Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 96

Sun, 11 Apr 2010

• 1. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Returning Taut akum (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Haleiv HaCompanies (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. [Areivim] Identity of "barzel" (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 9. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Micha Berger)
• 11. achronim and rishonim (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Who First Said It? 8 - Lechem Mishnah On YT (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 13. Our Prophets Speak to Us (Yitzchok Levine)
• 14. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Who First Said It? 7 - Mourning during Sefirah (Zev Sero)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 3:07pm EDT, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >Essentially RMF says that the USDA is a proxy for this "Jew in the
> : >vicinity" and triggers the same "mirsas" via "anan sahadi". [I'm fuzzy
> : >what the specific dynamics of this anan sahadi are about]
> 
> : Sorry, this misstates the IM's position....                    Rather,
> : his position in the original teshuvah is that "anan sahadi" is a full
> : eidus *for all purposes*....
> 
> I do not see where you disagree with RRW's obvious intent.
> 
> RMF treats Chalav Yisrael (CY) as a question of requiring birur, and thus
> any form of birur is sufficient.

No, he doesn't.  He treats it as requiring eidus, but says that a
sufficient level of certainty *is* eidus.   In the third teshuvah in
the series he explicitly assumes that *even without* this "eidus" we
don't really have a safek, we've already been mevarer the metzius,
but that's not sufficient.  Chazal decreed that we need "yisrael
ro'ehu".  His chidush is that we have that, even though nobody
physically saw it.



> BTW, you note that you're writin of RMF's original teshuvah. I am not
> convinced his position was constant over time.
> 
> However, if someone were choleiq, and held that CY was a gezeirah,
> we would require supervision even if there were no chance of a problem.

In the third teshuvah he explicitly says it was a gezeira, and even a
davar shebeminyan that cannot be repealed.  And he repeats his position
that "anan sahadi" is enough to satisfy that gezeira.   It seems to me,
having gone over those teshuvos multiple times over the years, that the
crux of his position is that he distinguishes between merely knowing
something and being certain of it.

He seems to assume that even without any fancy arguments we all know the
milk supply is more than 59/60 cows' milk.  We don't need any special
insight for this, just our general knowledge of how the industry works.
If there were massive numbers of horses being milked, and their milk
being dumped into the national supply, we'd have heard of it by now.
(It seems to me that this is a potential weak point in his structure;
if someone were to establish that the metzius is otherwise, i.e. not
necessarily that there *is* all this horse milk going in, but that the
idea isn't as far-fetched as RMF thinks it is, then perhaps everything
that follows from this assumption can be questioned.)

Given that assumption, he says were it not for the gezerah we wouldn't
need to worry about anything.  We could drink the milk just as we eat
all sorts of things that we assume there are no problems with.  (e.g.
everyone makes fun of the need for a hechsher on bottled water, even
though it is theoretically possible that the bottling machine could
have been used for clam juice or something.)

But there is a gezerah, so we can't just rely on this general knowledge.
We need "yisrael ro'ehu", because Chazal said so.   Further, RMF says
we *don't* have this "anan sahadi" with regard to what the farmer does
on his farm, before the milk truck comes to pick it up.  Since there's
nothing preventing him from dumping in treife milk, the mere fact that
we know he's not doing so isn't enough.  Therefore it is assur to buy
milk from a goyishe farmer.  But when the dairy company buys that very
same milk, processes it and bottles it, we can buy it from the company
because our level of certainty that the milk was not adulterated while
it was in the company's possession is high enough to constitute eidus.
And since Chazal were only gozer on the last nochri to own the milk,
we don't need to worry about what the farmer did.  For the farmer we
go back to the usual din, which is that if we had a safek we would be
machmir, but since we don't have a safek we can drink it.


> It would seem to me that the same birur issue would arise lekhol hadei'os
> if one was dealing with a mumar rather than a nakhri. Since he's a mumar,
> he is just as likely to adulterate the milk. Since he's a Yehudi, he's
> outside the possible gezeirah.

Right.  And since RMF assumes that he is *not* likely to adulterate
the milk, there is no safek to be machmir on.  The only problem would
be the gezera, and since he's Jewish there's no gezera.

 
> BTW, a co worker leaves CY milk in a screw-top bottle in a company
> fringe. Tampering is far from evident. I asked him once if the bottle
> remains CY after leaving it there unattended. He replied that he never
> heard of chalav haneelam min haayin. But it does seem RMF was thinking in
> those terms by speaking of identifying the situation up to and including
> the last nachri owner.

