Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 261

Wed, 23 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Just How hot is Yad Soledes Bo anyway? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Daniel Israel)
• 5. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: Kashrus and Shabbas (Micha Berger)
• 9. Assur to be Stupid (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: Assur to be Stupid... (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Superstition and Good Fortune (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Pirsumei Nisa (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Pirsumei Nisa (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Pirsumei Nisa (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

RRW writes:

> If YSB or kreiso shell  tinoq is a mere proxy for the threshold of
> bishul
> 
> Why not test "bishul" DIRECTLY!

Because you are understanding "bishul" to be the equivalent of a physical
concept of cooking, which is then measurable in terms of changes of
chemistry.  But bishul is a halachic definition, which may or may not
correspond to what any chemist might identify as cooking.

In some ways you can see this most clearly from this interpretation of RYDS
that you find so appealing.  If you had a soup that had been fully cooked,
and then in case A it was cooled fully down and in case B it was made only
luke warm  (or whatever is the lowest temperature that RYDS would allow
chazara).  If you were then to return these two liquids to identical fires,
the chemical changes or cooking would be, I would warrant, absolutely
identical.  And yet RYDS would say that case A involved halachic bishul and
case B did not. 

Of course you can argue that one of the reasons one might not find the
interpretation of RYDS so appealing (as compared eg with that of the Chazon
Ish) is because the disconnect between RYDS's definition of bishul and
cooking is so stark.  But every halachic interpretation of bishul advanced
has these issues at the margins, if perhaps not so centrally.

> Lemashal
> 
> Coal miners used canaries to test the air quality in the mine
> 
> Would you design a scientific measurement to emulate the canary or
> would you desing it to measure the air quality directly?

But that assumes that what is being tested is definitely air quality in the
mine, and not the point at which canaries die (it is in the case of a mine,
but might not be if you were doing academic studies on canaries).  Look,
let's take another classic example ,that of the concept of "melacha".
Melacha is usually translated into English as "work" - and hence you get
various reformists over the years taking jabs at the halachic concept.
After all, it is a lot more "work" for me to walk many miles to shul and
back than to drive, despite my avoiding any melacha.  And of course the
correct answer is that while the easiest way to translate melacha in English
is with the term "work" as it does best give the flavour of it, melacha is
not precisely work, and hence using a test for work will not give you the
correct answer as to what is mutar and assur on shabbas.  That is defined as
per the Torah and halacha Moshe m'Sinai.

Similarly, I do not believe that bishul precisely equals either the English
or scientific concept cooking.  And that is why we cannot use a scientific
test regarding cooking.

> Nimshal
> So: Why measure an indirect proxy when we now have the technology to
> test the threshold of cooking the food directly!
> 
> The main reason we use batteil beshishim instead of nosein ta'am is
> that the Rema says the minhag is to no longer rely upon the testimony
> of te'imas eino-yehudi.
> 
> Otherwise he would have AFAIK concured with the Rambam, Mechabeir et
> al. To continue testing directly instead of indirectly.

Yes, but here it is agreed l'halacha that the test is fundamentally nosein
ta'am.  If the gemora said that the test was what created certain scientific
patterns in food, then I agree we would want to test those directly.  But it
doesn't.  You are making the assumption that bishul equals cooking, just as
others make the assumption that melacha means work, and I believe both,
although a kind of partial truth, lead to erroneous conclusions.

On the other hand, I do agree with you that where the gemora and halacha
says that a direct test is correct, there is logic in testing directly.
That is precisely why I asked regarding kreiso shel tinuk.  Because the
gemora says that that is the  test.  Now we all understand why nobody is
actually going to do that direct test.  But now that we have scientific
information regarding what the outcome would be if we did do a direct test,
why would we not use it?  And it is stronger than the case of noten ta'am.
Because in the case of noten taim it would have been possible for the test
to remain as it was, and so a minhag did not have to arise, and so once it
did it could be considered a bone fide minhag.  But here, it was
historically impossible to test, so how could one say that one had a minhag
in circumstances where tests were a) scientifically impossible absent the
invention of thermometers and b) would involve the issur d'orisa of wounding
an innocent baby.  That seems like ones to me.

