Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 086

Wednesday, September 1 2004

• dividing Tehillim into monthly sections
• Re: ripping up gittin
• Re: chiyuv to daven w/ a minyan
• Kaddish DeRabbanan
• Re: Public expression by women
• RE: Public expression by Women
• Re: Psak for hashkafa
• RE: Psak for hashkafa
• Re: Calendar year at creation
• Re: Calendar year at creation
• Re: Calendar year at creation
• RE: Age of the Universe
• 6 days
• Re: Age of the Universe
• RE: Age of the Universe
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Ikkarim (again??)
• Re: Age of the Universe
• Re: Public expression by women
• Re: Literal meanings
• Re: chiyuv to daven w/ a minyan

[Request forwarded from my husband, R' Michael Katz:]

Ask your chevra at Areivim and Avodah if anyone knows for sure when the
minhag of dividing Tehillim into monthly sections began.

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

> The current practice among many Batei Dinim (including the BDA) is
> to rip up a get as soon as the wife receives it so that noone can raise
> questions about the get. The wife is then given a receipt that she has
> received her get.

> Does anyone know how old this practice is? And where it originated?

It is not "current practice," but halacha p'suka. See s'if 87 of the
Seder Haget in EH 154.

The most common reason given is to avoid people's being motzi la'az on
the get, but there are other reasons given as well. The Gr"a attributes
it to the g'mara in Bava Metzia 18a, which intimates that it should be
torn to prevent its use in collecting the k'suba. In the Tur, the Darkei
Moshe attributes the la'az reason to the Ri citing Rashi.

In a message dated 08/31/2004 12:53:01 PM EDT, spotter@cs.columbia.edu writes:
> Is there a chiyuv for a man to daven w/ a minyan or is it just "better".
> i.e. one can't do certain things w/o a minyan, but is that a chiyuv on
> the individual?

See Igrot Moshe O"C 2:27 in his response to a T"C who would rather stay
up and learn late than daven with a tzibbur. - "hu chiyuv metzuveh al
haadam vlo rak hiddur"

KT
Joel Rich

The practice of saying Kaddish DeRabbanan migrated over to Nusah Ashkenaz
from the nushaot of the Hassidim in the last hundred years or so.

There is a siddur that came out in the last few years called Ezor Eliyahu
(ed. David Kohen, published in Jerusalem) that sees as one of its aims the
undoing of changes made in Nusah Askenaz in the last couple of hundred
years by grammarians on the one hand and mystics on the other. It omits
Kaddish DerRbbanan and includes a footnote detailing the relatively
short history of this prayer in Nusah Ashkenaz.

As far as why Hassidim might have wanted to add the prayer, the Siddur
Yaavetz (recently translated into English and published by Feldheim
Books) includes a comment which might reflect the thinking of the Hassidic
innovators. Starting from the popular conception that during the course of
the morning prayer one ascends through the four worlds known to mystics,
Siddur Yaavetz says that Kaddish marks each of the points of transition
between one world and the next. Without Kaddish DeRabbanan after Qorbanot,
the transition between Olam Ha-Asiyah and Olam Ha-Beriah wouldn't be
covered. The author says that the important point about Kaddish is that
it is in Aramaic, a language angels don't understand (I don't know if
the latter is a demonstrable scientific fact) and that this forms the
basis of a protective subterfuge important during the delicate moment of
transition, when angels who by nature stay at one level forever, might
envy lowly but mobile human beings. I don't have the book and hope I am
remembering accurately.

Anyways, there's not much point in looking for a correct or original
Ashkenazy text--whatever is in one's siddur can't be wrong (or can't
be right?).

RMB wrote
>In his book "The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Exploration of the
>Basic Teachings of Judaism"  R' Marc Angel argues that...  undo Ashkenazi 
>Synagogue centrality is a side effect of living amongst people who
> think in terms of cathedrals

The concept that some put an undue emphasis on the role of the synagogue
in Judaism appears many times in the writings of R. Shimshon Rafael
Hirsch. He repeatedly writes that the home is the central repository
of Jewish tradition; Judaism can easily survive without the synagogue,
but cannot survive at all without the Jewish home. If I am not mistaken
he further relates this to the central and critical role of the woman
in preserving and fostering Jewish tradition. In these comments he is
implicitly opposing the position of the German reform movement of his
time, to which the construction of impressive temples was virtually the
be all and end all of Judaism.

