Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 35

Fri, 13 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: Aromatherapy (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 2. Re: Aromatherapy (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Aromatherapy (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Aromatherapy (Saul Mashbaum)
• 5. Re: Aromatherapy (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Shehechiyanu: Tallis vs Tefillin (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: brisk (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: brisk (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Aromatherapy (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: Aromatherapy (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Interesting Count (Michael Poppers)
• 13. Re: Interesting Count (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 15. Interesting Yisro Tidbits (Cantor Wolberg)
• 16. Nadav and Avihu: who said it? (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 17. hating another Jew (Eli Turkel)
• 18. goyim and shabbos (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 19. Re: RAK's "The Eleventh Plague" (Michael Poppers)

> Subject: [Avodah] Aromatherapy

> There is no berakhah achronah on rei'ach, because the hana'ah from
> smells doesn't linger. Unlike food, which makes you feel less hungary and
> (hopefully) nourishes after you eat it.
>
> Well, there is a whole industry today of scents one can buy for the sole
> sake of their lingering effect. The intent is, for examples, to bring
> a calm or an alertness that lasts beyond the length of the candle /
> scented oil. (I am not saying this works or doesn't work; I never tried
> it. Perhaps it's a placebo effect -- but mah bein placebo le-actual in
> a case like this?)

Before discussing a b'racha, you have to define the issues.

Aromatherapy:
The use of aromatic plant extracts and essential oils for therapeutic 
purposes.
(Oxford dictionary)
(you can also check Aromatherapy on wikipedia).

The therapy uses essential oils, and scented compounds.

> Given this, why shouldn't a person smelling these aromas for this
> purpose be chayav to make a berakhah achronah? And if so, what would
> it be? Borei nefashos, and a poseiq in doubt would probably add: without
> sheim umalkhus?

Following the idea that Berakha Achrona is said b/c the food nourishes you, 
then indeed in this case the oils cause hana'ah and you may have a basis for 
a beracha.

But the basis of the idea is medicinal. Yes, the alertness and other results 
are medicinal in nature. BTW, they are not used just in candles, but also as 
part of massages and you can soak your feet in a bath with specific oils 
etc. Similar actually to the use of bathsalts.

So, while the selected oils are scented, and the scent is part of the 
treatment, it is more in the nature of a treatment, and I'm not aware of 
beracha achrona on medicine.

Shoshana L. Boublil

From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 

>>Well, there  is a whole industry today of scents one can buy for the sole
sake of their  lingering effect. The intent is, for examples, to bring
a calm or an  alertness that lasts beyond the length of the candle /
scented oil.  ...
Given this, why shouldn't a person smelling these aromas for  this
purpose be chayav to make a berakhah achronah? And if so, what  would
it be? <<
 
 
>>>>>
You know when you have finished eating.  You put your fork down, take  your 
last swallow, you are done.  How do you know when you are done  smelling?  
 
Suppose you have a scented candle burning and it keeps burning for twelve  
hours -- and you walk in and out of the room -- and the scent wafts through the  
whole house -- and even after the candle burns out, the scent lingers -- how  
would you determine that you had reached a point where you could say, "That's 
 it, I'm done smelling, time for the bracha acharona."
 
Since the purpose of aromatherapy is to make people feel peaceful, the  
bracha would be "oseh shalom bimromav" 
 
But since you might have the candle burning while you enjoy a long,  
leisurely bath, well, you can't make a bracha in the bathroom!  So on the  whole, it 
is rather convenient that we don't have to make that bracha  acharona.  (And I 
frankly doubt that you have to make a bracha  rishona, either.  Did you ever 
walk into a house where there's a  scented air freshener plugged into the wall 
and the smell of cinnamon  or lavender fills the house -- do you know anyone 
who makes a bracha over the  plug-in?)
 

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

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




**************Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you 
now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090212/5aa22f25/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> There is no berakhah achronah on rei'ach, because the hana'ah
> from smells doesn't linger. Unlike food, which makes you feel
> less hungry and (hopefully) nourishes after you eat it.

I can see that as a reasonable explanation of the d'Oraisa criterion of
"v'savata". But on a d'Rabanan level, I don't see it. On a mere kezayis or
revi'is, the lingering is minimal, yet we do say the berachah achronah. See
below for my alternative idea.

