Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 430

Mon, 22 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: women lighting candles (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: chanukah candles and women (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: women lighting candles (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: women lighting candles (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: women lighting candles (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: women lighting candles (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Only One Interpretation, The Right One - (Was Did RSRH write LH) (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Chevra Kadisha Fast Day today, 15 Kislev (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: women lighting candles (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 15. nittel questions (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 16. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: chanukah candles and women (Moshe Feldman)

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 12:22:21AM -0500, R Zev Sero wrote:
: Rn Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:
:> There were no pregnancy tests at that time - she could have strongly 
:> suspected a pregnancy but wouldn't have known for sure until she was 
:> showing.

: Yes, but why wait for pregnancy at all?  Surely if her goal was to get
: Yehudah to marry her, her best shot would have been to go straight to
: him and confront him with the signs that he had given her, and force
: him to consider his options.  That way she would have the advantage,
: and if he agreed to marry her nobody would ever have to know what had
: happened.

What state was Yehudah in at the time? He married a bas Kenaani, despite
family norms since Avraham and (presumably) knowing how much agmas nefesh
Esav's Kenaani bride caused Yitzchaq and Rivqa. He led the group when
it came to killing Yoseif. Not the high point of Yehudah's spiritual
life. Was Tamar necessarily certain she would be heard if Yehudah wasn't
presented a fate accompli? And how many Bronze Era Middle-Easterners would
have given 2 perutos for the word of a woman -- one accused of harlotry,
no less -- against that of her prestigious father-in-law?

I think this cultural background is an important part of understanding
the extent to which Tamar was willing to risk herself to save Yehudah's
esteem.


A thought hit me during Qabbalas Shabbos this week, a bit of "Chassidishe
Torah" with a mussar message.

A number of RYS stories are about his unwillingness to be machmir at the
expense of others. (And a number are about his punctilious and strict
observance when not at their expense.) Be it the most important chumrah
in baking matzos (don't overwork the almanos who labor in the bakery)
or washing his hands for hamotzi with a minimum of water or his rushing
through Friday night dinner (both cases he saw the effort of the serving
woman), or...

Perhaps a good mnemonic for this is "Tzadiq kaTAMAR yifrach". A tzadiq
flowers like Tamar -- taking care not to act at the expense of someone
else.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 
 
From: "Ilana Sober Elzufon" _ilanasober@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:ilanaso...@gmail.com) 


>>Did Yosef really HAVE to accuse the
brothers of being spies,  hide the payment in the sacks of grain,
mysteriously seat them in order of  age, plant the cup with Binyamin and have
his men dramatically discover it,  etc?<<





>>>>>
He had to do all that in order to 1. find out if  the brothers were sorry 2. 
induce them to do teshuva 3. make sure the teshuva  was perfect -- perfect 
teshuva being that if you are in the same situation  again, this time you don't 
do the sin and 4. give them enough tza'ar that they  would have kapara in this 
world and not have to be punished b'yedei Shamayim in  this world or the next.




--Toby Katz
=============
"If you  don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper  you are misinformed."
--Mark Twain

Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 




--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/1591df42/attachment-0001.htm>

Rich, Joel wrote:
 
>> Reb Yitshak's  <cele...@gmail.com <mailto:cele...@gmail.com>> 
>> arguements in favor of Kiblu Alaihu are correct.  But to the best of 
>> my understanding, Kiblu Alaihu would work only in money matters - not

>> in dinei Nefashot, Geirut or gittin, Halitsa etc..  Is that correct?

> I would assume so in the "normal" application, yet those who see the 
> source of dina dmalchuta as being from the consent of the governed 
> (similar to malchut) would seem to have a much broader scope of 
> "kiblu" and this would better fit with those who explain Devora based 
> on kiblu?