RMF's position seems to be that the gezera applies at one and only
one point in the life cycle of the milk: when it first passes from
a goyishe owner to a Jewish one.  What happened to it before it came
into that last goy's possession is irrelevant, and so is what happens
to it after it was bought by that first Jew.  (Assuming, once again,
that we're not really worried about treif, but only about the gezera.)


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

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:17:16PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>This is a side-issue. The Ari holds that the aveilus that would issur
:>taspores applies all 49 days, it's "just" that hachanah for Yom Tov
:>overrides it.

: The issue, according to the Ari, is not aveilus.  If it were, then it
: would be suspended on Lag Ba'omer.

Then what is it? Does RMC say the Ari is choleiq with "everyone else",
or is it a non-aveilus memorial of the lost talmidim of R' Aqiva and
those of the ShU"M communities of Ashkenaz?

If this is your own supposition, then one needs to prove the Ari was
choleiq with the norm -- there is a burden of proof. Perhaps one can
prove the reverse; that the Ari held that it was aveilus, that preparing
for a Yom Tov deOraisa overrules the minhagei aveilus, but Lag baOmer
isn't even Purim or Chanukah, and therefore doesn't.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:15:46PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >RMF treats Chalav Yisrael (CY) as a question of requiring birur, and thus
: >any form of birur is sufficient.

: No, he doesn't.  He treats it as requiring eidus, but says that a
: sufficient level of certainty *is* eidus...

This is a circumlocution to no perpose. There is no eid, but it's eidus?
Clearly it can only be "like eidus" and thus calling both birur matches
his intent. Perhaps one can limit it -- the same kind of birur as eidus,
rather than e.g. chazaqah [disvara] or rov.

You're playing word games to the exclusion of simple logic.

: >However, if someone were choleiq, and held that CY was a gezeirah,
: >we would require supervision even if there were no chance of a problem.

: In the third teshuvah he explicitly says it was a gezeira, and even a
: davar shebeminyan that cannot be repealed.  And he repeats his position
: that "anan sahadi" is enough to satisfy that gezeira.   It seems to me,
: having gone over those teshuvos multiple times over the years, that the
: crux of his position is that he distinguishes between merely knowing
: something and being certain of it.

Which is EXACTLY why I mentioned that RYF's position appears to change
over time, and that since you're discussing the first teshuvah, I would
limit my comments to his position at that time.

The teshuvos differ in masqanah. RMF originally held that Chalav
haCompanies is mutar me'iqar hadin, but e.g. for a school, CY was a good
chumrah to adopt. Later, he shifted to seeing ChC as a valid qulah,
but not quite baseline iqar hadin.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 12:58:14AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Did anyone listen to a recent R' Reisman navi shiur  that mentioned this
: topic. IUC he was asked how one could return it, isn't there an issue of
: lo tchaneim- his answer iiuc (bshem R' Pam ) was that for tikun of one's
: middot it was acceptable .  When I looked up the Beer Haagolah he
: referred to it seemed that the reason was the kiddush hashem created...

Which is the usual reason given. E.g.
    Y-mi BM 2:5
    Rambam Gezeilah 11:3, see also Aveidah 11:3
    Beis Yoseif 266:1, SA 266:1
    SME 266:3
...

Eg: the SA writes that returning for the sake of qiddush Hashem is
"harei zeh meshubach", and in situations where the aku"m will likely
assume/realize the person who has it is a Yehudi there is a chiyuv.

And mipenei darkei Shalom, if he leaves the item in a place where the
Yehudi knows ganavim will come, he brings the item in just like one
of ours. We're only speaking of something dropped without awareness.

And when I say aku"m, I mean aku"m and NOT nachri in general. That's a
point made in Be'eir haGolah on 266, who says it's peshat in the Rambam
and the Tur WRT "machaziq yedeihem shel OVEREI AVEIRA". One must return
the aveidah of a nachri who believes in a Borei, which I assume means
within the limits of the 7 mitzvos (and thus not oveir aveirah).

IOW, I see no mention of developing middos either. Rather, of not
creating an image of lacking middos, because of chillul Hashem.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Neither the USDA nor any government agency is a proxy for a Jewish
> witness. Nor does he rely on some leniency of a Jew merely having
> to be in the vicinity. Rather, his position in the original
> teshuvah is that "anan sahadi" is a full eidus *for all purposes*.
> His proof is .... From this he derives a rule that certainty is
> just as good as physically seeing something.

