain that the the Torah's exposition of the sun being created on the
fourth day was not literal. Do you have a problem with Rashi, too? The
Perfect Artist can paint the sun on any day He wants. But Rashi felt
that it was not Mistaver.

HM

Micha Berger wrote:
>On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 12:58:45AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>: >But to question the maskanah? A different beast entirely.

>: Where are your sources that such a distinction exists?

>Where are my sources that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu avla"? That a
>pesaq gets siyata dishmaya?

We recently witnessed a major turmoil concerning sheitel - according
to you it should have been announced that "she'eiris yisra'el lo ya'asu
avla"? In fact it was said in the name of gedolim that klall yisroel had
in fact collectively sinned - as a consequence of following the psak
of gedolim. Thus the above concept is not an absolute rule but merely
a presumption - which can in fact be wrong. There is a similar dispute
in the question of whether tzadikim can sin or cause others to sin.
There is much evidence that a posek - even godol hador can err. This
has been rehashed many times in this forum.

I am merely pointing out the obvious. We assume and are required to assume
that no error exists. However when the evidence reaches a certain level
- we have no choice but to acknowledge reality. I agree with you that
the standards for rejecting a maskana is significantly higher than for
a das yachid or agada - but nonetheless such a thing does exist.

>: Tosfos says that it is an error...                               Would
>: you sit in a Sukkah that is kosher because it was assumed that pi = 3?

>Yes. Because, as I said, we generally take it to mean 3 is close enough.
>Just as a rectangle or parallelagram that has a diagonal of 1.4 is close
>enough to square for hilchos tefillin.

>It's not a matter of error, but of degree of precision.

>RETurkel has posted on this repeatedly.

You are oversimplifying the issue. There is a major discussion of
this issue in R' Beinishe's sefor Midos v'Shiurei Torah Chapter 3
page 43-48. At the end he states: Concerning halacha many achronim
write that it is possible to use approximate measures since they are
brought as halacha. [Maharal, Aruch HaShulchan, Igros Moshe, Chazon
Ish. However the Chazon Ish writes elsewhere that it is necessary to
have precise measurements where he argues on the Biur Halacha (363:30)
who asserts that measurement of the wall of a mavoi can be determined
by what appears to be correct even if not measured.] Others say use of
approximate measures is for rabbinic halacha (Mishna Berura and others).
Others assert that even though chazal were not precise we must be
(Tosfos Yom Tov, Toras Chaim) - and this is the conclusion of the Tashbatz

Daniel Eidensohn

On Sun, Aug 15, 2004 at 07:20:33PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
>: See OH 649:6 and MB there ot 53. It is clear from there that something
>: which is not the right species (such as a murkav) should never be used,
>: even if nothing else is available, in order that one not continue to use
>: it in subsequent years, when all minim are available. Clearly this applies
>: to kala ilan as well -- it should never be used in tzitzit, so that it
>: not be continued to be used when genuine tcheilet becomes available.

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> I see your sevarah. The question is whether it would rule out using
> a safeiq techeiles. IOW, does the risk of future error outweigh the
> possibility of following the de'oraisa today?

The Biur Halocho (OH 648:MB 5) writes that one should take a sofeik murkav
if nothing else is avilable --but without a brocho.

Shlomoh Taitelbaum

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


[ 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         ]