For example, see RSRH on the redemption of the firstborn (Ex 13:13)
"Were it not for this redemption, it is almost certain that the firstborn
would have had to devote himself entirely to the priestly function,
and thus would be cut off from the family circle. This we do not ask of
him, but rather desire that he be an integral part of the life of the
family... *for not in temples, but rather in homes will the mission and
calling of Judaism be fulfilled completely*."

I do not recall a passage in which RSRH explicitly attributes the Reform
position to Xian influences, but I believe the idea is at the very least
heavily hinted at in his writings.

Saul Mashbaum

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> As MO has lower walls between "their values" and ours, it would make sense
> that an MO woman's self-image would be more changed by the new circumstances.
> The chareidiyah is far more likely to see herself as "basically" about home
> and family, but with a necessary compromise. To her, working is a sacrifice
> made lesheim her husband's talmud Torah, not a new self-image. There is a
> compartmentalization that MO would discourage.

Yes, that is the face of the working Charedi woman. But I'll bet that
one cannot sustain this "compartmentilzation" attitude in perpetuity.
Eventually there begins to be a sense of worldly self worth and worldly
accomplishment, despite all the attempts to fight it and the attendant
lipservice to a career being a sacrifice or a necessary compromise. It is
part of human nature and those who refuse to recognize it in themselves,
are in denial.

> The MO woman isn't out to adopt a feminist stance, she is living in
> a feminist world, and to some extent a feminist lifestyle. It's
> imposed by environment, and usually not the product of active
> pursued. (If some do adopt an active pursuit, it's usually a
> consequence, not a cause.)

That is in fact similiar to what I am saying. It is her feminist world
that at least in part prompts the desire to do male ritual and it for
this reason that I am suspect.

HM

Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>I think that RDE raises an important issue, but I would disagree.

>He bring the Meiri as saying that a certain position is wrong, and
>similarly the rambam - and argues that a definitive statement that a
>position is wrong - is the same thing as a psak.

>However, there is the well known rambam in perush hamishnayot (I think
>that it appears at least three times) that on any issues of hashkafa,
>if there are no practical consequences - we don't decide. That doesn't
>mean that the rambam or the mishna can't decide that one of the positions
>is right and the other wrong - but such decisions have no halachic weight.

Since this issue has been extremely well developed by R' Gil Student
in his review of Prof. Shapiro's book and in fact seems to be the major
issue as the following quote indicates - I'll leave it to him to respond.

"My disagreement with Shapiro revolves around this specific passage in
Maimonides and its parallels. He analyzes this section but, according to
my understanding, employs an imprecise reading of Maimonides' words that
leads to his vast, incorrect conclusions. It is not true, as Shapiro seems
to claim, that Maimonides demands a limited pluralism in all theological
matters [i] Maimonides, with his crisp and masterly usage of language,
specifically writes that there is no need to decide among opinions
-- to invoke the "halakhic process" -- when the issue does not affect
practice. He carefully uses similar wording in all five places in which he
discusses this. Never does Maimonides say that there are decisions between
views in halakhah and not in aggadah; he always formulates this principle
in terms of affecting practice and not affecting practice. According to
Maimonides, the question of whether the decision-making process applies
to a topic is not an halakhah vs. aggadah issue but a practice vs. theory
one. Even an aggadic topic is subject to the halakhic process if and when
it affects practice. Therefore, there are certain areas where halakhah
and aggadah - practical and theological Judaism - intersect and in those
cases, where there is a need for practical aggadic conclusions, the
halakhic process is imposed on aggadah. Shapiro's magnificent edifice
rests on this single, crucial issue and, unfortunately, I believe
his foundation to be in error. A careful reading of Maimonides' words
yields a conclusion 180 degrees opposite Shapiro's. If I have in some
way misread his view, I first apologize to both Shapiro and the reader,
and then question why Shapiro did not take his readers in the following
direction and draw a very different conclusion than the one he did."

