Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 213

Mon, 06 Dec 2010

• 1. Re: Kiddushin and Bigamy (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Babylonian Jewry and Chanukah (Micha Berger)
• 3. hand washing during a drought (Eli Turkel)
• 4. wife lighting menorah (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: Kiddushin and Bigamy (Zev Sero)
• 6. Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Local, Non-Global or Global Flood (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: self esteem (Yosef Skolnick)
• 9. Re: Hand Washing During a Drought (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: wife lighting menora (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Hand Washing During a Drought (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Hand Washing During a Drought (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Hand Washing During a Drought (Micha Berger)
• 14. Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Matisyahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol (Micha Berger)

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:29:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I was wondering if the qiddushin would even be chal. Presumably he said
>> "kedas Mosheh veYisrael". Isn't minhag part of "das Yisrael"?

> You obviously didn't read the story.  The man gave his first wife a get,
> and al pi halacha is completely free to marry someone else...

You're right that I missed that important part from the story. I just
saw the big about him threatening a heter mei'ah rabbanim, the first
part of that paragraph.

I still wonder about the question I asked -- if he is getting married
"kedas Mosheh veYisrael", why would a bigamous marriage be chal?

...
> no reason why he should wait for the civil divorce to come through.

That depends why it's taking so long. I can't comment on a real case
without knowing why the first wife is making the divorce difficult.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 11:05:16AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> For many years I have been bothered by the following.
>
> There was a large Jewish population living in Babylonia during the time 
> that the events of Chanukah played out. Yet, I have never seen any 
> mention of the Jews living in Bavel coming to the assistance of the Jews 
> in EY during their struggle with the Syrian-Greeks. Why is this? ...

If you told the story of the Shoah or the early days of the Yom Kippur war
in a book the size of either of the Sifrei Makabiim, Megillas Antiochus,
or the Mai Chanukah section in sha"s, how much if any space would you
dedicate to American Jewry's efforts?

And given the way the world shrunk, the Jews of Bavel were arguably
much further.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

: Apropos of Chanuka if someone has 2 candles the second night and his
neighbor
: has none he should give one to the neighbor as it preferable that both
: keep the basic mitzva rather than he keep mehadrin while his neighbor
doesnt
: have any. The true mehadrin is helping the neighbor.

Is it?

Or should I give my neighbor a perutah, so that he could pay me to be
mishtateif in the mitzvah? Maybe he should sleep over, so as to remove
any question of where to light >>

I was quoting MB on OC:671 (6 in MB)
I was just a little confused as MB seems to say that is his opinion and in
the shaar
hatziyun he quotes chaye adam and pri megadim.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101204/b5a25153/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I don't know if the MB is the only one to say this exception, but I have
not found it elsewhere, though it seems to have become the common psak,
at least among the ashkenazy yeshivishe community in Eretz Yisroel.

Where else do we find a wife being excluded from a mitzva because of the
exception of eeshto k'gufo? I could not think of any other mitzva where
we exclude her like this. If this is the only one, what is different
about Chanukah candles that we exclude her (and this is so despite the
women being central to the miracle, ala Yehudis who cut off the
governors head) than by any other mitzva?>>

Yes this is common practice
R. Aharaon Lichtenstein has a long article on this issue and brings up the
same point.
He ends stating that RYBS had his wife lighting candles and that is also his
(RAL)
custom to have the wife light candles.

RAL makes the point elsewhere that if ishto ke-gufo would one be allowed to
tell
lashon ha-ra to one's wife?

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101204/3b2baa93/attachment-0001.htm>

On 3/12/2010 1:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 01:29:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> I was wondering if the qiddushin would even be chal. Presumably he said
>>> "kedas Mosheh veYisrael". Isn't minhag part of "das Yisrael"?
>
>> You obviously didn't read the story.  The man gave his first wife a get,
>> and al pi halacha is completely free to marry someone else...
>
> You're right that I missed that important part from the story. I just
> saw the big about him threatening a heter mei'ah rabbanim, the first
> part of that paragraph.
>
> I still wonder about the question I asked -- if he is getting married
> "kedas Mosheh veYisrael", why would a bigamous marriage be chal?