How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
"Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot, and every single example of
DdMD is about determini

-- 
Zev Sero      
=======================================
And you understand the power of the ruler of a country (e.g. King) to
conscript an army, kill rebels etc... As based on?
KT
Joel Rich         
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

>
> In answer to your assertion that "we do pasken that women are required" a
> simple look around at all chareidi homes and chassidishe homes and most
> Litvishe homes will show you that women do not light their own menorahs when
> their husbands are present, and if you are trying to claim that chareidim
> don't know halacha I don't know what else to say.
>

I say that the evidence that women should not light their own candles
is not exactly
overwhelming.  I would even suggest that much of the stress on their
not lighting
is anti-feminism more than strict halacha. A similar phenomena occurs in zimmun.
many poskim agree that 3 women together should make a zimmun. Nevertheless this
rarely occrs especially in chassidishe and litvishe homes more for reaons of
anti-feminism than strict halacha

Therefore I am deeply bothered by suggestions that those who advocate
these issues
are radical leftists. RYBS and RAL are not radical leftists and after
deeply considering
the issue suggest that women should light their own candles. As with many issues
there are other viewpoints


-- 
Eli Turkel

>
>>> I still  do not understand why wives generally do not light chanukah candles
>>> according  to the Ashkenazi custom that each person lights separately....
>
> According to the Chasam Sofer (Shabbos 21b: Vehamehadrin) [1] the
> reason is, that since the original Mitzva was to light outdoors,
> therefore women did not light Chanuka candles unless they had no other
> choice, because of "Kol Kevudoh... Pnima. As a result, the
> Mehadrin-min-Hamehadrin never included the women.

However, the gemara already recognizes that people on the second floor light
on their level and in dangeous times on their table. So why shouldn't
women in those cases light lechatchila.
Besides it seems strange that if women are required to light that we exempt them
on the grounds of kol kevoda ...  Did women never leave the house even to the
immediate outside in the days of chazal?

>
>>> 2. If  ishto kegufo why can't the wife light even lechachtila for the husband
>
> See above. But who says she cannot? See MB 675:3 (9) that a husband
> may appoint the wife to light for all present. He doesn't say it's not
> Lechachtila .

>>>  and why if he is absent does he need to appoint her as a shaliach?
>  See ibid, as well as the KSA 139:16 and SA OC 677:3 which do not mention this.
> Only if the husband is home is shlichus mentioned.

the Magen Avraham says that if the husband comes late he should appoint
his wife to light instead. However, it is preferable for the husband to light
himself because better to do it yourself than through a shaliach.
Why? The wife lighting is like his lighting ishto kegufo

Somehow things are not symmetrical. She shouldn't light because she is
like his body. However, it is better that he light rather than the
wife who would
only be a shaliach

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
In a message dated 12/22/2008, elitur...@gmail.com writes:

RET:  I would even suggest that much of the stress on their
not  lighting is anti-feminism more than strict halacha. 
 
TK:  "Anti-feminist" for hundreds of years before there was any such  thing 
as a feminist movement?!
 
 

RET:  >> RYBS and RAL are not radical leftists and after  deeply considering 
the issue suggest that women should light their own  candles. As with many 
issues there are other viewpoints <<


--  
Eli Turkel

>>>>>
It's just a funny coincidence that this serious new  consideration should 
have just happened to come along in America in the 20th  century.  It reminds me 
of another funny coincidence, a shidduch that was  once suggested to me, at a 
time when many young men were growing their hair  very long, and by 
coincidence, this particular young man had decided to become a  nazir and grow a 
ponytail.  It was just a chance thing that  he happened to want to be a nazir, and 
that he studied these strangely  neglected halachos just then when the play 
"Hair" was so popular on  Broadway, but to suggest that his wanting to be a nazir 
had anything to do with  the zeitgeist would surely do him an injustice.  
Right.
 
 
 
As for women and Chanuka, I note in a Chabad pamphlet that somebody gave my  
husband -- and there is something similar in Sefer Hatoda'ah -- that women  
benefited even more from the nes Chanuka than the men did, and it's a special  
holiday for women -- but nobody suggests that therefore women should light 
their  own menorahs -- neither the Rebbe nor Sefer Hatoda'ah suggest that.   
Instead they say that women should refrain from doing melacha while the candles  
are burning.   (I assume that cooking is exempted from this minhag, as  on yom 
tov.)
 