> Given this, why shouldn't a person smelling these aromas for
> this purpose be chayav to make a berakhah achronah? And if
> so, what would it be? Borei nefashos, and a poseiq in doubt
> would probably add: without sheim umalkhus?

I think that a very problematic point in instituting a berachah achronah on
aromas would be establishing a shiur. To say a berachah achronah on a
mashehu just doesn't seem right, and I can't imagine how a shiur above that
might be measured. So, perhaps we'd leave off the berachah achronah for
this reason.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click for online loan, fast & no lender fee, approval today
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbupdoLmnhTBKDkT4MSTot472ITnbNwI2Ebec30BbLkCkP5Ci/

RMB:

>>
There is no berakhah achronah on rei'ach, because the hana'ah from
smells doesn't linger. Unlike food, which makes you feel less hungary and
(hopefully) nourishes after you eat it.
>>

Source?


>>
Given this, why shouldn't a person smelling these aromas for this
purpose (aromatherapy)be chayav to make a berakhah achronah? And if
so, what wouldit be? Borei nefashos, and a poseiq in doubt would
probably add: without
sheim umalkhus?
>>
Borei n'fashot thanks Hashem for creating life-sustaining substances
(... al kol ma shebarata l'hachayot bo nefesh kol chai). I can't see
how this applies to aroma.

A poseq in doubt would *definitely*, not merely *probably*,
say not to say a bracha b'shem umalchut. Safek b'rachot l'hakel.

It seems to me that a poseq would have no doubt at all that no bracha
achrona should be said on aroma under any circumstances.



>
An(other question while on the subject: Why do most people say "asher
nasan rei'ach tov lepeiros?" What other birkhas hanehenin is in lashon
avar?
>
If passive voice counts,  "shehakol n'hiya bidvaro" (according to one version).


Saul Mashbaum
.

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:02:11PM +0200, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: RMB:
:> There is no berakhah achronah on rei'ach, because the hana'ah from
:> smells doesn't linger. Unlike food, which makes you feel less hungary and
:> (hopefully) nourishes after you eat it.

: Source?

Niddah 52a. Rashi ("reichani") says it's because the pleasure is
minimal.

The Taz (OC 216:1) quotes the Kol Bo as giving the answer I gave above.
This is also the only explanation offered by the QSA 58:1.

...
: Borei n'fashot thanks Hashem for creating life-sustaining substances
: (... al kol ma shebarata l'hachayot bo nefesh kol chai). I can't see
: how this applies to aroma.

I don't see how it applies to junk food.

OTOH, both junk food and a good rei'ach could be "ah mechayeh"! <g>

...
:> An(other question while on the subject: Why do most people say "asher
:> nasan rei'ach tov lepeiros?" What other birkhas hanehenin is in lashon
:> avar?

: If passive voice counts, "shehakol n'hiya bidvaro" (according to
: one version).

Well, did a little more legwork...

Berakhos 38a says haMotzi is also referring to the past. We are calling
G-d "the Bringer", because He brought bread. (This comment has
implications for our recurring hashgachah peratis discussions.)

The Siltei Giborim (on Rif, Berakhos ch 6, end) says that all berakhos
that all the berakhos that are "Borei.." are also referring to the past,
and therefore "nihyah" is the consistent choice. (When I asked: What
other birkhas hanehenin is in lashon avar? It seems the question is,
which isn't?) My 2 cents: This parallels birkhos hamitzvah, which are
about the initial command, not the ongoind relationship.

Note that I capitalized haMotzi and Borei because they are now taken to
be descriptions of G-d.

"Nihyeh", because it's in the passive, can't be taken as a description
of G-d, it would be a description of "hakol" (the everything is what
exists through His Word).

The Ya'avetz (teshuvos 95-95) says the Chakham Zvi (his father) laughed
at those who said "nihyeh". He quotes R' Zalman Hanau as saying it
should be "nihyeh", but dismisses him as a grammarian, not a halachic
authority. RZH's rationale is that we speak in descriptions in berakhos,
not verbs. Even though this is passive, we should take it to mean "that
which exists through", not "is existing".

The AhS has "nihyeh" (OC 167:6).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

 

From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Another Qitzur SA  question:

In 59:8: Qanahlo talis shel mitzvah ... yevareikh  shehechiyanu....