Daniel Eidensohn

RDE wrote
> Since this issue has been extremely well developed by R' Gil Student
> in his review of Prof. Shapiro's book and in fact seems to be the major
> issue as the following quote indicates - I'll leave it to him to respond

I don't have RGS' article available, so will await his response. However,
there are two separate issues. 1) does the rambam actually pasken in
hashkafa when it doesn't affect practice?
2) Does the fact that a rishon insists that other positions are wrong
means that that is a psak.

RDE was claiming #2, using the Meiri, that the Meiri insisted that other
interpretations of eyn mazal leyisrael were untenable - and that therefore
this is a case of a psak in hashkafa.

That conclusion is one I would challenge - we may believe that other
positions are wrong and untenable - most hashkafa works have part of
their discussion "proving" that at least some alternative positions are
wrong - but the question is the status of that determination - whether
it rises to the level of psak - and here more evidence is needed.

The first issue about the rambam, as I (and I think most sources I have
seen) learned it is precisely that hashkafa has different rules - and one
doesn't talk about psak except in affecting practice - and therefore proof
of the disjunction between belief that a position is right and others
wrong, and even that one has proven it, versus it constituting some psak.

Given the rambam's equation of olam haba with proper ideas, one can
argue the extent to which the rambam actually has psak in hashkafa - but
even then, it doesn't mean that those rishonim who believe that other
interpretations are wrong would necessarily elevate their conviction
(even if they think it is clear from the texts) to a psak.

Meir Shinnar

R' Mendel Singer wrote: <<< I always thought that the calendar was
supposed to represent the years since the creation of Adam. Thus, on Rosh
Hoshana of the year 5765 man would be 5,765 years old. By this reckoning
(perhaps false!) Adam was created on 1 Tishrei of the year 0. >>>

Suppose a person accepts the following three points:

1) The duration of a single molad is 29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes,
and 1 chelek.

2) The molad for Tishre, of the year 5765 in our reckoning, will occur
on Tuesday afternoon, at 1:15 PM and 17 Chalakim.

3) In any given 19 year period, 12 years will have 12 months, and 7 will
have 13 months.

If a person accepts those points, then simple arithmetic will show that
if you work backwards and deduct 5763 years worth of molados, the molad
of Tishrei of the year 2 in our reckoning, occurred at exactly 8 AM on
a Friday morning.

There's a medrash (sorry I don't know where) which describes Adam HaRishon
as being created at 8 AM on a Friday morning. By the above calculations,
that would be 1 Tishre of the year *two*. Again, this is the year two
"by our reckoning"; if you want to refer to it as the year zero, that's
fine, as long as you understand that (two weeks short of) 5763 years
have elapsed from then until today.

More info on these calculations is in my post "When is the molad?",
in Avodah 12:14, at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol12/v12n014.shtml#10

Also, R' Micha Berger and I had a little back-and-forth on this in the
thread "Molad Marcheshvan". Check the archives for that.

Akiva Miller

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 03:13:57PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:

>> No, in our calendar, Adam was created on 1 Tishri 0002, not 0001.  The
>> world was created on 25 Elul 0001. 0001 only lasted 5 days; there was
>> no 24 Elul 0001, or any earlier date.

>>In our calendar, Adam was created (immediately before?) bein
>>hashemashos,

Huh?  Adam was created in the morning, wasn't he?  He had a very busy
day as it is, and if he started at bein hashmashot or just before it
then he'd have no time at all to pack all that into.

>> the overlap between 30 Elul 1 and 1 Tishrei 2. Tishrei yr 2
>>overlap.

I think there are some words missing in this sentence.

>> Thus, for people who aren't comfortable doing math with zeros,
>>there is a need to have a year one for discussion of the first moment of
>>true time.

This would probably make more sense if the preceding sentence was
complete.