Why not?  It's not bigamous al pi torah.  Oh, I see, you mean a real
bigamous marriage.  Could R Gershom could have decreed that such
marriages wouldn't be chal?  I don't know; it seems presumptious for
a local rav, making a local takanah, to equate himself to the "rabanan"
on whose daas one is mekadesh.  It makes sense to me that "das moshe
veyisrael" means the law of *all* yisrael, not including local takanos
of recent vintage and set to expire soon, which is what R Gershom's
cherem was at the time.  He wasn't to know that it would spread to the
majority of Jewry, and be made permanent by minhag.

In any event, though, whether he could or couldn't have made such a
tenai, the fact is that he didn't.  So the marriage is chal, and the
violator is in cherem.


>> no reason why he should wait for the civil divorce to come through.

> That depends why it's taking so long. I can't comment on a real case
> without knowing why the first wife is making the divorce difficult.

Why does it matter?  What does halacha care about the civil divorce?
What if the couple decided, for one reason or another, not to even
bother with a civil divorce; why would that be a problem?

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

<<Had their not been a clear precedent from "our sages and prophets",
AND had the proof for eternity been more solid. the Rambam says could
have reinterpreted the verse.>>

I am not sure that makes much of a difference. Bottom line Rambam is ready
to reinterpret pesukim if necessary (except perhaps in cases of clear
statements
from the sages and prophets).

I note that Abarbanel (beginning of Hoshea) accuses Rambam of changing
simple pshat in a pasuk to
when it seems to oppose Rambam's philosophy. One example out of many is
Shoftim 10:16
which talks about the "Nefesh" of Hashem which Rambam in More Nevuchim
1:41 interprets "Nefesh" as the will of G-d.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101205/15b2e6df/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 11:51:24AM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Had there not been a clear precedent from "our sages and prophets",
:> AND had the proof for eternity been more solid. the Rambam says could
:> have reinterpreted the verse.

: I am not sure that makes much of a difference. Bottom line Rambam is ready
: to reinterpret pesukim if necessary (except perhaps in cases of clear
: statements from the sages and prophets).

I'm saying the Rambam excludes the possibility of a real conflict between
Chazal's understanding of a pasuq and a solid philosophical argument. Not
that he would invent a new peshat against that of Chazal's.

The Rambam draws two distinctions between explaining all the
anthropomorphications in Tanakh as allegory/idiom and his unwillingness to
declare maaseh bereishis allegorical (and embrace Artisto's beginning-less
universe).

1- Aristo's argument against creation is flawed.

2- It would run counter to the nevi'im and chazal. Whereas the notion
that G-d couldn't have a body is provable from within mesorah.

My position in this discussion have been to assert that second criterion.

The piece you cited is where the Rambam says he has the ability to do fit
the pesuqim to an allegory while asserting Arisotilian infinity, not that
he feels he "could" as in it beimng within the list of correct choices.
After all, the Moreh continues by giving the second criterion explaining
why he wouldn't.

So, the Rambam wouldn't REinterpret, only interpret when he feels the
question isn't settled by neviim and chazal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Just because learning comes easily to someone doesn't mean they are
interested in learning... What often impresses is me are the illuyim that
decide to spend their lives learning.  There are plenty of other professions
or lines of research that they could have chosen but they chose to be in
klei kodesh, that is a massive feat.

Yosef Skolnick
516-690-SKOL


On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 9:23 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com <
kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:

> R' Zev Sero asked:
>
> > Ein hachi nami, but what do you do if the subject of your biography
> > really was an illuy? Pretend he wasn't?!
>
> This is a very important question. For me, the answer is to focus on
> whatever it was that he had to struggle with.
>
> Learning comes easy to an illuy, so his ability to learn a great amount, or
> at a young age, does not impress me at all. But just because he was good at
> learning, that doesn't mean that his midos were so great. Maybe he
> understood deep concepts easily, but found it difficult to control his
> temper or get out of bed in the morning.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20101205/99a1e65f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger quoted someone from Areivim:

> I was at a wedding last night in Bnai Brak. The cup for washing cups was
> about twice the size we use in my shul. The person in front of me filled
> it up to the top for washing for the meal.
> Personally I was disturbed that in a time of drought that one uses
> many times the minimum shiur necessary.

Droughts vary in severity. I don't know the current situation in Eretz
Yisrael, and perhaps the current drought is a severe one. But maybe it's
not. I know that in my area, the government will issue different sorts of
restrictions depending on how severe the water shortage is, and I don't
know if I need to be stricter than the goverment is asking me to be. The
impact which one individual (or even several) will make is so minimal that
I really don't think it is worth it.