> Gutn Hanukkah
> RRW

Regards

Chana

Rn chana
> In some ways you can see this most clearly from this interpretation of RYDS
> that you find so appealing.  If you had a soup that had been fully cooked,
> and then in case A it was cooled fully down and in case B it was made only
> luke warm  (or whatever is the lowest temperature that RYDS would allow
> chazara).  If you were then to return these two liquids to identical fires,
> the chemical changes or cooking would be, I would warrant, absolutely
> identical.  And yet RYDS would say that case A involved halachic bishul and
> case B did not.

Dear Rn Chana

WADR You are conflating the mlacha of bishul with the g'zeira of hazzara!
The g'zeira of hazzara is about nireh kimvashel, not about chemical
changes!!!

> Because you are understanding "bishul" to be the equivalent of a physical
> concept of cooking, which is then measurable in terms of changes of
> chemistry.  But bishul is a halachic definition, which may or may not
> correspond to what any chemist might identify as cooking.

See Rambam Shabbos 9:6
"Any heat process that hardens the soft or softens the hard is ...bishul!"

I say chemistry is at work here, And if so - then measuring demonstrable
chemical. Changes is paramount

Cooking an egg is the most graphic. I need no body parts such as "yad
or keres" to see the difference between a raw egg and a cooked egg!
Rather eyes or tongue will do!


Obviously this halachic construct is related to visibility

Are you saying EG that steam distilled water is mevushal once it's cooled
off because it HAS been halachically cooked already? And therefore ein
bishul achar bishul?

Or EG halachos re: melting ice or snow on shabbos shouldn't use eG 0C
or 32F to determine its frozen status?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RRW wrote:

> Rn Chana
> 
> <and since a safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan, >
> 
> This itself is a machlokes rishonim...

Yes.  But Rav Ovadiah in many earlier teshuvos spends a lot of time arguing
(or demonstrating, depending on whether you accept his view or not) that
this is the correct position halacha l'ma'ase, ie that we posken like those
rishonim who hold that safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan.  And this principle
then forms one of the cornerstones of his view on how to pasken (he has in
various places, inter alia at the end of Yachave Daat, discussions on the
fundamental principles of psak - it is interesting BTW to compare and
contrast these with Klalei Hora'ah of R' Berkovits to be found at
http://www.thejerusalemkollel.com/online_classes.php).

> <It is in true Rav
> Ovadiah style.>
> 
> 
> <He does note that various modern poskim (Tzitz
> Eliezer, Rav Moshe) disagree with him regarding cooking on a shabbas
> platter, but he feels they are creating new gezeras, and that we cannot
> do
> this.>
> 
> I wonder how many times ROY says that
> "they are creating new gezeras, and that we cannot do
> this."?

Well of course he doesn't just say that we cannot do this, in true ROY style
he quotes a Yerushalmi (perek 2 b'Shvi'it halacha 4) that says we can't do
this.

> It seems common if not ubiquitous!
> 
> First of all who says applying an existing g'zeira to a new situation
> is ipso facto a "new" g'zeira? It seems even ROY understands shema
> yachta to extend to electric controls!

Clearly ROY also holds that applying an existing gezera to a new situation
is not a new gezera (and your example of shema yachta extending to electric
controls is apt).  You would need to read eg the Tzitz Eliezer to see
whether you agreed (the cite is chelek 2 siman 6) that what he seemed to be
doing was imposing a new gezera rather than applying an existing one. In the
case of the Tzitz Eliezer, there may well also be a disagreement between him
and ROY as to any applicability of the halacha regarding magis and its
general applicability to bishul (the portion quoted suggests that the Tzitz
Eliezer is relying primarly on a Ramban that ROY does not believe is the
etzem halacha - magis of course originally arising vis a vis tzovea).  But
part of ROY's argument is that we do not worry about shema magis when we do
shehiya on something that is grufa and katuma even if it is not fully cooked
and so a Shabbat platter should be similar and so any extension of any
concern regarding magis to a shabbas platter is creating a new gezera.   