BTW it happens that there is a [slight] link between the recent "Dinah"  
thread here and Chanuka being a special holiday for women -- although the Chabad  
pamphlet doesn't mention it.  (The pamphlet just says -- it's in Hebrew, so  
this is a rough translation -- "the meaning and content of the Chanuka candles  
penetrate davka the hearts of women, to the point where they refrain from 
work  and progress in the spiritual light of Chanuka.")  The slight "Dinah"  
connection is that when the Greeks ruled E'Y they exercised the droit du  seigneur 
and the rulers claimed the "right of the first night"  -- helping  themselves 
to every bride on her wedding night -- so that the women suffered  even more 
than the men and their rescue and salvation in the nes Chanuka came as  an 
even greater relief and joy to the women than to the men for that  reason.
 
But nobody actually tells girls in school any of that, TTBOMK.   Sometimes 
they say it's a special holiday for women because Yehudis killed the  Greek 
general (Holifernes?  -- my memory is getting fuzzy).  There was  a a Dinah 
connection there too but they don't talk about that in the girls'  schools either.

 


--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't  read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed."
--Mark Twain

Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 




--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom4
0vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/2831264d/attachment-0001.htm>

<<As for women and Chanuka, I note in a Chabad pamphlet that somebody
gave my husband -- and there is something similar in Sefer Hatoda'ah
-- that women benefited even more from the nes Chanuka than the men
did, and it's a special holiday for women -- but nobody suggests that
therefore women should light their own menorahs >>

Women are obligated in chanukah candles - "she af hen hayu be-oto
ha-nes" . Rashi suggest that they are obligated
because they had a special part in the miracle through Yehudit and
Chana. I heard from R. Meidan that sefer
Makabim mentions that women were especially careful that the sons
should have a brit milah.

Again RYBS and RAL do indeed suggest that married women do light their
own menorahs. Others suggest that
at least single women light chanukkah candles

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:00:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 1. Is there any other mirzva where we apply ishto kegufo?
: Certainly a woman can shake a lulav with a beracha (Ramah) even though
: her husband already did it

Is there any other mitzvah where we argue the details of mehadrin min
hamehadrin? You're comparing it to lulav, where the question is basic
fulfillment.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:37:37PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: In today's Huffington Post, there is an article, "Religious Enough for You?
: Women Light the Holiday," by Leora Tanenbaum. She makes an impassioned plea
: for Orthodox women to take control of their own lives and light Chanuka
: candles.

Then RDS being the CS to explain why how the mehadrin lemehadrin couldn't
have ever intended to include women who could have men light for them --
kol kevudah would limit the value of women lighting neiros outside.

After that, I failed to see new points being raised, just the same "new
feminist 'chumrah'" vs "the norm defies the codification of the din"
reiterated. Both appear to be true. We have many innovations proposed
to conform to new egalitarian sensibilities, as well as many new chumros
that simply ignore the din as historical pesaq.

The most one can make from this exchange is that if someone sits down
with her poseiq and realizes that her motivation matches Ms Tananbaum's,
she should rely on the general heter since she isn't looking for increased
avodas Hashem. However, if she really is from a textualist mileau, she is
just as likely to be motivated by the Brisker chumrah as her husband's
choice not to rely on the local eiruv. For her to (RnTK doesn't raise
the same argument WRT talmidei RYBS who don't carry...) I see RET's
argument that to ignore that positive motivation for the sake of blind
anti-feminism is also problematic and for the very same reasons. Although
I'm not sure it's as big of a problem, as the anti-feminism is from a
desire to preserve Sinai culture.

It would need to be an individual decision, after much introspection. As
should any other decision to be machmir. Although here the issue is a
desire for egalitarianism, whereas usually it's yuhara.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 01:50:44PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: He had to do all that in order to 1. find out if the brothers were sorry 2.
: induce them to do teshuva 3. make sure the teshuva was perfect -- perfect
: teshuva being that if you are in the same situation again, this time you don't
: do the sin and 4. give them enough tza'ar that they would have kapara in this
: world and not have to be punished b'yedei Shamayim in this world or the next.