Mendel Singer <mes12@po.cwru.edu> wrote:

> Hmmm....I always thought that the calendar was supposed to represent the
> years since the creation of Adam. Thus, on Rosh Hoshana of the year 5765
> man would be 5,765 years old. By this reckoning (perhaps false!) Adam was
> created on 1 Tishrei of the year 0. Dates prior to this during the "week"
> (don't want to mix threads here) of creation would be sort of year -1.

No, that's the Seder Olam's calendar. The one we use is 2 years ahead
of that one, and on it the world was created on 25 Elul 0001, and Adam
was created on 1 Tishri 0002.

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>>In our calendar, Adam was created (immediately before?) bein
:>>hashemashos,

: Huh?  Adam was created in the morning, wasn't he?  He had a very busy
: day as it is, and if he started at bein hashmashot or just before it
: then he'd have no time at all to pack all that into.

I thought it was right before BhSh, but it's not relevent to this
discussion.

: >>the overlap between 30 Elul 1 and 1 Tishrei 2. Tishrei yr 2
: >>overlap.

: I think there are some words missing in this sentence.

The second sentence fragmant was aborted, ignore it. My point is that
1 Tishrei was Shabbos, Adam was created Fri, 30 Elul, within the period
of time (or "time") in question.

That one day makes your posintion, IMHO, an off-by-one error.

The first full year is year 2 because someone didn't like the Seider
Olam's use of zero, and they wanted real time to begin with 1.

: No, that's the Seder Olam's calendar.  The one we use is 2 years ahead
: of that one, and on it the world was created on 25 Elul 0001, and Adam
: was created on 1 Tishri 0002.

To summarize my point:
Actually, 30 Elul 0001. 1 Tishrei is the 7th day if 25 Elul is the 1st,
Adam was created on the sixth.

Which explains the use of year 1, even if pre-Adamic time was only "time".

-mi

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

> I do not see allegorizing the Torah as a way of dealing with it. It is
> damaging the Torah to make it fit with science. If Torah is not revealed
> truth, that makes sense. But Torah is revealed truth so it is megaleh
> panim ba'Torah.

But "Truth" covers a wide range of domains -- something can be
"Spiritually" True or "Metaphysically True" without being physically true.

"God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a Spiritual Truth (i.e. God
was personally involved in creation) without the need for the narrative
to be an exact record of the physical process.

> No one is dismissing out of hand. You think when R' Akiva Eiger left
> something b'tzorich iyun he was dismissing them?!

No -- but that's NOT what you are doing. You are dismissing the issues
here.

Tzorich Iyun is a statement -- coming from humility -- recognizing the
limits of one's knowledge.

> If you mean other Avodah subscribers, that is correct. If you mean more
> substantive sources, it is not.

It has -- See RNS's post here today.

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

RNS:
>Unfortunately, as I think I may have mentioned already (I'm losing track!)
>none of these proposed solutions actually work. The reason is that
>even if the overall time span is solved, the events of the six days of
>Bereishis still cannot be correlated with the history of the universe
>that we know....

RYGB
>But to allegorize the Torah is unacceptable, as we have stated here
>time and again, and anyone who looks up REED inside (vol. 2. p. 151)
>will certainly see that it was not his intent to do so. He states only
>that *besides* the pshat there is also the remez or the sod...

Thanks for the citation. REED says concerning the first days of
creation 'we are like blind people being described sights.' 'since we
are physical, the Torah describes spiritual concepts in the terms of
the physical'

Sounds to me like allegory. If, due to the fossil record, we are not
'blind' to the first days of creation, then what should we expect to
see, according to REED? I would think the physical nimshal and not the
physical pshat which is trying to convey the spiritual nimshal.

Shlomo Goldstein

>In any case, I have indeed found a way to reconcile the pesukim with
>the fossil record, so there is no need to bleib shverr!

Your answer certainly does not give a ma'amin any great comfort. If it
works for you, so be it. If I was not frum and got your answer, I would
probably remain not-frum.