> Second of all, who says g'zeiros cannot be introduced?  Afaik Any S'yag
> can be added on - especially if somewhere down the chain a d'oraisso is
> protected EG: as in Bishul or Hav'ara on shabbos.

On what do you basis this?  I agree if we were talking about a legitimately
reconstituted Sanhedrin, but as far as I was aware absent a Sanhedrin nobody
had the power or authority to add to gezeros today (takanos are different
and so are chumros.  An individual is permitted to take on a chumra if
he/she wishes, although there are times when this is not recommended.  And a
community is entitled to make takanos for the welfare of that community if
the correct procedures are followed.  And sometimes what starts off as a
chumra may, if practiced widely enough, become a minhag, which then becomes
more generally binding).

> [EG See AhS YD siman 90 re: k'chal]

Please can you be more specific.  We are not talking here about the Rishonim
explaining a gemora to say that there is a gezera, as that is merely an
explanation of a gemora which then roots the gezera in the times of the
gemora or earlier.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

Quoting rabbirichwol...@gmail.com:
> Second of all, who says g'zeiros cannot be introduced? Afaik Any S'yag
> can be added on -- especially if somewhere down the chain a d'oraisso
> is protected EG: as in Bishul or Hav'ara on shabbos.

I don't see who would have the authority to do this.  I can, of  
course, add a s'yag for myself, because I think I personally am at  
risk (e.g., I used to have a sink faucet in which it was easy to turn  
on the hot water by accident, so I would turn off the hot water  
cut-off below the sink for Shabbos).  Perhaps if I ask a shaila, a  
posek might recommend to me a s'yag, although even there if it is not  
required, I don't see how he would have the authority to pasken I must  
do so.  (I.e., it would be only as binding as any other eitzah tova  
from a posek- I leave it as an exercise to the reader as to how  
binding that is.)

But a gezeirah that would be binding on the klal, even if they never asked?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

> But a gezeirah that would be binding on the klal, even if they never asked?
> Daniel M. Israel d...@cornell.edu

Are you saying RMF couldn't make such a g'zeira?

His sons are doing this AIUI against the lower east side eruv based upon
their father's p'saq, even though other posqim differ.

If your shul lains zecher and zeicher on Zachor - AISI - you are following
a g'zeira of the MB to be machmir as opposed to following masoretic text
or minhag avos etc.

Now German and Sephardic qehillos would not follow this, but many other
qehillos do.

Also who says "g'zeiros may not be made" ge'onim made many.

EG salting meat before 3 days!

KT
RRW

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 05:48:07PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> But a gezeirah that would be binding on the klal, even if they never asked?
:> Daniel M. Israel d...@cornell.edu

: Are you saying RMF couldn't make such a g'zeira?

I would, yes.

: His sons are doing this AIUI against the lower east side eruv based upon
: their father's p'saq, even though other posqim differ.

They aren't making a taqanah, they're enforcing the local pesaq and that
which they believe to be correct, even though it's a minority chumrah.

In your next line too I wonder why you use the concept of gezeirah:
: If your shul lains zecher and zeicher on Zachor - AISI - you are following
: a g'zeira of the MB to be machmir as opposed to following masoretic text
: or minhag avos etc.

The MB 685 s"q 18 calls the practice of saying both "meihanakhon",
not even a real pesaq. But even if it were pesaq, why would that make it
a taqanah.

In general, where to you draw the line between pesaq and taqanah.