Nu, why don't we say "mitzvos lav leihanos nitnu" on  a talis (which RSG
even specifies as "shel  mitzvah")?




>>>>>
The tallis is an article of clothing.  You make a shehechiyanu on  a new 
garment -- especially if it is a really nice tallis with a silver  border.
 
IIANM you do not make a shehechiyanu on a tallis katan.  And you don't  make 
a shehechiyanu on new tzitzis-strings that you attach to your old  tallis.
 
I believe that he specifies "tallis shel mitzva" because a tallis can also  
mean a cloak or garment without strings attached.  You might say that it's  
obvious you would make a shehechiyanu on a cloak or cape, but perhaps a tallis  
which you are wearing not for its garment-ness but for its mitzva-ness does not 
 need a shehechiyanu.  Therefore we have to know that even if you are  
wearing the tallis only for its mitva-ness (its tzitis) it is still a  garment.
 

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

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




**************Nothing says I love you like flowers! Find a florist near you 
now. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090212/7c46983b/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> Difficult is not the same as challenging. I remember once
> learning with a friend one of the modern books on hilchot
> kashrut. He gave up after a short time as everything
> seemed to be a bunch of distinct laws and it was more
> memorization than thinking.

I am *very* surprised that this was his reaction to a *modern* book. It has
always seemed to me that the biggest difference between modern books and
older ones, is that the modern ones tend to start from basic principles,
explain how they work and their details, and then progress to practical
examples. And in contrast, the older ones tend to give examples in no
particular order, and expect the student to derive the principles from
them.

Example: Seforim on Kashrus will first explain how Rov works, and then
explain the myriad versions of "if a drop of milk falls into a meat soup".
It will first how Nosen Taam works, and so on, and then tell what to do if
you cook something in the work pot.

Example: Seforim on Shabbos: Rav Eider starts with each Av Melacha, then
shows the Toldos, then the Gezeiros, and finally practical examples.
Shmiras Shabbos K'Hilchasa doesn't distinguish that so much, but first
explains everything about a Kli Rishon, then everything about Irui Kli
Rishon, then everything about Kli Sheni, and so on.

Example: But my favorite example is Muktza. Any modern sefer will have
several distinct chapters, each on a specific category: Machmas Gufo,
Chisaron Kis, Melachto L'Issur, etc. But Gemara has *none* of that. Gemara
will mention an object that can't be handled on Shabbos, and then spends a
whole discussion comparing it to other objects -- objects which to *us* are
clearly in an entirely different category. I find it very difficult to
temporarily "unlearn" the recent categorization, but I *have* to do that or
I'll go crazy trying to figure out the gemara's question.

Each derech has its own virtues. If one wants to know the halacha l'maaseh,
it wil go much more quickly and easily (and less error-prone) if one gets
spoon-fed the categorization and development of recent centuries. But if
one wants the intellectual fight, then go to the gemara and reinvent the
wheel. (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. The more effort one puts
into Talmud Torah, the bigger a mitzva it is, and avoiding the "spoon-fed"
analyses of recent centuries is a good way of putting more effort into it.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Save big on Stock Trading Fees. Click Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbt6J21ugjeHf6C8mJ83WeFxG5BCl4Pvj8Fb745klmlz4Y7Yu/

On Sat, Feb 07, 2009 at 09:41:31PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: >It seems that RZS is saying that "we don't care" what the AZ-niks
: >actually do. My suspicion is that we *do* care, as logically we must,
: >because if they'd be willing to do nisuch with yayin mevushal, then
: >I can't imagine why we wouldn't worry about it.

: Because we don't call what they do "nisuch"...

Stam yeinam is for two reasons:
1- intermarriage, and
2- gezeira atu yayin nesekh

Tosafos and the SA only discuss the latter, but the Rashbam and the
Rama hold what we would today call "tzvei dinim". The fraternization
reason is an issur in shetiyah and still applies today, the connection
to yayin nesech is an issur hana'ah, and doesn't apply today when nisuch
is uncommon. (Spharadim following the SA would have an issur hana'ah.)

The same machloqes is seen when the Rambam permits yayin mevushal
because it's not used for nisuch, whlie the Rosh says it's because yayin
mevushal is "milta delo shekhicha" and thus outside the gezeira. The
Rashba seems to hold like the Rosh, but says it's outside the gezeira
because it's not really yayin.

