Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 266

Thu, 31 Dec 2009

• 1. Re: mikva shitos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: Pronunciation of Va-ye-chi (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Reciting Shir haMa'alot or 'Al Naharot Bavel (Michael Poppers)
• 5. Re: mikva shitos (Zev Sero)
• 6. status of chilonim (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Can anyone think of a Rov who would advocate this in a Halacha Shiur? (Meir Rabi)
• 8. Re: Can anyone think of a Rov who would advocate this in a Halacha Shiur? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Pronunciation of Va-ye-chi (Micha Berger)
• 11. Surrogacy (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: Can anyone think of a Rov who would advocate this in aHalacha Shiur? (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 14. Hilchos Kaddish (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: how to reconcile (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: how to reconcile (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

R' Zev Sero wrote:
> In Europe until the 19th century there was almost no such
> thing as a rain-water mikveh.  Everyone knew that one can
> also make a mikveh from mei geshomim, but nobody did so.

So then how *were* their mikvaos filled? Did they dig deep wells? Did they fill it with snow and ice in the winter? Did they only use lakes?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=JzYUHZEUIgEHOY2rSfwglgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 14:42:3210, Micha Berger wrote:
 >... I don't know how "shema" can be
physically said in only one syllable. Perhaps you're referring to a
different diqduq concept that is only loosely translated as
"syllable"? What's the original?<

Actually, it's based on precisely your explanation that "...the "rules" 
for sheva were ...about rules for
open vs closed syllables....A sheva nach is
just indicating that a mid-word syllable (or a khaf sofis) is closing
a syllable."

Therefore, a consonant with a sheva na (as in the sheva under the shin 
if "Sh'ma Yisroel) is just indicating the opening of a syllable, and is 
not a complete syllable itself. (There's no "closing" of the syllable it 
began until the next vowel sound is closed by a consonant or the end of 
a long vowel sound.

I look at a Hebrew syllable as a sandwich--it starts with a consonant 
sound (a sound made by the lips, teeth or tongue, etc., forming a 
barrier), followed by a vowel sound (a sound initially shaped by, but 
not blocked by, the mouth's components). If the vowel sound is long 
(which means the mouth's components move into a more closing position), 
that ending of the long vowel serves to close the syllable. If the 
vowel  is short, a consonant closes the syllable.


 >As I noted in previous years, the maamar that "vayhi" (or "vayhi
biymei") introduced tzarah has a phonic resononance when you realize it
sounds like "Vai hi!<

Is this maamar the alleged Chazal that the grammatically correct 
pronunciation of vay'hi or vay'chi is with a sheva nach? I don't think 
that's a valid conclusion.

Zvi Lampel

RAM wrote:
> But the main point of my post is to point out that I am very unclear on exactly
> what was said about Manhattan. I'm also unclear about who said it: Did RRW
> really mean to write "RYBS", or did he mean RMF?

This is a disagreement among people connected to RMF. I discussed the
matter with a number of people, including RHS and RMF's son Rav
Reuven.

RHS, who had the support of Rav Shim'on Schwab in this matter,
understands RMF to be saying that Manhattan was not, at his time, a
reshut haya'hid, but could become one if it would be muqaf with a
tzurat hapeta'h, on the condition that it is muqaf lediyurin from
three sides 'omed merubbeh 'al hhaparutz, which may or may not have
been the case when he wrote his teshuvot on the matter, though RMF
operated under the impression that it was not muqaf lediyurin from the
three sides.

Rav Reuven, OTOH, told me he understands his father's view as saying
that nothing can be done to turn Manhattan into a reshut haya'hid,
[short of building a wall around parts of Manhattan, to isolate it
from the rest].

The same disagreement is what animates the current Borough Park and
the New Revised and Improved Flatbush 'eiruvin brouhaha, which already
lasts several years, though in the Brooklyn case there is teh
additional dimension of once people had turned to RMF and he
prohibited it, it becomes non trivial to decide to follow another
view. But then again, the matirim claim that the situation has changed
or was not fully presented to RMF, and that Brooklyn is muqaf
lediyurin mishalosh ru'hot (the Navi yards, the car lots, the docks,
etc. all have fences, only parts of Brooklyn has a beach front).