BTW, I spoke today with a respected scientist familiar with the fossil
record, and he said that seeing how there is no one location with a
complete fossil record, putting it together is sheer hypothesis, and
that therefore the record proves neither for nor against the Torah.

>I don't know who RYGB is referring to with the word "we," but I searched
>the archives and found a number of listmembers showing that it can indeed
>be acceptable, giving clear sources in Rambam and Rav Saadia Gaon. And
>this was regarding non-maase Bereishis material - kal v'chomer regarding
>maase Bereishis, the most esoteric part of the Torah.

Uh-uh. Check the archives again. The sources in the Rambam and RSG
were debatable, to say the least. I think the interpretation of my
interlocutors at the time was plain out wrong, but they were certainly
not unambiguous!

>Actually, I discussed this with Rav Aryeh Carmell shlita (Rav Dessler's
>talmid and the compiler of Michtav Me'Eliyahu) and he confirmed that this
>is exactly Rav Dessler's meaning...
>In other words, according to Rav Dessler, pshat (at least as far as
>maase Bereishis is concerned) is not a description of physical reality,
>but rather something that is easy to grasp. Later he gives another
>explanation as to the purpose of the "six day" account:

I would appreciate Rabbi Carmel's email address so we can get his input,
but I do not know that he is the last authority on REED's intent.
Vohs is shteit und geshriben is clear - you conveniently omitted the
Ramban that REED cites verbatim after the word "ability" and before the
word"In" in your translation! Who states quite clearly (and whom REED is
elucidating): "Know that the days mentioned in the activity of Creation
were in the Creation of Heaven and Earth literal days, made up of hours
and minutes, and that they were six like the six days of the work[week],
K'PESHUTO SHEL MIKRAH.

KT,
YGB

>"God created the Heavens and the Earth" is a Spiritual Truth (i.e. God
>was personally involved in creation) without the need for the narrative
>to be an exact record of the physical process.

If it is described as a physical process it is not spiritual.

>> No one is dismissing out of hand. You think when R' Akiva Eiger left
>> something b'tzorich iyun he was dismissing them?!

>No -- but that's NOT what you are doing. You are dismissing the issues
>here.

>Tzorich Iyun is a statement -- coming from humility -- recognizing the
>limits of one's knowledge.

I recognize the limits of my knowledge of the fossil record - I dealt
with this too elsewhere today.

YGB 

In a message dated 8/25/2004 7:03:21 AM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Our calendar simply says that Adam was born in year 1, rather than
> declaring Tishrei 1 to be year 1. It still says nothing about what came
> before Adam, and whether time as we know it existed yet -- never mind
> how much time.

> Molad tohu could very well be fictional. If one would take it as proof
> of anything, it would be proof that someone thought the moon existed a
> literal year before Adam got a soul. It would be proof of non-literalism.

> Or perhaps the name is proof of dual creation -- that there was time
> during the period of tohu, before the yetzirah as we know it.

Let me just add 2 cents bekitzuer:

The year 5765 is indeed based upon Seder Olam and is based upon Adam
Harishon linving 930 years.

AISI brias ha'olam was in Nissan
but 
Brias Adam Harishon was in Tishrei and that is why it is Yom Hadin..

As far as Hayom Haras Olam goes, Haras means conceived not necessarily
created. Ergo the universe was conceived in Tishre but physically
created in Nissan.

This dosn't fit the TB RH machlokes R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua 100% but
it actually works fairly well,. which means there is more work t do on
refining this model

Anf FWIW The likelyiehood of the first days being literally 24 hours
are unlikely due to the fact taht the Sun and the Moon wer not created
until day 4.

And as we know from Einstein that since time is realtive therefore it
is possible that from HKBH's perspective 6 days might be 6 billion human
years from the human perspective.

Bottom line, I DO take it seriously that 5765 represents the era of an
Adam with Dei'ah and dibbur; iow - a sentient human being using Star
Trek jargon <smile>.

ASISI the age of the physical universe is really unknowable in a precise
way from the Torah {and from science, too} and probably not significant.
The Torah is about the rfealtions of humans to HKBH, and while the
ma'aseh breishis is important background but not an ikkar to nail it
down the exact date...

