Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 166

Thu, 18 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Interlocking fingers (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. Re: women and kiddush levanah (David Cohen)
• 3. kiddush levana (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Rav Shmuel Vosner: Stopping After Eight Children? (Prof. Levine)
• 5. [Areivim] Rabbis: Alternative medicine based on idolatry (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Who is Orthodox? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: kiddush levana (menucha)
• 8. Re: Rav Shmuel Vosner: Stopping After Eight Children? (menucha)
• 9. Re: [Areivim] Rabbis: Alternative medicine based on idolatry (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: shelo asani isha (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc??? (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] Rabbis: Alternative medicine based on idolatry (harchinam)

RMYG writes:

>> I seem to remember seeing in a Sefer somewhere that R' Yakov Kamenetsky
was
very makpid on this. <<

In the Emes L'Yaakov on Shulchan Aruch it says that one should be careful
about it (in line with the Lashon of the AH OC 91:7) and should  gently tell
someone else who is doing so to refrain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/35ba61a5/attachment-0001.htm>

RnCL wrote:
>> There seems to be (as far as I am aware) close to universal agreement
that it is a rabbinic mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence women are
patur.

Based on the context on which it is brought in the Yerushalmi (Perek HaRoeh)
and in the Rambam (Hilkhos Berakhos), it seems to be a birkas hare'iyah,
just like many others.  With a standard mitzvas aseih shehazeman geramah,
the "mechayeiv" is the arrival of time.  Here, though, the "mechayeiv" is
seeing something, even if that particular sight is only visible at a certain
time of the month.  The logical extension of this approach would be that if
one does not see the moon for the entire relevant period, one would have no
obligation to say the berakhah.

In the Bavli (Sanhedrin 41b-42a), however, it appears to be something more,
as evidenced by the beraisa about greeting our Father in Heaven, and the
long nusach of Rav Yehudah.  Rn' Chana referenced Rav Ashi's remark to Rav
Acha about the Babylonian women saying the berakhah.  As I read that
exchange, Rav Acha reports the short nusach of Eretz Yisrael, and Rav Ashi
responds that "our women" (in Bavel) also say it *that way* (i.e. with the
short nusach), but that "we" (i.e. the men) use the long nusach of Rav
Yehudah, which follows.

Based on the above, I would like to suggest that there are "two dinim" in
kiddush levanah.  The first is that of a birkas hare'iyah.  Women are
obligated in this (as they are in other birkos hare'iyah) in the event that
they happen to see the moon, and the short nusach suffices.  This is the
only aspect of kiddush levanah recognized by the Yerushalmi.  The Bavli
includes another din *in addition* to this, which is to greet our Father in
Heaven once a month and say divrei shevach pertaining to the creation of the
heavens and the future moon-like renewal of Am Yisrael.  For understandable
reasons, Chazal chose to attach this monthly obligation (for which time
itself *is* the mechayeiv) to the birkas hare'iyah for seeing the renewed
moon, and the result is that men have an obligation to go out and make an
active effort to see the moon within the relevant time frame, in order to be
able to say the "combined" berakhah of which time is the mechayeiv of one
aspect and seeing the moon is the mechayeiv of the other aspect.

DISCLAIMER:  The above represents my theoretical musings only, and is not
intended to be motzi la'az on the long-standing and nearly universal minhag
of women not to say birkas halevanah (in any form)!

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/a6e70469/attachment-0001.htm>

<<RnCL wrote:
There seems to be (as far as I am aware) close to universal agreement
that it is a rabbinic mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence women
are patur.>>

I understood that some claim that it is not mitzvat aseh she-hazman
grama. The argument is that one can say the bracha only when the moon
is increasing in size and that happens only in the first half of the
month. But it is not intrinsically connected to time in the same sense
that shofar or lulav are connected.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=3415

Rav Shmuel Vosner was asked (Shevet HaLevi 4:161) if a 44 year old 
person [it is not clear to me if the wife is 44 or the husband or 
both. YL] with eight children must still have children or he may 
stop. One of his concerns was that the local school had mixed classes 
until the age of 14.  The man's wife on the other hand claimed that 
she would undertake the burden of the chinuch and they can raise frum 
children even in that environment.