I wrote http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2006/02/types-of-halachic-rulings.shtml
as a taxonomy of types of rabbinic declarations. It is based on a shiur
by R' Yonsan Sacks (of YU and my local Agudah), hil' Mamrim, and mar'eh
meqomos that were presented a 2006 Avodah discussion. Compare categories
2, 3, and 6. Teaser:

    2. Din deRabanan. A rabbinic law. These are set up by the rabbinate,
    instead of the masses [a contrast to category 1 -- minhag], in order
    to preserve the spirit of the law....

    3. Gezeira deRabanan. A rabbinic "fence". These are enacted to
    prevent a common cause for breaking the act of the law. ...
    According to the Tif'eres Yisrael (Ediyos 1), there are actually
    two sub-categories:
       a. Siyag. Fence (Hebrew; "gezeirah" is Aramaic). Something that
       will lead to a future violation to do an error in understanding
       the law. Such as...
       b. Cheshash. Concern. Cases where the threat of violation is in
       the current situation, because one is in a circumstance where
       habit taking over or other accident is likely.
    ...
    6. Pesaq. A rabbinic ruling. This ruling addresses a the questionable
    area of some law or custom....

The elisions ("...") within the three categories are of examples and
rules about when they can be later overturned.

: Also who says "g'zeiros may not be made" ge'onim made many.
: EG salting meat before 3 days!

I assume you're using the terms gezeirah and taqanah loosely and
interchangably, but Hil' Mamrim is quite clear that both require a beis
din hagadol. BTW, this topic came up back in v4n447, where RCBrown
argued against your claim of a taqanah against smoking because there
was no Sanhedrin capable of making one; but that was irrelevent since
it's the application of existing law to a new case -- pesaq.

The Beis Yoseif's expression WRT meat that is three days without melikhah
(YD 69) is "bemaqom hage'onim nahagu". The Ta"z (YD 69:32): "ra'ui lakhush
lachush ledaas hage'onim bemaqom shenahgu". It is pesaq based on applying
existing din to their understanding of the pragmatics. We have the word
"minhag" used to follow a pesaq that is regional, in addition to the
sense I gave above. Are you saying "nahagu" to follow a taqana?

Note that Rabbeinu Gershom doesn't make formal taqanos or gezeiros, he
uses the power of cheirem to excommunicate people who do certain things.
(WADR to the JewFaq, a/k/a Judaism 101, which can be found on numerous
web sites. The original for the relevent page is at
http://www.jewfaq.org/halakhah.htm)

But that's how I defined things. When speaking in halachic rather than
sociological terms, where do you, RRW, place the line between legislation
and interpretation?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

Rn Chana
> Yes. But Rav Ovadiah in many earlier teshuvos spends a lot of time
> arguing (or demonstrating, depending on whether you accept his view
> or not) that this is the correct position halacha l'ma'ase, ie that we
> posken like those rishonim who hold that safek d'orisa is a d'rabbanan.

If ROY himself is the source for this decision then 
I would call this a form of bootstrapping! If it has already been
established so, I'm curious to know the precedent because if it is indeed
a Pre-existing "kayma lan" then I'm unaware of it. AFAIK EG the Shach
on s'feiqos does not make a call one way or the other

> Well of course he doesn't just say that we cannot do this, in true ROY style
> he quotes a Yerushalmi (perek 2 b'Shvi'it halacha 4) that says we can't do
> this.

I will try to see Yerushalmi BEH

But if so that this is a ruling from Y-lmi then all the subsequent
g'zeiros in Bavel - both by Bavli and G'onim licho'ra would also be
transgressing this!

But first, what poseiq - previous to ROY - cites this Y-lmi as an active
precedent and I wonder how ROY inderstands the Rambam's haqdama?

Or the Y'rushalmi in Shabbos that as per R Yochanan and Reish Lakish
each av m'lachah has 39 tolados! Which shows beyond a doubt that the
talmudim are NOT exhaustive documents! Aderabba they are. Blueprints
for TSBP not the structure itself!