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

In Avodah V26#265, R'Micha quoted RSMontagu:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 09:30:45PM -0800, Simon Montagu wrote:
: This would be a question on Roedelheim, since Tzefanya 3 9 (and many
other
: siddurim) say "safa verura". <
and wrote:
> if one is using both "berurah uveni'imah" to modify safah <
How would "uvin-imah" be an adjective?

FWIW, Baer lists the girsa as "b'safa b'rurah uvin-imah q'doshah" (i.e.
even though, b'li safeiq, only one word is associated w/ "safah,"
nevertheless the dageish is not elided from the beis of "b'rurah") and
notes the source as Tzfanyah 3:9, so maybe the dageish wasn't elided from
his copy of Trei Asar? :)  Seriously, one could also ask why many (all?)
siddurim have "halo kal-hagiborim" when "halo chal-hagiborim" seems
sensible, and I'm thinking there are similar circumstances w/ other
examples in the nusach hat'filah, so perhaps there is some method to the
anti-elision madness....

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/20091229/2fa2dd99/attachment-0001.htm>

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero wrote:

>> In Europe until the 19th century there was almost no such
>> thing as a rain-water mikveh.  Everyone knew that one can
>> also make a mikveh from mei geshomim, but nobody did so.

> So then how *were* their mikvaos filled? Did they dig deep wells?

Yes.  Almost all mikvaos were springs or wells.  Some were built into the
sides of rivers (like Victorian bathing machines).

This had obvious problems: such mikvaos are impossible to heat, and often
they had to be dug very deep, forcing women to go down a long way in the
semi-dark to get to the water.  And of course when a woman is cold and
scared it's not an optimal time for her to concentrate on making a good
tevilah.  So various contrivances were invented to bring the water closer
to the surface, and to pour hot water in and keep it from instantly
dissipating.  One of the Baal Hatanya's proudest achievements was the
design of a wooden box that complied with the opinion of every rishon,
and that could be lowered into the water and filled with hot water which
would last long enough for a woman to use it once.

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

For a halachic discussion of the status of chilonim
by R. Navon of the Gush see
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak70/09halak.htm   (part 1 so far)

BTW I have a whole book on the subject


-- 
Eli Turkel

Does this Halacha not puzzle us?
Can anyone think of a Rov who would advocate this in a Halacha Shiur?

Y Deah 92:8
It is Muttar to hang meat above boiling pots of milk provided the steam
reaching the meat is less than YSoledes. The concluding Chumrah relates to
hanging meat lower and within the YSoledes range but using a lid on the pot
to shield the meat. One should not do this in the first instance, to avid
the risk of the rather common practice of removing the lid whereby the meat
will be exposed  to YSoledes steam.
Acharonim demand that the meat be scrubbed but this is not the intent of the
Rema who is Mattir. We are NOT permitted to dip meat in warm butter and then
wash it down, besides the Lashon of the Rema does not support such
additional safeguards.

Most surprising about this Halacha is that the condensate from the boiling
milk, which although less than YSoledes, is certainly reaching and
condensing on the meat, is deemed to be of no Kashrus consequence.

I should like to compile a list of such Halchos to use as a yardstick by
which we might be able to calibrate where Yiddishkeit is going or has gone.
Is that a reasonable proposal?

Meir Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091231/2c84b7a6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 07:51:39PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: Does this Halacha not puzzle us?
...
: Y Deah 92:8
: It is Muttar to hang meat above boiling pots of milk provided the steam
: reaching the meat is less than YSoledes...

A related pesaq I actually got, with similar results from two co
workers' LORs...

One of my co workers wondered how can you use the hot water machine
at work? What about the steam from treif soups and hot chocolate (the
company-provided hot chocolate has marshmallows)?

Now admittedly, this isn't about meat directly, it's about whether
the spigot, a keli, would become treif.

: Acharonim demand that the meat be scrubbed but this is not the intent of the
: Rema who is Mattir. We are NOT permitted to dip meat in warm butter and then
: wash it down, besides the Lashon of the Rema does not support such
: additional safeguards.
...
: Most surprising about this Halacha is that the condensate from the boiling
: milk, which although less than YSoledes, is certainly reaching and
: condensing on the meat, is deemed to be of no Kashrus consequence.

I would bet we wash the meat not to kasher the meat, but to make sure
we don't put any milk condensation into a pot with the meat and then
cook it. *Bedi'eved* I would guess it would be batul, but lekhat-chilah,
why not wash it down?