This is my understanding of RMF as well.

The reason this sticks in my mind is that his psak of "knowing is as good
as seeing" contrasts very sharply with the common English saying, that
"seeing is believing".

In the English phrase, we mean that if one has seen something with his own
eyes, there's no way to deny that it happened. But the way RMF explains it,
if one acquires a strong knowledge of a situation (such as the knowledge of
this milk's source, based upon pages and pages of logical arguments about
government supervision and such), that knowledge is equivalent to having
seen it with his own eyes.

In the English phrase, the knowledge is the ikar, and seeing it is merely a
means to acquire that knowledge. In RMF's view (AIUI) seeing is the ikar,
and knowledge of the event is an acceptable substitute.

I get the feeling that I've pointed to a difference between Jewish and
nonJewish ways of looking at the world. I suppose it has something to do
with the importance of eidus and testimony, but I sense that it goes beyond
that. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:47:06PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: In the English phrase, the knowledge is the ikar, and seeing it is
: merely a means to acquire that knowledge. In RMF's view (AIUI) seeing
: is the ikar, and knowledge of the event is an acceptable substitute.

I don't see it that way at all. (Pun intended, sorry.)

RMF is saying that lemaaseh, when chazal spoke of CY, they spoke of
re'iyah. Not that re'iyah is a defining feature. One is reading too
much into the idiom "anan sahadi" to think that the metaphoric sahadi
is somehow eidus-without-eidus.

: I get the feeling that I've pointed to a difference between Jewish
: and nonJewish ways of looking at the world. I suppose it has something
: to do with the importance of eidus and testimony, but I sense that it
: goes beyond that. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

"Einah domeh shemi'ah lere'iyah" comes to mind.

R' Lord Jonathan Sacks has much to say about shemi'ah being SUPERIOR
TO re'iyah, but WRT theology. We are a people of Shema Yisrael, not
iconography. Moshe's "'Peh' el peh adabeir bo" nevu'ah is above the
chazon. It comes up in his weekly Covenant and Conversation quite often.

Which admittedly is a different domain then metzi'us, but you did ask for
"any thoughts".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

RZS:
> Chazal decreed that we need "yisrael ro'ehu".

Actually this is pasqeninig from a mishna which is a no-no

Bartenura on the spot says " lav davka"

The Braissa plus the gmara specifically overule this mishna with the
yosheiv criteria in lieu of roeihu

The gmara says seeing is unncecessary, rather that the ability to see
creates mirsas see below

See TB AZ 39b 
Mishnah AZ 2:7 Bartenura
 Artscroll yad avraham

Artscroll quotes meiri and Bartenura

So as per dina deshas
1. If no unkosher nimal is present the milking itself does NOT need
   supervision.
   Of course this fact might need verification
2. In the prsence of unkosher animals the nachri merely needs to be
   able to be observed
   "The gentile will then refrain from mixing in any non-kosher milk"

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

When the Torah mentions "barzel" (the first reference is apparently in 
sefer Bamidmar), is it speaking about a specific metal?  I have 
generally heard it translated as iron, as opposed to copper/nechoshes or 
the precious metals, but wonder if it is certainly so.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:17:16PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> :>This is a side-issue. The Ari holds that the aveilus that would issur
> :>taspores applies all 49 days, it's "just" that hachanah for Yom Tov
> :>overrides it.
> 
> : The issue, according to the Ari, is not aveilus.  If it were, then it
> : would be suspended on Lag Ba'omer.
> 
> Then what is it? Does RMC say the Ari is choleiq with "everyone else",
> or is it a non-aveilus memorial of the lost talmidim of R' Aqiva and
> those of the ShU"M communities of Ashkenaz?

No, it's nothing to do with aveilus for anybody or anything.  He's
not cholek with anyone, he just says that regardless of whatever
aveilus anyone is or isn't observing, and even bizman habayis when
there is no aveilus, one should let his hair grow during the whole
sefirah, and then cut it on the 49th day.

Who's RMC?


> If this is your own supposition, then one needs to prove the Ari was
> choleiq with the norm -- there is a burden of proof. Perhaps one can
> prove the reverse; that the Ari held that it was aveilus, that preparing
> for a Yom Tov deOraisa overrules the minhagei aveilus, but Lag baOmer
> isn't even Purim or Chanukah, and therefore doesn't.