The questioner's justification was based on, among other things, a 
Tshuvas Pnei Aharon that says that if proper Chinuch is hard to come 
by where you live, then it is sufficient to be Mikayem the Mitzva of 
Pru U'Rivu with a son and daughter and you need not fulfill the 
mitzva of "BaBoker Tanach..." (the mitzva to have as many children as 
possible).  He learns this from Chizkiya (Brachos10a) who became 
deathly sick because he refused to marry and have children since he 
knew B'Ruach HaKodesh that his children would be Reshaim 
(Menashe).  The gemara specifically says that he wasn't Mikayem the 
mitzva of Pru U'Rivu and doesn't say anything about "BaBoker Tanach..."

Additionally the questioner brings the Chofetz Chaim who was quoted 
as saying, "who said it is a bracha to have children if you don't 
know how they will turn out?"

Rav Vosner says that he wouldn't typically answer this question but 
there is a mitzva to help those who are mistaken.  He didn't see the 
Tshuvas Pnei Aharon but the proof from Chizkiya is not valid for a 
number of reasons.  Moreover even if it were, says Rav Vosner, 
Chizkiya knew with 100% certainty that his children would be 
Reshaim.  Nowadays, there is no situation where we cannot say for 
sure how are children will turn out.

As for the quote from the Chofetz Chaim, says Rav Vosner, these are 
not things that we can rely on to pasken Shailos when we don't know 
the background to this comment.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/bfbcffd2/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/4yvqq6v

Six senior Religious Zionism rabbis sign manifesto warning public not 
to seek holistic treatments as 'some methods involve elements studied 
in different idolatrous sects'

I heard Rabbi Yisroel Belsky speak about alternative medicine some 
years ago and he said the same thing.  What impressed me about his 
talk was the fact that he had spent time reading scholarly journal 
articles about this topic.   YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/86fd00d5/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
Areivim mailing list
Arei...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/areivim-aishdas.org

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 03:16:47PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote to areivim:
> So what's the solution?  Have no boundaries at all?  What would you  
> suggest as a line over which a person can't cross without being  
> considered other than Orthodox?  Is there such a line?  Eating on Yom  
> Kippur, I imagine, right?  But there must be something less dramatic.

Let's go back a step... in what situation does the concept of "boundary"
have or need rigor? Sociologically, groups often have broad gray areas
at the edges, not boundaries. So if the question were one of society or
culture, we could just leave things as being more or less mainstream,
and get on with life. But I think that here in Avodah territory, there is
need for rigor -- because how I relate to other Jews depends on whether
they are koferim, not koferim because they are not rebelling but still
hold beliefs that are kefirah, or are maaminim, and on whether they
are mumarim or observant. These are now halachic categories, and there
"shiurim" will at times have to be defined and applied.

Well, the Rambam gives /his/ definition for who is "Yisrael" WRT who
has a cheileq le'olam haba in Peirush haMishnayos, and it closely
parallels the sum of his definitions of apiqoreis, kofeir and min in
Hil' Teshuvah pereq 3. Shifting from published pesaqim to how I see
things being applied lemaaseh, we loosened those 13 iqarim, accepting
pretty much anyone whose beliefs can be fitted to some definition of the
presentations in Ani Maamin or Yigdal. And what I see of today's poseqim,
if asked a question about a candidate for geirus or for stam yeinam
(espectially among those who hold that a tinoq shenishba who happens
to hold kefirah poses a stam yeinam issue), would toe this particular
line. So that's where I would start.

Others on-list, eg R' Dr Meir Shinnar, believe that that's too
restrictive, and hold than only those beliefs necessary to justify
following halakhah are definitive.