I do not think the Rama is assuming the condensate may be ignored
lechat-khilah, and was only writing about whether the entire meat would
now qualify as basar bechalav.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Further Clarification re: Taxonomy of G'zeiros

Given A g'zeiro may act to prohibit what is Halachically permitted as a syag
   1. for a community
   2. for an organization

EG Kashrus orgnaization NOT permitting to sell broiled livers that were
broiled after the 3-day Gaonic limit had expired.

AND
Given a g'zeiro may also prohibit what is Halachically permitted as
"policy decision" almost like a minhag
   1. for a community
   2. for an organization

EG Letting Decisions by RMF stand reg Eruv even in the face of opposing
Halachic arguments as when KAJ/Breuer's opposiedg Mt. Sinai's Eruv in
Washington Heights
Or
Dr. Lamm Honoring RYDS by insisting upon abiding by his p"saq as when
Stern college
women were not allowed to leinMegillah for other women even though there
are numerous Halachic authroties to permit. The women were not given
a p'saq to NEVER read, just NOT to do this AT STERN COLLEGE. This is
local policy NOT p'saq and AISI it's NOT on the Halachic merits, but
due to a POLICY decision to Honor the Rav's legacy. Also Note that YU
was not AFAIK ever the day-to-poseiq at YU and his minhaggim were not
generally followed.

Psaq uses SHAS and posqim, and should start from scratch
G'zeira is about s'yag or policy and could take into consideration k"vod
RMF or RYDS and another non-rigorous considerations and requires no such
rigor, but I would love to see it so labeled.

If you want to term this NEITHER p'saq NOR g'Zeria but a third kind of
"animal" fine. Call it "MINHAG" if you will but as we see by Qitniyyos
and the Three cases in MT hilchos hametz uMatzah that the Minhag NOT to
do what was really talmudically permitted is termed g'zeria

Also see SA orach Hayyim 476:1 re: ZLI at the Passover Seder uses this
same formula. Where the Maqom has the Minhag not to eat Zli ...G'zeira
against eating Kodoshim bachutz. [classic s'yag even though it is also
minhag hammaqom] thus Rambam and Mechabeir "conflate" minhag and g'zeira
if you wish to see it that way. OTOH I choose to say that these g'zerios
ARE a subset of minhag anyway and such perceived conflation is only in
our imgination.

Of course if following posqim such as Rambam, R Y Caro and R Moshe
Isserles is deemed as "radical" than that shoe fits me well, and i'll
gladly wear it any time - except on 9 Av and YK of course [?] !

[email #2. -mi]

Re: Choshen Mishpat 2, an illustration 
> R. Kook had basically the same viewpoint. In Da'at Kohen no. 7, he too
> is asked about a shochet whose non-religious sons live at home. R. Kook
> replies that while technically the actions of the sons do not destroy
> the hezkat kashrut of the father, nevertheless, the matter is very
> distasteful (?????). Even if the father could not be blamed at all in
> this matter, nevertheless, it is a hillul ha-shem. Since the beit din
> has the power to legislate in matters beyond the strict law, "there
> is no migdar milta greater than this." He explains the reason for his
> uncompromising viewpoint:

See 
Tradition Seforim Blog: Marc B. Shapiro -- Responses to Comments and
Elaborations of Previous Posts III
http://seforim.traditiononl
ine.org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-of-Previ
ous-Posts-III 

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 10:19:12PM -0500, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: Therefore, a consonant with a sheva na (as in the sheva under the shin 
: if "Sh'ma Yisroel) is just indicating the opening of a syllable, and is 
: not a complete syllable itself. (There's no "closing" of the syllable it 
: began until the next vowel sound is closed by a consonant or the end of 
: a long vowel sound.

Lemaaseh, this isn't anatomically true.

I think the problem I'm having is simple. I'm speaking of syllable in
the phonetic sense of the word, since my exposure is via my sister's
education to be a speech therapist. (My bedroom doubled as old textbook
storage. I picked up some psychology that way too, from my mother's and
my other sister's books.)

This is how I understand the concept:

A syllable is a definite thing that has to do with articulation, not
language. You all are describing something else, which is why I'm asking
for the original jargon.

: I look at a Hebrew syllable as a sandwich--it starts with a consonant 
: sound (a sound made by the lips, teeth or tongue, etc., forming a 
: barrier), followed by a vowel sound (a sound initially shaped by, but 
: not blocked by, the mouth's components). If the vowel sound is long 
: (which means the mouth's components move into a more closing position), 
: that ending of the long vowel serves to close the syllable. If the 
: vowel  is short, a consonant closes the syllable.