How about Bet Yosef re: fish and milk? Which Darchei Moshe and taz term
a ta'us sofer but is minhag Sefard anyway?

> Clearly ROY also holds that applying an existing gezera to a new situation
> is not a new gezera (and your example of shema yachta extending to electric
> controls is apt).

But he objects to applying "shema y'taqien" as a g'zeria by bicycles as
a "new g'zeira" when clearly it seems to be merely extending exisiting
g'zeiros EG shema YKtaqein klei shir!

IOW it's OK for ROY to say - misvara I don't extend it, but others might -
IOW a judgment call. But to say that when posqim using ko'ach hadimyon
they are devising brand new g'zeiros seems a reach for me!


>> Any S'yag
>> can be added on - especially if somewhere down the chain a d'oraisso is
>> protected EG: as in Bishul or Hav'ara on shabbos.

> On what do you basis this? 

Avos 1:1!
Also See Rambam's haqdama

Also see Rambam Hametz uMatza re: 3 g'zeiros of g'onim EG 5:3 nahagu
...leesor gKzeria shema...

The only limitation I know is that other communities can choose to ignore
that g'zeria, but that could have been said about g'zeiros made even by
Ezra - [viz. rov hatzibbur einam 'ycholim laamod bo]

> Please can you be more specific. We are not talking here about the
> Rishonim explaining a gemora to say that there is a gezera,

Rather we are talking about posqim applying talmudic principles "davar
mitoch davar" to a new situation!

I'm sure hazal did not specify g'zeiros about shooting guns or rockets
either, but they sure can be inferred by a poseiq!

Talmudism opposes fundamentalism and I would say it opposes "Luddism",
too.

> You would need to read eg the Tzitz Eliezer to see
> whether you agreed (the cite is chelek 2 siman 6) that what he seemed to be
> doing was imposing a new gezera rather than applying an existing one. 


FWIW I don't have a Tzitz Eliezer 


See RMF-IM re: opposing burial on YT sheini b'yameinu.

RMF tries to infer this from shas, I have taanah'ed he should have
simply been gozeir against it rather than forcing Shas against precedent
in Posqim.

[Micha:]
> but Hil' Mamrim is quite clear that both require a beis
> din hagadol."

No rambam has several w/o BD hagadol
So you are using the term too narrowly!

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 06:40:07PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
:> but Hil' Mamrim is quite clear that both require a beis
:> din hagadol."

: No rambam has several w/o BD hagadol

I need to see actual examples where the Rambam uses the word taqanah or
gezeirah. And in the latter case, a minhag can also be a fence around
accidental aveirah, so I would need to see the word gezeirah w/out it
being called a minhag. Such as Hil Chameitz uMatza clearly refers to a
minhag when it says (5:4) "nahagu mipenei gezeira"... 

Mamrim 2:2 continues 2:1 which refers to a beis din hagadol. Which is
why he later asks how it's possible to have "gadol mimenu ... beminyan"
since every Sanhedrin is 71 people. If a lesser BD could make a gezerira,
there would be no reason to assume it had 71! Also, gezeiros and taqanos
only exist (according to 2:2) if nispasheit bekhol Yisrael, which also
implies they were made by a national beis din.

You're using a duck test, "if it looks like a gezeirah, it's a
gezeirah". That don't work in legal process. Iska looks like ribis,
but it isn't.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

a  rav once  pointed out  to us  that  there are issurei  deoraita  on 
shvuat  sheker , shvuat shav ,  and  dvar sheker.    defining shvuat shav 
as stupidity ---
swearing  2+2 =  6  for example.    those  3  are assur. the tora does not 
delineate  a  'midvar shav  tirchak'.    so at least there is no  tora 
prohibition of  stupidity and naarishkeit --- though the rabbis would 
doubtless consider it  a poor midda....