But why is the issue in #2 in defining "nisuch"? Anything they were
maqdish to their AZ would be assur behana'ah, whether a lulav from an
asheirah or stam growing in an ir hanidachas, whether nisuch, taqroves,
or a broom conserated to her. So, if it's not nisuch as we define nisuch,
is their libation-wine not wine that's assur anyway?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:37:32PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Each derech has its own virtues. If one wants to know the halacha
: l'maaseh, it wil go much more quickly and easily (and less error-prone)
: if one gets spoon-fed the categorization and development of recent
: centuries....

Shelish bemiqra

:         But if one wants the intellectual fight, then go to the gemara
: and reinvent the wheel. (I mean that seriously, not sarcastically. The
: more effort one puts into Talmud Torah, the bigger a mitzva it is, and
: avoiding the "spoon-fed" analyses of recent centuries is a good way of
: putting more effort into it.)

Shelish begemara

The Rambam, though, hopes you get beyond needing three shelishios,
and focus on gemara. I guess that's once you mastered all of practial
halakhah, and only need a little time for review.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When a king dies, his power ends,
mi...@aishdas.org        but when a prophet dies, his influence is just
http://www.aishdas.org   beginning.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                    - Soren Kierkegaard

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 15:31:20 EST
T6...@aol.com wrote:

...

> Suppose you have a scented candle burning and it keeps burning for twelve  
> hours -- and you walk in and out of the room -- and the scent wafts through the  
> whole house -- and even after the candle burns out, the scent lingers -- how  
> would you determine that you had reached a point where you could say, "That's 
>  it, I'm done smelling, time for the bracha acharona."

This is actually a thorny problem with regard to Berachah Rishonah,
too; at what point is a new one required?  The Poskim discuss this in
the context of the custom to repeatedly smell Besamim on Yom
Ha'Kippurim to complete the Hundred Berachos.

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

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 04:51:24PM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: This is actually a thorny problem with regard to Berachah Rishonah,
: too; at what point is a new one required?  The Poskim discuss this in
: the context of the custom to repeatedly smell Besamim on Yom
: Ha'Kippurim to complete the Hundred Berachos.

According to the QSA (48:10), WRT a mugmar, the berakhah is made when
the heat makes smoke rise, even if it's before you smell anything.
The issues already raised in defining a shiur, or when one is done
smelling, seem compelling.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

In Avodah Digest V26#34, RRW replied to me:
> I have not yet read Rav Hamburger on this but... <
WADR, no buts -- we can't really have a discussion before you examine the
sources he (again, hereafter "RBH") brings.

> ...Michael are you sure of
the underlying reason?
> AIUI KAJ eschewed the gimatriyah of 248 and cut back to emes only davka
to avoid public gimatryiah/qabbalah. <
If by "gimatryiah/qabbalah," you're referring to customs popularized
post-Zohar (esp. post-ARYZaL), RBH lists a slew of sources of truly-ancient
and pre-ARYZaL origin for the RaMaCH symbolism.  He also writes at length
upon the one method (of many) of fulfilling that symbolism via repetition
of "H' Elokeichem emes" (HEE), which, as we've now both noted, KAJ doesn't
utilize.  To elucidate for all what you meant by "cut back to emes": in
minhag Frankfurt, the tzibbur await the Rav saying "Emes!" out loud before
continuing w/ the words which follow -- that custom may have been a
reaction to other communities' custom of repeating HEE (as in "'round these
parts, we don't repeat words from 'Shma'!"), but I don't see it as directly
related to the RaMaCH symbolism, nor am I aware of minhag Frankfurt
explicitly forbidding an individual member of the tzibbur from saying "Keil
Melech Ne'eman."

BTW, I believe listmember RDG has a Yediah-'blog post on the subject, so
for those of you w/out a copy of "Sharshei Minhag Ashk'naz"....

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090212/d49b5a35/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, February 12, 2009 5:27 pm, Michael Poppers wrote:
: If by "gimatryiah/qabbalah," you're referring to customs popularized
: post-Zohar (esp. post-ARYZaL), RBH lists a slew of sources of
: truly-ancient and pre-ARYZaL origin for the RaMaCH symbolism....