But according to the medrash that links the harugei malkhus to the sale
of Yoseif (and not just as an excuse proposed by the governor), it would
seem that Yoseif's grand plan failed. There was remaining guilt, and a
skewed perception that was taught down the generations until it needed
removal in the days of churban bayis sheini and of Bar Kochva.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 04:00:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: 1. Is there any other mirzva where we apply ishto kegufo?
: Certainly a woman can shake a lulav with a beracha (Ramah) even though
: her husband already did it

Is there any other mitzvah where we argue the details of mehadrin min
hamehadrin? You're comparing it to lulav, where the question is basic
fulfillment.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:37:37PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: In today's Huffington Post, there is an article, "Religious Enough for You?
: Women Light the Holiday," by Leora Tanenbaum. She makes an impassioned plea
: for Orthodox women to take control of their own lives and light Chanuka
: candles.

Then RDS being the CS to explain why how the mehadrin lemehadrin couldn't
have ever intended to include women who could have men light for them --
kol kevudah would limit the value of women lighting neiros outside.

After that, I failed to see new points being raised, just the same "new
feminist 'chumrah'" vs "the norm defies the codification of the din"
reiterated. Both appear to be true. We have many innovations proposed
to conform to new egalitarian sensibilities, as well as many new chumros
that simply ignore the din as historical pesaq.

The most one can make from this exchange is that if someone sits down
with her poseiq and realizes that her motivation matches Ms Tananbaum's,
she should rely on the general heter since she isn't looking for increased
avodas Hashem. However, if she really is from a textualist mileau, she is
just as likely to be motivated by the Brisker chumrah as her husband's
choice not to rely on the local eiruv. For her to (RnTK doesn't raise
the same argument WRT talmidei RYBS who don't carry...) I see RET's
argument that to ignore that positive motivation for the sake of blind
anti-feminism is also problematic and for the very same reasons. Although
I'm not sure it's as big of a problem, as the anti-feminism is from a
desire to preserve Sinai culture.

It would need to be an individual decision, after much introspection. As
should any other decision to be machmir. Although here the issue is a
desire for egalitarianism, whereas usually it's yuhara.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 03:55:21PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I was not claiming that every medrash has to  "come from within the pesukim" 
: but a medrash usually answers some obvious  question in the pasuk or adds 
: information based on something that is at least  implied or suggested in the 
: pasuk...

All medrashim? I only see this in those cited by Rashi. To my mind,
Rashi's definition of peshat includes the anomolies in pesuqim that
can't be resolved through more precise translation.

The most common form for a medrash aggada is the pesichta. This is where
the medrash opens with another pasuq (most often Mishlei, if not one of
the sifrei Eme"s, if not Kesuvim, and sometimes navi). The driving force
behind the medrash is to show the relationship of the other pasuq to the
parashah. Not necessarily a problem (although a pesichta could resolve
an apparent setirah), and not particularly one within the chumash itself.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 09:51:41PM -0500, Cantor Wolberg wrote:
: RTK:
: >>But what happened on 15 Kislev ?

: A pagan altar was set up in the Beit Hamikdash in 167 B.C.E. on the  
: 15th of Kislev.

But then why the chevrah? I think tying it to Rebbe's yahrzeit explains
that aspect of the custom.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> In answer to your assertion that "we do pasken that women are required" a
>> simple look around at all chareidi homes and chassidishe homes and most
>> Litvishe homes will show you that women do not light their own menorahs when
>> their husbands are present, and if you are trying to claim that chareidim
>> don't know halacha I don't know what else to say.
 