RMB himself added:

> I was once at a conference in Phoenix, and Rabbi Avi Fertig [CC-ed], one
> of the presenters was behind me on line for netilas yadayim. Like at
> many semachos, Shabbatonim and yemei iyun, the were pitchers of water at
> a "washing station" with a cup and bowl to wash our hands into. I
> noticed he washed his hands once each, rather than the usual twice on
> each side.

This is an entirely different issue than the drought. Like in the story he
brought about Rav Yisrael Salanter, this is a chesed that we can easily do
for the water carriers. I don't know how long ago I started washing only my
fingers in these situations; it never occured to me to wash only once
rather than twice, and I thank RMB for bringing this idea to my attention.

(I would point out that this is actually a double chesed,because when we
use less water, this not only means that the water supply doesn't need to
be replenished as much, but in addition, the used water doesn't need to be
removed as much.)

Some might say that there's no real difference between the two cases, but I
think there is. In the case of the drought, a few ounces is truly
negligible, and we can't point to any specific people who will be affected
by those specific ounces of water. But by the washing stations, a
difference of just a few ounces can make a real difference in the workload
of a specific staff person who will be able to do this job a minute later
instead of right now.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfb04c4839d25dc9acst02vuc

R' Rafi Goldmeier asked:

> Where else do we find a wife being excluded from a mitzva because of the
> exception of eeshto k'gufo? I could not think of any other mitzva where
> we exclude her like this. If this is the only one, what is different
> about Chanukah candles that we exclude her

I was thinking about this all Shabbos long, and asked several friends for
ideas. We came up with nothing. I cannot think of any other mitzva which is
done by the whole family, including the sons and the daughters, but not the
wife.

But I did think of another case which contrasts with this so sharply that I think it is worth mentioning. Consider this:

A) Ner Chanuka is done by everyone, except the wife.
B) Ner Shabbos v'YT is done by *no* *one*, except the wife.

Consider that many similarities between these two mitzvos. Me'ikar hadin,
they are both truly on the home and not on any individual. Any one member
of the family can light and all will be yotzay. The others don't have to
appoint the lighter as their shliach; it is automatic. The others don't
even have to be present at the lighting. For example, in many homes the men
have already left for shul when the wife lights the Shabbos candles; and on
Chanuka, if the husband is away on a business trip, the wife can light for
him at home.

On Chanukah, in all these cases, our practice (call it "minhag" or
"mehadrin" or whatever) is for each person to light their own lights, but
it is not absolutely required. Yet, each and every member of the family
does try to light their own anyway -- except for the wife.

And on Shabbos, anyone could be the one to light the lights for the house, but under typical circumstances, no one does so, except for the wife.

Just some thoughts.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Globe Life Insurance
$1* Buys $50,000 Life Insurance. Adults or Children. No Medical Exam.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4cfb0b3251e1f5dd5b1st02vuc

On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:43:34PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
> Halacha?  The halacha requires only a revi'is.  But one who sticks to
> this bare minimum is mezalzel bemitzvah and puts himself at risk of
> poverty...

You *define* zilzul mitzvah as using the minimum shiur.

I don't see that in the words. What I see (OC 158:9) is that someone who
is mezalzel bentilas yadayim is chayav nidui, will become poor, and is
ne'eqar min ha'olam. And (158:10) there is a separate concept, to use more
than a revi'is, quoting R' Chisda "... veyehavu li melo chfnai tivusa".

There is no implication that using a bare revi'is for reasons other
than zilzul comes with a curse, or that using the shiur is by definition
zilzul, regardless of motive.

The AhS (158:15) does link them as one din, but he also doesn't presume
that using the shiur is inherently zilzul. Rather, he warns those who
use the minimumbecause they are mezalzelim umefaqpeqim al divrei Chazal.

Now that we looked in my neck of the woods, I went to RZS's, the SA
haRav also at OC 158:15. "Tzerikh lizaher me'od bentilas yadayim shekol
hamezalzel".. and even if he uses a revi'is metzumtzam he could be
struck with poverty and neeqar min ha'olam. Clearly linking what the SA
writes as two seperate ideas. But still, not that a revi'is metzumtzam
is definitionally a zilzul, but that a mezulzal is likely to use the
least he could get away with.