The nucleus of a (phonetic) syllabus is a sonorant, meaning a vowel,
or a sonorant consonant like /r/ or /l/ (or a dipthong of vowels,
etc...). The latter you find in Yiddish, most readily in words with the
"-l" suffix. The "-tl" at the end of "Yentl" is using the /l/ the way
English would use a vowel. (Which is why English speakers often warp
the word into "yentel".) Polish uses a lot of sonoront consonants instead
of vowels, which is why their words look the way they do. (That, and
the number of sounds they use pairs of letters for once they went from
Cyrillic to Latin alphabet.)

Before the nucleus, a syllable has an onset consonant. Semitic languages
*require* one, which is why there is the letter alef. It is also why the
Yemenites are probably correct that the melupum at the start of a word
is read /wu/ not /uw/.

And after is the coda, if the syllable is closed. Hebrew somewhat favors
closed syllables, at least compared to Western languages, which is why
we have the patach genuvah in "Noach". Not as much as Aramaic, which is
why Aramaic uses fewer long vowels than Hebrew does.

You seem to be speaking of a grammatical concept of syllable, something
I hadn't heard of before. To my mind, a syllable is parallel to the
number of "beats" you say the word in, and saying that a given sound
sequence is a syllable in one language and not another didn't make any
sense to me.

So, besach hakol, I take RMP's post to be saying that I was correct that
the rules of sheva are really about syllables, but I was incorrect in my
definition of syllable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

: 
: >As I noted in previous years, the maamar that "vayhi" (or "vayhi
: biymei") introduced tzarah has a phonic resononance when you realize it
: sounds like "Vai hi!<
: 
: Is this maamar the alleged Chazal that the grammatically correct 
: pronunciation of vay'hi or vay'chi is with a sheva nach? I don't think 
: that's a valid conclusion.
: 
: Zvi Lampel
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: _______________________________________________
: Avodah mailing list
: Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
: http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
: 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

Here's the current state in NJ - an issue which poskim are wrestling with as well (YUTORAH -R Brander has some shiurim on this topic)

December 31, 2009
New Jersey Judge Calls Surrogate Legal Mother of Twins
By STEPHANIE SAUL<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/t
imestopics/people/s/stephanie_saul/index.html?inline=nyt-per>

A New Jersey judge has ruled that a gestational surrogate who gave birth to
twin girls is their legal mother, even though she is not genetically
related to them.

The ruling gives the woman, who carried the babies in an arrangement with
her brother and his male spouse, the right to seek primary custody of the
children at a trial in the spring.

The case illustrates the legal complexities of gestational surrogacy, in
which a woman carries unrelated embryos created in a petri dish. A
gestational surrogate in Michigan recently obtained custody of twins she
carried, but courts in several other states have upheld the rights of
people who contracted with gestational surrogates.

<SNIP>

Judge Francis B. Schultz of Superior Court, who ruled in the case in Hudson
County, N.J., relied heavily on the precedent established by the New Jersey
Supreme Court in 1988 in the case of Baby M. The surrogate in that case,
Mary Beth Whitehead, carried her own genetic child for another couple after
artificial insemination with the man's sperm. After Ms. Whitehead decided
that she wanted to keep the baby, the court ruled that her maternal rights
could not be terminated against her will.

"The surrogacy contract," the Baby M court found, "is based on principles
that are directly contrary to the objectives of our laws. It guarantees the
separation of a child from its mother; it looks to adoption regardless of
suitability; it totally ignores the child; it takes the child from the
mother regardless of her wishes and maternal fitness."

Citing that passage, Judge Schultz wrote, "Would it really make any
difference if the word 'gestational' was substituted for the word
'surrogacy' in the above quotation? I think not."



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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091231/11c0dba9/attachment-0001.htm>

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Given A g'zeiro may act to prohibit what is Halachically permitted as a syag
>    1. for a community
>    2. for an organization
>   
How would you say "organization" in Rabbinic Hebrew?