On the contrary, the Ari was very much a booster of Lag Ba'omer as a
day of actual simcha, simchas Rashbi, rather than merely hafsakas avelus
for talmidei R Akiva.  Hence it starts with the previous night, and
therefore there is no tachanun at the previous mincha, whereas according
to those who are merely ceasing to mourn for TRA it starts in the morning
and therefore there is tachanun at the previous mincha, as there is
before any day whose specialness only starts by day (Pesach Sheni, Erev
RH and YK, Erev Pesach if there were tachanun in Nissan).

In fact, AIUI the whole idea that Lag Ba'Omer is hilulas Rashbi starts
with the Ari, and so does the identification of his grave in Meron.

So if not cutting hair was mishum aveilus the Ari would definitely have
permitted it on LB.  He allows weddings, which are surely more chamur
than haircuts.  But he forbids haircuts because the entire sefirah is
not a time for them.

The Ari's source seems to be the piece of Zohar which is said in the
Tikun Leil Shavuos.

[Added in a 2nd email. -micha]

I did a web search and came up with this page that goes into the sources:
http://www.armoni.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&;t=1381&start=0

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

On Fri, Apr 09, 2010 at 01:33:15PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: No, it's nothing to do with aveilus for anybody or anything.  He's
: not cholek with anyone, he just says that regardless of whatever
: aveilus anyone is or isn't observing, and even bizman habayis when
: there is no aveilus, one should let his hair grow during the whole
: sefirah, and then cut it on the 49th day.
: 
: Who's RMC?

A typo for RCV, R' Chaim Vital, our source for all things Ari. You
mentioned the Peri Eitz Chayim; I tried to refer to its author.

: >If this is your own supposition, then one needs to prove the Ari was
: >choleiq with the norm -- there is a burden of proof. Perhaps one can
: >prove the reverse; that the Ari held that it was aveilus, that preparing
: >for a Yom Tov deOraisa overrules the minhagei aveilus, but Lag baOmer
: >isn't even Purim or Chanukah, and therefore doesn't.

: On the contrary, the Ari was very much a booster of Lag Ba'omer as a
: day of actual simcha, simchas Rashbi, rather than merely hafsakas avelus
: for talmidei R Akiva.  Hence it starts with the previous night, and
: therefore there is no tachanun at the previous mincha, whereas according
: to those who are merely ceasing to mourn for TRA it starts in the morning
: and therefore there is tachanun at the previous mincha, as there is
: before any day whose specialness only starts by day (Pesach Sheni, Erev
: RH and YK, Erev Pesach if there were tachanun in Nissan).

But I said nothing about Lag baOmer being a hafsaqas aveilus. You're
arguing a straw man. I said it wasn't enough of a chag to interrupt
aveilus.

...
: So if not cutting hair was mishum aveilus the Ari would definitely have
: permitted it on LB.  He allows weddings, which are surely more chamur
: than haircuts.  But he forbids haircuts because the entire sefirah is
: not a time for them.

"Not a time" is an end-run around the question of the point of the issur.

On the bulletin board you pointed us to, RMArmoni says that it is not
for aveilus, and then brings a raayah from Peri Eitz Chaim who says
it is for aveilus -- and that sei'ar more relates to losing R' Aqiva's
talmidim than other aveilus practies.

We lost much of the shalsheles of R' Aqiva, the one who produced talei
talin shel halakhos al kol qotz veqotz. This is meramez in hair, which is
yotzi min ha'ayin. The students died because they didn't fulfill the Torah
which comes from the yeish. They died during the omer which is the meqor
hayeish. Also, "omer lagulgoles" ties saaros haelyonim to this period.

Again, if the Ari held that it was some other causal connection between
their death and the practice of omer, wouldn't RCV had to have explicitly
said that it wasn't the aveilus asserted by the ge'onim and rishonim? Is
it usual in PEC to disagree with the rov and not be clear about it?

(See the sources in the Beis Yoseif on OC 493.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 10th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Gevurah: When does strict
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  judgment bring balance and harmony?

My question is what achronim (until very recently) knew about the various
rishonim like chidushei ramban,rashba,ritva etc.