I did too! The post that raised this tangent mentioned Buber's edition
of the Medrash Aggadah, as well as the Seifer haEshkol (Abraham ben
Isaac of Narbonne a/k/a Raavad II, c. 1110 ? 1179 CE, Pravence).

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

Micha Berger wrote:

> But why is the issue in #2 in defining "nisuch"? Anything they were
> maqdish to their AZ would be assur behana'ah, whether a lulav from an
> asheirah or stam growing in an ir hanidachas, whether nisuch, taqroves,
> or a broom conserated to her. So, if it's not nisuch as we define nisuch,
> is their libation-wine not wine that's assur anyway?

I have a not-quite-there answer for that: tikrovet AZ, as a rule, applies
to that which was offered to their god, not to what was not offered.  When
they sacrifice an animal and then eat most if it themselves, the whole
animal is the offering, and what they eat is "mishulchan namuch ka-zachu"
so to speak.  The same would apply if they offered up a whole cup of wine
to their god, spilled a few drops as its "azkarah", and then drank the
rest with thanks to the god to whom it belonged.  But AIU the Greek and
Roman practise of libations, that wasn't how it worked.  The offering was
only the bit that was spilled - that was the "chelek adam rasha", like
"truma" so to speak, and the rest was "chulin".  In theory, therefore, it
would seem that the rest should *not* be tikrovet AZ, and should not be
nesech.  But for some reason either Hashem Himself, or Chazal in their role
of defining the scope of issurim de'oraita, decided that the whole cup is
nesech and assur behana'ah; and Chazal then made a gezera on all wine that
a goy moved, in case he was menasech it.  But if it's not ra'uy lenisuch,
by OUR rules, then it doesn't become nesech no matter even if the goy does
pour a libation from it; only the libation itself would be tikrovet AZ,
and since it's on the floor we don't need to be prohibited from drinking
it.  And therefore if the goy moves it but *doesn't* pour a libation it
doesn't become stam yeinam either.

I'm not quite convinced by this, but I can't quite find the flaws either.
What do other people think of it?

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

There are 620 letters in the Aseret HaDibrot of Yitro. (TARYAG + 7  
Rabbinic Mitvot.)

The Shabbos commandment consists of 32% of the words of the Aseres  
HaDibros, even more than the Avoda Zara, commandment #2 (29%).
AND...The letter ZAYIN appears only once - ZACHOR. Appropriate for  
Shabbat to begin with ZAYIN, whose numeric value is 7. Also, as the  
Baal HaTurim points out,
the Shabbos commandment begins with the 7th pasuk of Aseres HaDibros.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090212/55d7c3fe/attachment-0001.htm>

Someone requested to find the original source for this pshat. Does anyone
know?

> ... The 2 eldest sons of Aaron were burned to death for introducing an
> alien fire into their service. This appears in the Pentateuch at least
> 4 times. The first in Leviticus 10:1
> Someone first used this source as a proof text to not add to the service
> of Hashem in general.

Is there a source stating the issue was a form of "bal tosif?"

Good Shabbos
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Can one hate another Jew
see RAL at

http://www.vbm-torah.org/archive/halak65/02beinadam2.htm

-- 
Eli Turkel

http://havolim.blogspot.com/2008/01/yisro-shemos-2011-ki-sheis
hes-yamim-why.html 
 explains  drachim in why goyim, who should be chayav in zchiras borei 
olam,  should be exempt from shabbos -that also recalls that event....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090213/e2b58ed8/attachment-0001.htm>

(My apologies for being approx. a week late in typing in this thought :) 
-- the delay may translate into my missing some important aspects, but I 
need to put fingers to keyboard and get it out ahead of Shabbos!)

Re http://www.aish.com/torahportion/moray/The_Eleventh_Plague.asp :
RAK notes a transformation, via the waters of Marah, which was a necessary 
prerequisite for the required unity that is indicated by "a dramatic shift 
from the plural to the singular" in the "vayichan sham Yisrael" verse.  He 
may have meant to point this out, but as it apparently wasn't explicit, 
allow me to note that such a shift also occurs in the waters-of-Marah 
parashah, as can be seen in the "sham sam lo" verse (NB that RaShY refers 
"lo" to b'nei Yisrael, not MRAH!).

A guten Shabbes/Shabbas Shalom and all the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090213/a9656e11/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 35
**************************************

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..."