Avodah Mailing List

Volume 14 : Number 059

Tuesday, January 18 2005

• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Chartumim
• Re:chartumim
• Re: Torah and Science
• chadash
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping?
• How dark was the Choshech really?
• Palginin dibura
• Re: Calendar
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping?
• Chartumim
• Re: How dark was the Choshech really?
• Re: kissing tzizis
• Re: kissing tzizis
• Mitzvos don't punish for sinning
• Missing Maharam Shik
• Re: standing for kaddish
• Re: Torah and Science
• Re: Association of Positive Mitzvot with Days of Year?
• Re: Tzofnas Pa'aneach? Kamatz Rachav!
• Re: Chartumim
• Re: Why Are You Sleeping?

RMB wrote:
> As already posted, Rashi seems to say that the spring equinox must be
> in either Adar II or the first half of Nissan. Rashi and Tosafos debate
> the viability of it being on the 15th of Nissan.
> So, the first time the equinox drifts into Adar in a shanah she'einah
> me'uberes, the calendar failed.

I don't see how this can be. Statistically, the vernal equinox will fall
out in the first half of the lunar month (between the new moon and the
full moon) half of the time, and in the second half of the lunar month
(between the full moon and the new moon) half of the time. This is a
fact, and is independent of any calendar system.

If RMB's understanding of Rashi is correct, then 50% of years would have
to be shanim me`ubarot. Since in fact, only 7 out of 19 years are shanim
me`ubarot, our calendar would be inherently doomed to frequent failure.

Instead, I would suggest understanding Rashi's statement of the
requirement that the equinox be "be-tokh 14 yom le-molad ha-levanah"
as extending in BOTH the forward and backward directions. This reflects
how the calendar is actually supposed to work. Whenever the equinox is
in the first half of the lunar month, that month is Nisan. Whenever the
equinox is in the second half of the lunar month, that month is Adar.
Sometimes, though not always, an extra month will need to be added in
order to make this be the case.

Our system accomplished this perfectly 1,700 years ago. As I mentioned
in my last post, due to the drift that has happened since then,
we now experience occasional "failure" in the form of "unnecessary"
shanim me`ubarot such as this year, 5765. This year will not meet the
requirement stated by Rashi, since the equinox will be MORE than 14 days
before Rosh Chodesh Nisan.

 -D.C.

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 09:13:40PM -0500, David Cohen wrote:
: I don't see how this can be. Statistically, the vernal equinox will fall
: out in the first half of the lunar month (between the new moon and the
: full moon) half of the time, and in the second half of the lunar month
: (between the full moon and the new moon) half of the time...

"Statistically"? It's not random.

Besides, being in the end of Adar or Adar II would also be fine, as I
understood Rashi.

-mi

RTK wrote:
> One of my hobbies is "collecting" words in Chumash that are not Hebrew.
> Some are CLEARLY not Hebrew, like Yegar Sa'hadusa or Tzofnas Pa'anei'ach.
> But others are merely questionable

One of my hobbies is finding words that are pronounced wrong and
correcting them! Start with Yissachar (not Yisaschar as is getting
popular in Israel)

Then take all the words like Osnat, Tzorfat, Tzofnat, Bosmat - all wrong!

In every case the kamatz is rachav as can be seen from the meteg or
ta'am on the first letter. So even for those who pronounce kamatz as
'o' (Temanim and Ashkenazim) there should still be a sh'va na under
the second letter. (Oh and it's pronounced Ge-r(e)-shom - not Gershom.
The sh'va is na as it follows a tzere which is a t'nua g'dola, and it
even has a meteg, just so you can't possibly mistake it.

So that's my rant for the day - and by the way I've arrived in NY for
a year at YU, so you've lost your New Zealand contact sorry :-)

Jonathan Cohen, jcoh003@yahoo.com

I just by chance came across an articel of which I was not aware in my
previous post, Grabbe, L.L., "The Jannes/Jambrus Tradition in Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan and its Date," Journal of Biblical Literature, 98/3
(1979), pp. 393-401 . Here's a link.

<http://tinyurl.com/57ss5> [From Journal of Biblical Literature. -mi]

M. Levin

R Saul Mashbaum wrote:
>              The chartumim, whose names were Yonos and Yombros,
> instigated the creation of the golden calf....
> The Zohar states that  Yonos and Yombros were the sons of Bilam.

This tickles my curiosity about the dual Midian problem. Moshe Rabbeinu
goes to Midian and there meets Tzipporah, somewhere in Africa near
Mitzrayim. Yet he also enters Midian, right next door to Moav somewhere
in contemporary Jordan.