I saw recently a reference to Chiddushei R. Chaim Halevi Rambam:Edut:3:4
Who based on a Schach 30:6 explains a disagreement between Rambam and Ramban.
Unfortunately the Schach has a misprint and instead of Ramban it
should be Raavan.

The obvious conclusion is that R. Chaim had no access to Chidushei
Ramban to see the
original. I also recall hearing from RYBS that he first saw many of
these chiddushim
when he came to Berlin.

Nevertheless the Schach (1621-1662) quotes the Chiddushei Ramban many times
and so seems to have known it.

More generally I have an article by Ta Shma on the Pnei Yehoshua
(1680-1756) where he claims
that the Pnei Yehoshua was the first to extensively use the various
chiddishim. This is part of
the reason that the Pnei Yehoshua is the most quoted of achronim
chiddushim in the century
that follows. Chiddushei Ramban on Baba Batra and Chiddushei Rashba to
Berachot, Gittin
and Chullin were first printed in the early 1700s. From 1760 and for
the next 50 years
the vast majority of the rishonim we now know where printed. (TaShma
quotes a previous article
of his with more details in Kiryat Sefer tat-Shin_Lamed_vav - which I
dont have) based
om manuscripts from the East. Until then achronim knew of the contents
of the chiddushim
only from secondary sources like Teshuvot Rashba, Ran on Rif, Rosh and
others who quoted
portions of the teshuvot.

Any ideas why Schach seems to be one of the few quoting Chiddushei Ramban until
the printing of the seforim. Even after the printing and the Pnei
Yehoshua it seems that
many achronim even in yeshivot like Volozhin did not have access to
these seforim?
The kzot hachoshen (1745-1812) also seems to have had limited access to many
of these chiddushim

-- 
Eli Turkel

Given:
The Talmud states that lechem mishnah is required on shabbos
What source first  extended this to Yom Tov also?

L'mai Nafqa Minah?
Perhaps how one approaches 3 vs. 2 Matzos at the Seder.

Hint:
See BeHag.

GS
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

The following is from Rav Dr. Breuer's essay Our 
Prophets Speak to Us that appears beginning on 
page 80 of the new book A Unique 
Perspective:  Rav Breuer's Essays 1914 - 1973, published by Feldheim.

This article originally appeared in J?dische 
Monatshefte, Vol. 8, 1921, and again in the 
Mitteilungen, Vol. 28, December 1966/January 1967.

IMO one excellent sefer on one of the books of 
Tenach is Rav Schwab on Yeshayahu, published last 
year by Artscroll last year.   YL

Our Prophets Speak to Us

The following essay on the role of the study of our
Nevi?im appears warranted in view of the incredible
neglect of this vital study area by most of our higher
Yeshiva institutions. This is a phenomenon that probably
has its roots in our recent history. At the time when the
so-called ?Haskalah,? spreading its vicious propaganda,
tried to expel Talmud study from the educational program
and replace it with the study of Tanach and Hebrew
language, a negative attitude of the Yeshivos towards
the role of Tanach study was understandable. In
our time there is no reason for this attitude. The present
trend towards almost exclusive occupation with the Talmud
leaves the study of Tanach to the individual talmid,
on whose private interest it depends whether he wishes
to broaden his knowledge and understanding of Tanach
beyond that which he acquired in grade school. The
study of Tanach, no less than the study of Talmud,
requires the mature guidance of those who are able to
provide it for our mature youth.

It is the purpose of this essay to demonstrate in brief
strokes the approach to the Books of our Prophets and
the vital significance of this research.

Our Prophets must be read in a spirit of sanctity, for they meet
us as Divinely-inspired leaders, commissioned by God to assist us
in comprehending the enigma of life. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100410/7da61f61/attachment-0001.htm>

 


> 
> This is a side-issue. The Ari holds that the  aveilus that would issur
> taspores applies all 49 days, it's "just" that  hachanah for Yom Tov
> overrides it. [--RMB]

The issue, according  to the Ari, is not aveilus.  If it were, then it
would be suspended on  Lag Ba'omer.

-- 
Zev  Sero                      

 
 
>>>>>
The issue is not aveilus?  What /is/ the issue?
 
 

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

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100411/b7a4c73d/attachment.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> The issue is not aveilus?  What /is/ the issue?

The Zohar compares the preparation for mattan torah to a nidah rising
out of her tum'ah and preparing for her chosson.  It specifically refers
to the hair grown during her time of tum'ah being cut in order to become
tahor.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 96
**************************************

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..."