BTW, what is "metzumtzam" here? I went with RZS's assumption that the
SAhR means the exact shiur. But had I learned it without prejudice,
I would think it's a "small revi'is", ie not even using the usual
definition of a revi'is but some smaller pesaq.


WRT our other discussion of doing things for segulos... See the MB s"q
38, who makes a point of quoting the Shelah warning you not to turn this
into al menas leqabel peras. An interesting thing to have in particular
besheim haShelah, whose works are often mined for segulos to implement.

As for other hidurei mitzvah... Yes, I would say that anyone who is trying
to decide whether to spend money on tzedaqah or on getting better kesav
for their mezuzah should give the tzedaqah. The truth is, though, that
we don't spend all our disposable income on tzedaqah that such decisions
are a zero sum game between chumeros BALM and performing more BALC.


As I hope is yadu'ah among the chevrah by now, my perspective on the
central questions of Yahadus is essentially that of RSS as he spells
them out in the introduction to Shaarei Yosher. Which begins:

    Yisbarakh HaBorei VeYis'alah HaYotzeir, Who created us in His
    "Tzelem" and in the "demus Tavniso", and planted eternal life within
    us, so that our greatest desire should be to do good to others, to
    individuals and to the masses, now and in the future, in imitation
    of the Creator (as it were). For everything He created and formed
    was according to His Will (may it be blessed), [that is] only to
    be good to the creations. So too His Will is that we walk in His
    ways. As it says "and you shall walk in His Ways" -- that we, the
    select of what He made -- should constantly hold as our purpose to
    sanctify our physical and spiritual powers for the good of the many,
    according to our abilities. In my opinion, this whole concept is
    included in Hashem's mitzvah "Be holy, [for I am Holy]."

This is Hillel's explanation to the geirus candidate, and R' Aqiva's and
Ben Azai's respective kelal gadol that everything boils down to BALC.
Even BALM is to enable bringing real Tov to the rabim rather than trying
to do so without the true concept of Tov. One must be nidvaq to the
Borei in order to be a conduit of His Tov to others.

Whereas I think a chassid would see hatavah as part of deveiqus, and
not reduce deveiqus to handmaiden status.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 6/12/2010 11:14 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 09:43:34PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote to Areivim:
>> Halacha?  The halacha requires only a revi'is.  But one who sticks to
>> this bare minimum is mezalzel bemitzvah and puts himself at risk of
>> poverty...
>
> You *define* zilzul mitzvah as using the minimum shiur.

No, *Rashi* defines it that way, and he is brought lehalacha in, e.g.,
Seder Netilas Yodayim 1:1


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

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:21:54AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> You *define* zilzul mitzvah as using the minimum shiur.

> No, *Rashi* defines it that way, and he is brought lehalacha in, e.g.,
> Seder Netilas Yodayim 1:1

In the sugya on Shabbos 62b, Rashi mentions revi'is once. Rava says
that the mezalzel bentilas yadayim that R' Avohu says causes poverty is
someone who neglected to do it, NOT someone who is "masa velo masa". On
which Rashi writes, "that he didn't wash and scrub well, but uses a little
water like a revi'is metzumtzam". (I repeat my question about whether this
is a bare revi'is, or a minimalist definition of revi'is.) But he too does
not say the lack of water is the definition of zilzul. Rather, a mezalzel
doesn't really wash his hands, including using a minimum of water.

The gemara rejects rava, implying that it is someone who is masa velo
masa. This is where R' Chisda says that he pours generously, and HQBH
repays him in kind.

There is nothing there saying that using a revi'is metzumtzam *defines*
someone who does but doesn't wash. Rather, someone who doesn't really
wash will be someone who uses the least water and won't make sure his
whole hand gets wet (she'eino rocheitz umeshafasheif yafeh -Rashi).

(BTW, if you learn the gemara, any married man who uses extra water in
order to get a berakhah over wealth should also not be cheap in budgeting
for cosmetics and clothing for his wife -- if it is possible to find the
money. Adjacent items on R' Avohu's list, both expounded on by Rava and
the chakhamim.)



In any case, we're also still carrying RET's question... So, don't use
the minimum of water. Instead of using a CI revi'is of 150cc, use 175.
That shows a lack of minimalist attitude -- more than the largest accepted
revi'is. Where does that become an obligation to use 500 - 750 cc that
we find in most cups sold for the purpose?