Now look at these two descriptions of Yonos and Yombros. One places them
somewhere near Khartoum, Sudan, the other places their father as someone
killed in the battle of Midian!

:-)BBii!
 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Please see <http://www.dovidgottlieb.com/comments/AGEOFTHEUNIVERSE.htm>

Alexander Seinfeld 

Does anyone know the policy of the major US kashrut organizations about
using chadash in bread & cookies. We know of the disagreement of the
level of issur of chadash outside of Israel. The question is the stance
of modern kashrut organizations.

There is a further problem that grain is stored in silos. Once the silo
has chadash grain it is almost impossible to clean it to the extent that
there is no chadash mixed with the present yashan grain. Since yashan
is :davar she-yesh bo matirin" by waiting long enough it is not clear
if batel be-shishim applies.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> It is an accepted part of Yiddishkeit that people suffer for the sins
> of others.

"Ishe bechet'o yumas!" Look at Rashi on "Poqeid avon avos" -- the
descendents are punished for the chata'im they themselves carry on from
their avos. (When this applies and when tinoq shenishba style thinking
does is an open question for me.)

> Jews are punished for not stopping others Jews from sinning Avos (6:2)

This is like Shekhem's guilt in passively complying to Chamor's outragous
behavior. Isn't this an example of punishment for one's own sins?

But more to the point, why do you assume that punishments have a single
cause? Din requires that the person deserved the onesh (or at least
needed the nisayon / yisurim) on their own right.

Perhaps I'm reading to much into RDE's words. I would agree to "It is
an accepted part of Yahadus that every event has significance for every
person that experiences it, no matter how indirectly, and to that other
must relate to that other's sin(s)."

> Therefore It would seem reasonable than that any suffering should cause
> reflection and repentance. The question is whether it is important to
> try an ascertain the specific sin which is causing the suffering or
> whether suffer should be taken as a Divine message to repent.

To me the question is how one can think it's possible to know Divine
Motivation. We can know one piece: Hashem's illiciting a response, and
identifying that response must be within human ken -- for otherwise how
would we know to make it? But we can never know all the causes and Divine
Motivations, and therefore we can never identify any of them with any
certainty. A significant part of that is that we don't know the hasaras
hamonei'ah, why this avaryan suffered while others do not.

:-)BBii!
 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
micha@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

The Ibn Ezra writes on Shemos 10:22, regarding the plague of darkness:
    They didn't know that it was three days, except according to Yisrael,
    who did have light. Behold, on the Yam Okinos, a thick darkness comes,
    such that a person cannot distinguish between day and night. It stays
    like that sometimes for five days, and I have been there many times.

It sounds to me like he is describing a very thick fog. Further, by
pointing out that he has personally been there, it sounds to me like he
is trying to convince us that he is not exaggerating, and that he wants
to be taken literally.

But I cannot imagine such a thing. I can imagine a fog which makes
things so dark that I think it might be *evening*, but how would I
think that it might be *night*? In any case, even if I do think that
it is night, a few hours from now, I will realize the error, and say
"NOW it is really night", and then a few hours later I'll say "Well,
it is still very dark, but not as dark as it was six hours ago, so I'll
bet that it is daytime now."

What do others think? Was he exaggerating, or what?

There's a similar situation in Hilchos Shabbos, where the sky was so
dark on Erev Shabbos that the shul thought it was night, so they davened
maariv, and then the clouds parted and they saw they were in error. So the
question is whether their acceptance of Shabbos was in error, such that
they might do more melacha. But I think that situation is most easily
explained in terms of a community which used the zmanim of the Geonim,
and not the zmanim of Rabenu Tam. They didn't confuse day with night,
but they merely confused day with twilight. I really find it hard to
imagine a fog (or eclipse) so dark that the sun could actually be above
the horizon, yet people would entertain the possibility that it might
actually be midnight.

Akiva Miller

Areivim somehow got to the subject of ein adam meisim atzmo rasha.
I wrote, as an addendum to my original point defining EAMAR:
> Qerovim can't testify against eachother either, and there is no qarov
> closer than oneself! (And by "can't testify" I again mean: we ignore
> any such statement or implication in any testimony.)

REMT corrected me privately. He showed me the Raavad, as he is
quoted by the Rosh at the end of "Keitzad haEidim" (Makos pereq 1).
According to the Raavad, we do not say palginan dibura when qerovim
testify, because eidus shebatlah miqtzasah batlah qulah. Therefore,
none of the eidus is accepted, even that not relating to relatives.

Palginan dibura is only WRT oneself.

IOW, the Raavad has a basic difference in sevara between the two cases:
A qarov is a non-kosher witness. The person himself is a non-witness.