In terms of practice, there are only a few cases where the aveirah is
so bad that a mumar for that particular davar echad is tantamount to
being a mumar lekhol haTorah kulah. The only two that come to mind at
the moment are AZ and a mechalel Shabbos befarhesia because he is a
meshumad lehach'is.

I think that someone who doesn't violate any of the above, no matter how
dangerous, wrong or assur his beliefs may be, simply can't be defined
as michutz lamachaneh on a halachic level.


The second issue might be avoiding ideas that within the machaneh,
but you yourself find dangerous enough to want you, your children,
perhaps -- depending who the "you" is -- your talmidim or your qehillah,
should avoid. IOW, let's not hang out with adherents of X, because
their methodology WRT halakhah is not only wrong (as our poseqim define
"wrong") but is too likely to lead to a total unravelling of the concept
of halakhah. I think someone should be more capable of separating judging
an idea from judging its adherants than that.


As for those who hold now-rejected opinions of rishonim (eg they believe
that hashgachah peratis [HP] is propostional to yedi'ah, tzidqus, or
whatever, rather than being universal)... How "dangerous" can they be,
that there is today a need to ban them? If the IE managed to be the IE,
or the Ralbag was able to be the Ralbag, or the Rambam, or R' Saadia Gaon,
or.... while holding this allegedly dangerous belief, how dangerous can
it really be?

And if it's neither kefirah lehalakhah (as per my first point), nor
required by the logical need to avoid spiritual danger, what grounds
are there to ban it? And if it is being banned, can that ban actually
be a halachic issur?

Then we get into issues like universal HP vs HP only on all people. There
we have current belief vs ALL rishonim. No rishon holds of HP on
non-people; the Gra's talmidim say it's his chiddush, the LR says it's
the Besht's. Does an acharon (or "post-acharon") even have the authority
to actually pasqen that something permitted by all rishonim, never mind
advocated by them, is assur?


In sum, the tzad hashaveh in all three points, is that I think this
is all hullabaloo caused by not separating strategic statements made
belashon guzma from actual din. But from a halachic level:

1- you can judge ideas without judging people, and in fact we are obligated
in most cases to avoid judging people

2- where we are required to judge people, there are clear halachic guidelines,
and what they believe is proper halachic process or how long maaseh bereishis
took, or whether or not HP is universal, aren't among any of the shitos for
those guidelines.

KNLAD.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

The exception to women's exemption seems to be the Meiri.  Sanhedrin 42. 
where he does give  a shortened version for women and amei haaretz.
menucha

Eli Turkel wrote:

><<RnCL wrote:
>There seems to be (as far as I am aware) close to universal agreement
>that it is a rabbinic mitzvah aseh shehazman grama, and hence women
>are patur.>>
>
>I understood that some claim that it is not mitzvat aseh she-hazman
>grama. The argument is that one can say the bracha only when the moon
>is increasing in size and that happens only in the first half of the
>month. But it is not intrinsically connected to time in the same sense
>that shofar or lulav are connected.
>
>  
>

The title of the article here is sensationalist.  The 8 children is 
parenthetic.  We do not know if the answer would have been different 
with a different number.

menucha


Prof. Levine wrote:

> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=3415
>
> Rav Shmuel Vosner was asked (Shevet HaLevi 4:161) if a 44 year old 
> person [it is not clear to me if the wife is 44 or the husband or 
> both. YL] with eight children must still have children or he may stop. 
> One of his concerns was that the local school had mixed classes until 
> the age of 14.  The man's wife on the other hand claimed that she 
> would undertake the burden of the chinuch and they can raise frum 
> children even in that environment.
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/176a0251/attachment-0001.htm>