David Riceman

Meir Rabbi
> Does this Halacha not puzzle us
 
Anyione following my "radical" threads re: halachah will know by now
that when I pasqen like stright Tur Mechabeir or Rema I'm already a
radical in this cyber-community -- so what else is new. ;-)
 
[Except for the handful Of Yekkes that do get it!] :-) 
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I have just reviewed Ben Ish Chai on Vayhee year one and he has some
fascinating insights into Hilchot Kaddish

EG See his comments on Y'hei sh'meih 

1 It's meaning 
2 what bechol kocho means 

See Halacha 13 about a Qatan reciting solo -- which lich'ora would also
impact women saying it solo.

Also about Yahrzeit. 
And the 12 months 

-- 

On a tangent yehei shmeih... is targum for yehi sh-mo.. 

OTOH Tosafos [and others] presume a Yud in sh'meih to mean or imply sheim Kah 

From where does this Hiddush stem? 

I have an approach [that maybe novel or might already be out there] 

Maybe there is a tradition that y'heih sh'meih is actually the Targum of
the 2nd Passuq of Hallel [Tehillim 113:2] VIZ. Y'hi sheim HASHEM m'vorach
[instead of just sh-mo]

But since our nusach of yehei sh'mei omits Hashem, so we need read it
back IN
[Almost like k'siv and q'rei]. Thus, the Yud which appears to be there
as simply an "eim miqra" for the tzeirei may indeed be functioning as a
place holder for Hashem's name [albeit the short name] based upon this
"supposed" tradition

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 01:29:24AM +0200, Tal Moshe Zwecker wrote:
: Working on Kedushas Levi, How can we reconcile the following Dvar Torah 
: with Rashi's commentary and Midrash Rabbah 89:3 on verse Bereshis 40:23?

: Kedushas Levi says:
:     "And Yosef's master took him and placed him in jail. . .And he
:     remained there in prison." (39:20)

: This is seemingly superfluous. It seems to me that when the Holy One
: sends someone an incident that is heaven forbidden, not good or not
: positive, then he should desist from any physical reaction and rather
: he should simply trust and have faith in Hashem...

In terms of the message, both agree in recommanding avoiding hishtadlus.
Problematic either way.

In terms of substance, the medrash (and Rashi, who quotes it) is saying
that Yoseif failed to live up to this notion, which is why he was there
for two years -- one for each word of request. The Qedushas Levi says
that he remained there because he had faith -- as he was supposed to --
rather than try. Implied is that had Yoseif tried to get out of jail,
he would have gotten out.

The difference may be in their definition of hishtadlus. Rashi is
saying that relying on the sar hamashqim was a lack of bitachon. The
QL is talking about Yoseif relying on himself, not "al yedei matenas
basar vadam".

So, he got punished for trying the wrong sort of hishtadlus, which he
then (perhaps) accepted because he then developed the right sort of
bitachon when the sar hamashqim let him down.

Or perhaps there is simply a conflicting source the QL is extrapolating
from. Who said the two are /supposed/ to be reconcilable?

Just thinking out loud, since (1) the problem intrigues me, and (2) I
would think it a poor greeting if a new member's first post got neglected.
Barukh haBa!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

When I taught Parsha Class @ Mt. Sinai I tuaght this as follows... 

I don't read the 2 years as punishment 
at all 

A careful read of Rashi says HUZQAQ not punished! Huzqaq because Yad Hashem
had to NOT be diluted with assistance from the sar hamashqim.

And so this was really a Teaching a Lesson. That If Yosef had been released
by the sar hamaskim he would have

1 been beholding to him 
2 been less beholding to Hashem 

So aderabba, Hashem had to force Yosef to show that Yosef was mamash
under Hashem's direct hashgacha only. [BH I don't have to worry! I'm not
on Yosef's madreiga -- so I can accept human help and see it as Hashem
having pity ;-)]

Now no one is denying Yosef lost his Freedom, but not as retribution
for a misdeed! Just that the alternative sequence would have created an
undesirable narrative.

This parallels and is m'yussad upon Abarbanel on "meshubadim hayyinu
l'far'oh" in the haggadah.

VIZ. If Par'oh had been a nice guy, a liberal, and HE let us go -- then
we would be m'shubad to him, just as American Slaves became meshubad to
Abe Lincoln! While instead we became Avdei Hashem because par'oh REFUSED
to let us go until he was forced to -- kicking and screaming.

So AISI Yosef was not being PUNISHED but instructed. By HKBH 

[Unless Jewish guilt impels you to see punishment instead! ;-)] 

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 266
***************************************

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..."