Adam qarov eitzel atzmo does not mean what I thought.

Major thanks to REMT.

As for dinei mamanus, RHM replied:
> We allow self incriminatory testimony in monetary matters. We allow a
> person to say he was Posheiah as a Shomer and thereby obligate himself
> to payment. This is self incriminating but it is quite clear that we
> accept his testimony.

Not what I meant by inciminating; I was thinking more of the person
being labaled an avaryan. I was thinking of someone who admitted to
geneivah. Palginan dibura: he owes the money, but we don't brand him
a ganav.

I would think that this ability to create a debt for himself is related
to shava alei chatikha de'issura. In both cases we're letting the person
deny himself something.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced, with a decision, ask yourself,
micha@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Russell Levy <russlevy@gmail.com> wrote:
> This year is the 8th year of the 19th year cycle, which is the "latest"
> possible year of the cycle.

A quick check shows that the 8th year appears to be no 'later' than the
19th year.

> This year has cheshvan as maleh, and kislev
> as chaser, so there's only one other possible year-type that is longer,
> and it would be by one day.

This is not possible. If Kislev is short, as it was this year, then the
previous month must also be short, as indeed it was. This year has 383
days; it is possible for a leap year to have 384 or 385.

> This year, the 20th of March is 9 Addar II,
> which means the absolute earliest (until 2100, when we have another switch
> in the calendar) that 20th of March can fall is 8 Addar 2. Which would
> mean we have another 7 days to lose until we have a problem. I _think_
> Rav Ada's calculation is off by 7 days today, which would mean we are
> (approximately) half way until the calendar fails.

The Jewish year is too long, not too short, which means Pesach is
getting later, not earlier. So there's no problem, at least until it
starts falling in summer. The idea that Pesach must be in the *first*
month after the spring equinox is refuted by the fact that bizman
habayit they would extend the year not just for the equinox, but also
for the weather, the lambing season, or the barley growth, which means
that they would deliberately schedule Pesach more than a month after
the equinox. (Indeed, Karaites reject the whole idea of adding a
month for the equinox, or for any reason *except* the barley growth,
which is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. Tshb"p adds other reasons,
including the equinox, but let's not make the added reasons greater than
the explicit one (unless we have an explicit Tshb"p source for doing so,
of course)).

-- 
Zev Sero
zev@sero.name

[RZS, see the Rashi we're debating before assuming it needn't be in the
first month. -mi]

Micha Berger wrote:
>R Daniel Eidensohn wrote:

>>It is an accepted part of Yiddishkeit that people suffer for the sins
>>of others.

>"Ishe bechet'o yumas!" Look at Rashi on "Poqeid avon avos" -- the
>descendents are punished for the chata'im they themselves carry on from
>their avos. (When this applies and when tinoq shenishba style thinking
>does is an open question for me.)

I have been attempting to show that the standard sources indicate
is that sin is the cause of suffering. Your citation of Rashi - does
not explain the gemoros which clearly state that a person suffers for
the sins of others. I don't have a way of reconciliation the apparent
contradictions.The Ramban's analysis in Shaar HaGemul indicates the
issue is an unresolved dispute. Just look at Berachos 7a and Shabbos 55a.

As the Ramchal notes in his discourse on Agada:

    Our Sages have used various methods to conceal the true meaning
    of theological statements. One technique is the use of metaphor and
    parable...A second method of concealment is refraining from mentioning
    that the statement is true only under certain limited conditions. In
    other words, the statement is presented as an absolute one when
    in fact it is true only in certain specific circumstances of time,
    conditions or place. Whoever takes the statement as absolute will
    fall into error. Thus, there are many statements of our Sages which
    seem to contradict each other. That is only because the parameters
    of when they are true have not been made explicit. However, those
    who know their parameters will find them all to be true without any
    inconsistency. This is true not only for Agada but also in the realm
    of Halacha -- even though it was not intent of the Sages to conceal
    the Halacha. Nevertheless, there are many absolute statements
    concerning Halacha found in the Talmud and which appear to be
    inconsistent and contradictory. However, the Talmud itself explains
    the parameters of each of these Halachic statements by comments
    such as "What are the parameters of this Halacha?" The Talmud thus
    establishes the exact circumstances for all these apparently absolute
    statement -- which are really conditional. Once the parameters are
    specified they all are correct and meaningful.

>But more to the point, why do you assume that punishments have a single
>cause? Din requires that the person deserved the onesh (or at least
>needed the nisayon / yisurim) on their own right.

I am not assuming - but it is clearly indicated in the gemora and
especially the Beis Elokim. You have yet to explain the many sources
that I have cited which are inconsistent with your view.