Shana Tova
Rabbi Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/ 

R David Riceman wrote:
> We all know he's in terrible shape: he has no heilek in Olam HaBa and
> in Olam HaZeh he has the status of moridin v'lo maalin.
> My question, however, is: has he commited any issurim?

Can we, or the Rambam, entertain the possibility that the Dayan haEmes
can mete out punishment for something that isn't both an issur and
identified by Him as such?

-mi

hlampel@thejnet.com wrote:
> This is similar to proposing that (as far as earthlings are concerned)
> Hashem sped up the rate of natural processes so that what would
> "naturally" take billions of years to happen, occurred in 24 hours....

RnTK posted similarly.

However, what does "billions of years" mean? Isn't a length of time
measured by how much change it allows to occur? A second can be defined
in terms of a number of waves of light of a particular color passing
a single point, or in terms of astronomy, or in terms of geology, or
nuclear decay, or...

The rate of time passing is always 1 minute per minute. One can't speed
up the rate of time. One can speed up the rate of one physical process
in relation to another. But the speeds only have meaning relative to
eachother. The notion of all natural processes being sped up by the same
factor is meaningless.

For that matter, the brains of any conscious beings (if there had been
any) would have run at the same relative speed. There is nothing different
for them to perceive.

They aren't, as RnTK "functionally equivalent". They are exactly
identical, the same thing.

And we didn't even yet add in relativity, and the idea that a
duration of time differs based on one'sframe of reference (velocity and
gravity/acceleration relative to another frame). As Dr Schroeder notes,
6 days in one frame can be 15 billion years in another.

As I mentioned in the past, R' Dr Morris Engelson, our chaveir R' Shlomo
Argoman's father, went through the math of Dr Schroeder's theory. Current
theories about the mass-energy density at which the various particles
become distinct match time dilation of exactly this scale. Both values
are currently estimated ranges, but the solution for the range of energy
density greatly overlaps the range of time dilations. The universe would
experience roughly 15 billion years whereas a frame of reference without
the gravity caused by that mass would experience 6 days.

-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: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 18:22 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> In his book "The Rhythms of Jewish Living: A Sephardic Exploration of the
> Basic Teachings of Judaism" R' Marc Angel argues that this is something
> Ashkenazim assimilated from Xianity. And that Sepharadim are much more
> in tune with the natural cycles (annual, daily, etc...) and better live
> the notion that Yahadus is all of life rather than beis medrash and beis
> kenesses centered. That undo Ashkenazi Synagogue centrality is a side
> effect of living amongst people who think in terms of cathedrals.

interesting note, I've recently been told by a female friend of mine
that the spanish portuguese shul has a WTG where the women lein, so it
would seem that this "need" even hits the sephardi world.

[I think RSP assumes we all know that RMA is the rabbi of the Spanish-
Portugese Shul in Manhattan. -mi]

In a message dated 8/19/2004 5:04:47 PM EDT, kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> I just wanted to bring this to everyone's attention. The next time
> you see a word or term and you are confused about it being used in a
> non-literal sense, think back to this conversation, and remember that
> meanings often change according to the context and situation. If "ayin
> tachas ayin" seems to be an odd way to phrase financial penalties,
> perhaps it is only because we are so far removed from it, in so many
> different ways.

Gut gezogt
and bein einecha might not literally mean between the eyes but when you
put the tefillin shel rosh on your head it should be between your eyes

Also see uvishalta v'achalta, sometimes bishul might mean tzliya... 

K'siva vaChasima Tova!
R. Rich Wolpoe
http://RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com/

Shaya Potter wrote:
>Is there a chiyuv for a man to daven w/ a minyan or is it just "better".
>i.e. one can't do certain things w/o a minyan, but is that a chiyuv on
>the individual?

Rav Moshe Feinstein holds it is a chiyuv even though the Shulchan Aruch
uses the word "yish'tadel".
I briefly discuss this in my next Jewish Action article that should be
out shortly

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


[ 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         ]