> I say that the evidence that women should not light their own candles
> is not exactly overwhelming.  I would even suggest that much of the
> stress on their not lighting is anti-feminism more than strict halacha.
> A similar phenomena occurs in zimmun.  many poskim agree that 3 women
> together should make a zimmun. Nevertheless this rarely occrs especially
> in chassidishe and litvishe homes more for reaons of anti-feminism than
> strict halacha

How can it have anything to do with anti-feminism, when it goes back
to before there was any feminism?  It may be difficult to explain, but
that can't be the explanation.  Add to the mix: why, in those homes
where every boy over bar-mitzvah has his own ke'arah, do the women not
have one?  They're obligated in all the mitzvot of the night, just as
are the men, so why do they not have ke'arot?  Again, this goes back to
long before feminism, so it can't be a reaction to feminism.  But it
still needs explaining.  Mayim Acharonim is another one that it would
seem applies to women, but they just don't do.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

On Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:13:20 -0500
Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

...

> How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
> "Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot, and every single example
> of DdMD is about determini

Incorrect.  Based at least partially on the Gemara's (BM 83b) narrative
of R. Elazar B. Shimon's service as a government investigator, who
would catch thieves based upon circumstantial evidence and turn them in
in to the government, which would then execute them, various Poskim
conclude that the government is entitled to institute its own criminal
justice jurisprudence contrary to Halachah, with evidentiary rules
laxer than the requirement of two witnesses.  They use the terms
"Dinah De'Malchusa" and "Dinam Din", although they don't invoke the
standard sources of DdMD.

The most notable source for this is a responsum of Rashba, cited by
Beis Yosef (HM end of 388).  Maharam Shik (Responsa HM #50) derives
from the Rashba the permission to turn in a murderess to the government
even when the proof against her is merely circumstantial, although he
is somewhat ambivalent about applying this Halachah Le'Ma'aseh.

There is, however, a recently published responsum of Rav Hai who seems
to take a more restrictive view of the permissibility of cooperating
with the government on the punishment of murderers.

> Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

1--was  it  agreed  previously that outside of all chasidim,  no other 
community holds  from nittel?   ie  i believe eidot hamizrach, OU, YU , MO 
, DL  communities  do NOT  avoid  torah learning  on that night .  i guess 
my question is do litvish /yeshivish have anyone  hold from this practice?

2-- when nittel falls during  chanuka,  do those who hold from it  do 
anything  different?  eg   light earlier, refrain from chanukka parties, 
say no divrei torah at channuka  gathering  etc?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/080686b8/attachment-0001.htm>

Rich, Joel wrote:

>> How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
>> "Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot, and every single example of
>> DdMD is about determining who owns what.

> And you understand the power of the ruler of a country (e.g. King) to
> conscript an army, kill rebels etc... As based on?

It's certainly not covered by DdMD.  I don't know what does cover it,
but none of the examples in the gemara where Shmuel's memra is applied
justify such an interpretation, and where else could anyone get one?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
z...@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

R. Eli Turkel wrote:

<<
3. According to Rambam that mehadrin min hamehadrin means the
husband/father lights for each member of the family (not like the Ramah that
each lights for themselves) does the husband add candles for the wife?
>>

The Rambam 4:1 writes explicitly "bein anashim bein nashim."

<<I understand that by RYBS the women in the house did light >>

RHS in Nefesh HaRav p. 266 says that RYBS believed that women should light,
and that the contrary view is difficult to understand.

It's been 20 years since I was in RHS' shiur, but IIRC he did encourage
women to light with a bracha.  This is also solves the common problem--if
the husband is coming home late from work, the woman can light at the proper
time, and when the husband comes home, he lights too.

IIRC RHS said (but I may have heard this elsewhere) that the basis for the
MB's view of ishto kegufo for Chanuka is the gemara Shabbos 23a which says
that R. Zeira when he was single and was away from home, used to be pay the
baal ha'bayit to have a share in his candles (mishtatef b'pritei).  Once he
got married, he no longer did that because he said, "my wife now lights for
me at home."

However, IIRC RYBS disagreed with this reasoning: Rav Zeira was not
fulfilling mehadrin min hamehadrin when he was paying to get a share of the
candles (there aren't more candles lit), and was just doing the basic
mitzvah level.  Therefore once he married, by his wife lighting at home, he
too was just fulfilling the basic mitzvah level.

Chanukah sameach,
Moshe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20081222/7b55cc1d/attachment.htm>

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 430
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."