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091223/677f42c8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:27:54AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: I remember seeing an article or hearing a tape of RYBS in which he 
: stated that the Jews sacrificed their minds on the altar of Sinai.
: 
: He was saying that there is now a limit to the range of thought and 
: questions that can be asked...

That's stronger than I understood his intent.

RYBS was wont to knock on the desk or microphone three times as a
mnemonic for the idea of submission. We can have all our rationales --
we can ask the questions and propose answers -- but none of that can
change our observance. At some point, we have to live with hte question
or table it for later, because halakhah comes before logic. I saw him
as speaking of submission to halakhah, not to ideas.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 10:56:39AM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: Personally, I wonder how this relates, if at all, to reliance on Segulos
: in light of the following comments from The Mezhbuzher Rav, Harav Avraham
: Yehoshua Heshel Bick, shlita:
:     [Segulos] are nothing more than bubbe maasos, eitzas yetzer hara
:     that give people a license to spend money way beyond their means
:     and then ask for a yeshuah. All these formulae saying Shir Hashirim
:     forty times, Tehillim HaChida, etc. are methods used by the yetzer
:     hara to take from us the little [spirituality] we have left. ...

Aside from Avos 1:3 and Atignos ish Sokho's "al menas shelo leqabeil
peras..."

More condemning: I'm reminded of BB 10b on Mishlei 14:34. The pasuq says
"vechesed le'umim chatas", and the gemara says that it's because they
do chesed lehisyaheir. R' Elchanan Wasserman in Qoveitz Shiurim brings
a long line of rishonim starting with Rabbeinu Bachya showing that this
is the defining feature of paganism. To be a pagan is to do good only
in order to get favors from the gods.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RAM:
> : I'd like to get to better understanding of the concept of Pirsumei
> : Nisa. I know for example that it applies to three mitzvos: Ner Chanukah,
> : Mikra Megillah, and Arba Kosos.
>   
RMB:
> As for the question about how the 4 cups actually qualify as pirsumei
> nisa to begin with, it is discussed in "The Brisker Hagaddah", not that
> I recall the answer nor know where I put it with the Pesach stuff.
>   
I don't recall hearing arba kosos related to pirsumei nisa.  I have an 
earlier edition of the Brisker Haggadah, but I dug it out and didn't 
find anything.  Is there an older and (I hope the Briskers on the list 
will pardon my terminology) less speculative source?

David Riceman

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 04:07:57PM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: >As for the question about how the 4 cups actually qualify as pirsumei
: >nisa to begin with, it is discussed in "The Brisker Hagaddah", not that
: >I recall the answer nor know where I put it with the Pesach stuff.

: I don't recall hearing arba kosos related to pirsumei nisa.  I have an 
: earlier edition of the Brisker Haggadah, but I dug it out and didn't 
: find anything.  Is there an older and (I hope the Briskers on the list 
: will pardon my terminology) less speculative source?

Pesachim 112a gives this as the reason why one should accept tzedaqah
to pay for the kosos. (Unlike R' Aqiva's shitah on se'udah shelishis,
where it's better to have 2 meals than to have to humble oneself.) The
topic I saw in the Brisker haGadah is the definition of pirsumei nisa
and how the 4 kosos fits. But the notion that that's their function is
in the gemara.

Perhaps RDE (or someone else) has a copy of R' Moshe Shernbuch's Moadim
uZemanim VII, and gan summarize his discussion of the topic on p 97.
Something about how cheirus and simchah, the explanation of 4 kosos
given in Pesachim 108b qualifies as pirsumei Nisa. But I don't own one,
can't find it on an electronic copy, so all I have is vague rumors on
the web...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

drice...@att.net
> I don't recall hearing arba kosos related to pirsumei nisa.

See Iqqar Tos YT 4 d"h "min hatamchuy" on mishna P'sachim 10:1. Quoting
gmara lefi R Aqiva

KT
RRW


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 261
***************************************

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..."