We are at this point just talking past each other. On a practical level I
would agree that it is difficult to implement what the sources indicate. I
have just been presenting what the sources say to do without trying to
justify them.

Daniel Eidensohn

[Micha:]
> This tickles my curiosity about the dual Midian problem. Moshe Rabbeinu
> goes to Midian and there meets Tzipporah, somewhere in Africa near
> Mitzrayim. Yet he also enters Midian, right next door to Moav somewhere
> in contemporary Jordan.
> Now look at these two descriptions of Yonos and Yombros. One places them
> somewhere near Khartoum, Sudan, the other places their father as someone
> killed in the battle of Midian!

A very good point. This might also be related to the question of who is
a worthy opponent to Moshe Rabbeinu and whether already in the beginning
of his career he contended only with the local forces of impurity or
with the forces of the world.

In fact, midianites appear to have settled on both sides of the Gulf
of Aqqabah, as you point out. This is discussed in Atlas Daas Mikra
on the entry Mdian. As nomadic people they ranged widely, as also did
Bnei Ishmael.

M. Levin

From: <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> But I cannot imagine such a thing. I can imagine a fog which makes
> things so dark that I think it might be *evening*, but how would I
> think that it might be *night*?

Perhaps someone from London will respond. My guess is that it was at its
worst in the nineteenth century because of particulates caused by mass
burning of coal, but Dicken's descriptions of London fog seem similar
to Ibn Ezra's.

David Riceman 

>Although I as well never found a halachic source for kissing tzizis
>specifically at the mention of the word, 

As I posted a week ago, the source is the Kitzur SA 17:7.

"..collect your Tzizis at "m'Arba Kanfos" and kiss them 3 times at the
words Tzizis."

Since the Kitzur rarely - if ever - invents halachos, I'm sure you can
find a source in the SA. I don't have one at work, and the MB doesn't
seem to mention it.

All I found was the RMO in 24:4: "Some kiss them when looking at them -
Chivuv mitzva (B"Y)." My guess is that the BY will talk about it.

- Danny

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 10:13:00 +0100, Schoemann, Danny (Danny)** CTR **
<schoemann@lucent.com> wrote:
> Since the Kitzur rarely - if ever - invents halachos, I'm sure you can
> find a source in the SA.

MA brings it beshem kitve ha'ari in Siman 24 Seif 2 Seif Katan 1, and
the Kaf HaHayyim (Seif Katan 8) quotes the source at length from Sha'ar
Hakavanot Drush Kiryat Shema 27b, plus a bunch of other Aharonim.

Just came across an interesting comment on a famous Rambam. The Rambam 
is asserting that a person will not suffer as a consequence of his 
keeping of mitzvos -- nor will others. It has been suggested that this 
might be an ethical basis of saving a non-Jew -- which Rav Soloveitchik 
indicated was needed. Mitzvos can not be the direct or indirect cause 
for causing suffering.

Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 2:3):
    When it is necessary to violate the prohibition of Shabbos to save a
    life, the violations should not be done by non-Jews, children, slaves
    or women so that it shouldn't be viewed as a minor thing. Rather
    the life-saving violations should be done by the great sages and
    leaders. Furthermore it is prohibited to hesitate in these life-saving
    violations since it is stated in Vayikra (18:5): You shall keep the
    Torah laws so that a person lives in them. That means the Torah should
    be a source of life not death. We learn from this that the laws of the
    Torah should not be vengeance in the world but mercy and kindness...

Rav Issar Zalman Meltzer(Hilchos Shabbos 2:3):
    The words of the Rambam require clarification. It seems that his
    intent relates to Bava Kamma (85a) which states the need for specific
    Torah permission to cure the sick. That is because one might think
    that since G-d caused the person's illness, medical treatment is
    against G-d's will. In other words, since the sickness is punishment
    for the person's sins it is prohibited to profane Shabbos to save his
    life. That would mean that Shabbos itself is viewed as an instrument
    of punishing the person for his sins. Therefore the Ramban states
    that we learn [from Vayikra 18:5] that it is impossible that the
    laws of the Torah should be an instrument of punishment" even if the
    person deserves it. The language of vengeance alludes to punishment
    as we have noted in Hilchos Shabbos (8:5).

Daniel Eidensohn

Someone I'm doing research for has the following question:

I have seen references to a story that is supposed to appear in
the introduction to Shu"t Hamaharam Shik, but cannot find the story
there. The story is about Maharam Shik's daughter going to the cemetery
while in nida. Does anyone know the source?