(Translation for Americans who didn't take enough engineering or medical
courses to think in cc: The CI revi'is is a little over 5 oz. If you used
a small drinking cup, say the 6 oz plastic cup you see at kids parties or
in a shul with a tight soda budget, you're still 10% over the minimum even
if the cup is only "almost full". So, where does the notion of not using
the minimum obligate using those huge two-handle cups of 16 to 25 fl oz?)

This distinction is why I noted the separation of the berakhah associated
with washing berevakh (R' Chisda) from the zilzul / qalalah described
by Rava.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On 6/12/2010 10:41 AM, Micha Berger wrote on Areivim:
> Tangent... Was there a Matisyahu Kohein Gadol, or was Matisyahu the son of
> the famous (and apparently incredibly long lived) Yochanan Kohein Gadol?

IIRC, R Avigdor Miller wrote that the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who became
a tzduki after serving (till the age of) 80 years was Alexander Yannai,
the granson of Shimon ben Matisyahu.

I don't know what support he had for this theory.  Or for the idea that
"80 years" is his age rather than the length of his service.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 01:34:10PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> IIRC, R Avigdor Miller wrote that the Yochanan Kohen Gadol who became
> a tzduki after serving (till the age of) 80 years was Alexander Yannai,
> the granson of Shimon ben Matisyahu.

He's citing Abayei on Berakhos 29a. Rava disagrees, and says Yannai was
a Tzeduqi from day 1.

But I guess that means according to Abayei, Matiyahu was either kohein
gadol or the son of another kohein gadol named Yochanan.

R' Dovid Cohen relates the question I asked to the machloqes of whether we
should sign a shetar "Re'uvein eid ben Yaaqov", or, as we do, "Re'uvein
ben Yaaqov eid". If you hold one must do the former (because it's
unambiguous), then you must parse Al haNissim as referring to Masiyahu,
the son of a kohein gadol named Yochanan.

In order of antiquity:

Seifer Yuchasin (1:17) and Seder haDoros (s.v. "Yochanan Kohein Gadol")
say that Matisyahu was YKG's son.

The Rambam (haqdamah to Peirush haMishnayos) and the Roqeiach
(Chanukah) say YKG was ben Matiyahu. (Whom RGS guesses was named for
his grandfather.)

Seifer Yuchasin (1:16) and Seder haDoros (s.v. YKG) say YKG was John
(ie Yochanan) Hyrcanus, the son of Shim'on haMakabi.

The medrash I posted last year
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n254.shtml#12
requires that either Yochanan and Matisyahu had to be kohein gadol
and famous, but not which. Recapping:

    In Maaseh Chanukah par. 6 (which can be found in Otzar haMidrashim
    (NY, 1915) and more classically, in Otzar Tov cheileq 1, Beis
    haMedrash cheileq 5), the war is described as being triggered by the
    wedding of Matisyahu's daughter Channah. (Not being confused with
    Channah of the 7 sons of Maccabbees II, which BTW is a less Jewish
    source than Makabiim I.)

    Chanah's wedding couldn't be hidden from the hegemon, being that
    the kohain gadol's family is famous. She came to her wedding nude,
    taunted her brothers that this outrages them, but the fate that
    evening does not? She then asks them to follow in the footsteps of
    Shim'on veLeivi defending Dinah's honor, and the war begins.

    ... [W]hen I was told about the hegemon claiming droit de seigneur,
    I was also taught that /this/ was why Chanukah was so special for
    women in particular, and thus the lack of melakhah.

While quoting myself and discussing Sefer Makabiim I, I fleshed out
more of my thoughts on the Chassidim haRishonim last year and blogged
them http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/12/1st-chassidim.shtml I note that
Yosi b' Yoezer (one of the Zugos), who is called "chasid shebikehunah"
and was crucified by the Saleucids -- the people who are described in
Makabiim as killing the chassidim.

    Yosi ben Yo'ezer was contemporary to Tzadoq, founder of the
    Sadducees. Tzadoq was a student of Antignos ish Sokho, and Yosi ben
    Yoezer was his successor as head of the Sanhedrin. Meaning, that if
    all of the above is correct, the rise of the Sadducees was around
    the same time as the heyday the Chassidim haRishonim. One embracing
    Hellenistic thought alongside scriptural law, the other pursuing
    purity of thought on Jewish terms.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 213
***************************************

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..."