Kol Tuv,
Shalom Berger

> The one saying the kaddish is functioning as a shaliach tzibbur.
> As such, k'vod hatzibbur dictates that he should stand, as does every
> shaliach tzibbur.

[Micha:]
> Qaddish is a davar shebiqdushah, which is why it requires a minyan.
> We always stand for a davar shebiqdushah.

In a message dated 1/8/2005 10:13:24pm EST, remt@juno.com writes:
> If this is intended as an explanation for why the one saying kaddish
> should stand, agreed. If for the kahal, it is not only not a reason,
> the halacha itself is not that they must stand. Current custom
> notwithstanding, the din is that one need not stand for kaddish; the
> only requirement is that if he is standing when kaddish is begun, he
> should not sit down.

Indeed, this is the position of the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 35:6

Kol Tuv,
R. Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@alumnimail.yu.edu

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:52:18PM +0000, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
:> The Ralbag takes this position because he doesn't believe in lema'alah
:> min hateva nisim.

: Could you please clarify this? Does the Ralbag hold that G-d *wouldn't*
: do a nes which is l'maaleh min hateva (which I hope is what he meant)? Or
: does the Ralbag hold that G-d *can't* do a nes which is l'maaleh min
: hateva (which is incomprehensible to me)?

The Ralbag, IIUC, holds that the need for violations of teva would imply
either a flaw in HQBH's creation of teva or a change of His Mind between
creating teva and the neis. Since neither is admissable, he rules out
lemaalah min hateva.

This is why other rishonim speak of the lemaalah min hateva being written
into teva, not an exception from the rule, but a unique circumstance
written into it. I do not know why the Ralbag considers this answer
insufficient.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 09:13:40PM -0500, David Cohen wrote:
: I don't see how this can be. Statistically, the vernal equinox will fall
: out in the first half of the lunar month (between the new moon and the
: full moon) half of the time, and in the second half of the lunar month
: (between the full moon and the new moon) half of the time. This is a
: fact, and is independent of any calendar system.

Why? The equinox loses only 11 days every non-leap year, not
15. Therefore, once you get the equinox close to Pesach, it would take
two years for it to reach the end of the month.

-mi

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 03:51:47PM -0800, Jonathan Cohen wrote:
: Then take all the words like Osnat, Tzorfat, Tzofnat, Bosmat - all wrong!

Are Osenat or Tzofenas Hebrew? How closely does Mitzri follow Hebrew's
rules for sheva?

-mi

On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 10:07:25AM -0500, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
: In fact, midianites appear to have settled on both sides of the Gulf
: of Aqqabah, as you point out. This is discussed in Atlas Daas Mikra
: on the entry Mdian. As nomadic people they ranged widely, as also did
: Bnei Ishmael.

Also the Keini. Their forefather settled in Midian (Keini was Yisro).
However, they were living amongst the Amaleiqi in Shaul's day and are
among the 10 amim (along with the 7 amim of Kenaan, the Kenizi and
Qadmoni) whose land mashiach will settle.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507      

On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:52:44PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I have been attempting to show that the standard sources indicate
: is that sin is the cause of suffering...

I agree with that -- and moreso, I believe that there is no suffering
except for those justified by a person's own sins.

However, I am following RYBS in asserting that we could never know what
the particular sin is, why one person's sin gets punished and another
does not, etc... Therefore this knowledge was meant as anything but a
theoretical statement. There are simply too many factors and too many
cause; man can't know the mind of G-d.

When the situation is complicated, e.g. trying to figure out the orbit of
the moon, knowing that the orbit must conform to the laws of gravity (F =
G m1 m2 / r^2) doesn't tell us what the orbit should be. Similarly here,
we know the law, but only the Mind of G-d can follow it through to all
its implications. Tzadiq vera lo will always be an unsanswerable mystery,
as Chazal explain "lo yir'ani adam vachai".

Subscribing to tziduq hadin makes no dent in tzadiq vera lo, rasha vetov
lo. Chazal couldn't resolve it, despite all you sources, and of course
neither can we. As I cited besheim R' Love, and implied by your quote
besheim the Ramchal -- Chazal don't give us the tools to answer these
questions, merely the tools to grapple with them.

Also, I am following RYBS that while a person's own failings must be
sufficient to explain their suffering, no man is an island. And because
their experience of tragedy impacts others, one needs to explain the
justification of their tragedy as experienced by others.

Therefore, again as RYBS writes, it's not for ask to expect to answer the
question "Why?" but neither can we desist from grappling with it. In the
confrontation we relate with G-d. The question Judaism does answer for
us is "How should I respond?" -- which is how RYBS explains yefashpeish
bema'asav.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
micha@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

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


[ 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         ]