At 10:52 AM 8/18/2011, harchinam wrote:
> From <http://tinyurl.com/4yvqq6v>http://tinyurl.com/4yvqq6v
>Six senior Religious Zionism rabbis sign manifesto warning public 
>not to seek holistic treatments as 'some methods involve elements 
>studied in different idolatrous sects'
>
>
>The bolded sentence [which appeared below the headline] is false. 
>When I read it, I was rather shocked since that would be an ignorant 
>statement to make and anyone who has studied the matter would not 
>make it. Then, I read the article -- always a good idea with these 
>things. What the real [and more correct] statement is follows:
>
>"The religious leaders are calling on the public not to turn to 
>holistic therapy or seek studies in that field without thoroughly 
>examining the nature of the treatments through a person with 
>knowledge in Halacha and medicine."
>
>This is the more accurate statement. I am an ND [included in the 
>umbrella of holistic practitioners] and I practice what is called 
>"evidence based medicine" and I do not rely on AZ or magic or 
>anything else.  I think that the sentence that was bolded was a 
>typical ploy by Ynet to make religious people look ridiculous and 
>judging by the comments below the article, the usual contingent 
>bought it hook, line, and sinker. Not surprising.
>
>I think that reading articles in Ynet is bad for one's health -- 
>they raise your blood pressure for no good reason and there is 
>nothing to be learned from them. :-(
>
>*** Rena

You seem to have ignored my comment that followed this statement, 
namely, "I heard Rabbi Yisroel Belsky speak about alternative 
medicine some years ago and he said the same thing.  What impressed 
me about his talk was the fact that he had spent time reading 
scholarly journal articles about this topic."

Rav Belsky made it clear that in his opinion there are elements of AZ 
involved in at least some of these alternative medical approaches.

The following is from http://tinyurl.com/3qoyzun



What is the Jewish view on alternative medicine?




by 
<http://www.ask
moses.com/en/scholars.html?at=Rabbi&;afn=Baruch%20Emanuel&aln=Er
dstein>Rabbi 
Baruch Emanuel Erdstein

The Short Answer:

It's not about which medicinal method you use, but about how you use it.

The Askmoses Answer:

Today many are exploring traditional healing practices that are 
novice to conventional Western healing. Whether employing meditative 
techniques, herbology, and/or understandings of the body and spirit 
utilizing points of spiritual energy, age old practices have become 
new age medicine.

Many of the traditions involved in developing these techniques are 
rooted in forms of paganism, which leads many a Jew to question the 
permissibility of such therapies. Needless to say, one would never 
pursue a remedy that requires idolatrous ritual worship, but what 
about innocent looking healing agents that might stem from pagan 
beliefs; is that a form of idolatry?

Truth be told, by focusing on anything other than the Divine when 
seeking healing or practicing medicine, one runs the risk of 
practicing a form of idol worship. By turning to a healing spirit, 
homeopathic treatment, or even a Western doctor to heal, one runs the 
risk of putting trust in the agent rather than in G-d.

Our task then is to view all medicinal techniques as tools, provided 
by G-d, enabling us to serve Him in wellness

In fact, so sensitive is this issue that the Talmud questions whether 
a person is allowed to "take healing into his own hands," rather than 
strictly rely on Divine Providence to grant a person what his soul 
deserves. The Talmudic sages conclude that it is permissible -- nay 
required -- to seek medical attention, simply because the Torah 
commands us to. I.e. the medicines, healing techniques, and ability 
to use them, are all ultimately from G-d too. The Talmud therefore 
goes on to communicate a grave warning to those who arrogantly see 
themselves as the healers, rather than as G-d's agents to heal.

Our task then is to view all medicinal techniques as tools, provided 
by G-d, enabling us to serve Him in wellness and to see His divine 
providence as humankind is empowered to rectify, or "heal," Creation. 
Rather than being distracted, the search for a cure is an especially 
ripe time for building the faith so necessary to arouse benevolence 
from the most supernal healer, G-d.

Given this general principle, Judaism doesn't prefer one healing 
agent or the other. One should put his trust in G-d and follow the 
advice of medical experts. If and when a particular method of healing 
raises noteworthy suspicion, a proper Halachic authority should be consulted.

As with all medicine, one must also determine whether a particular 
remedy is, or needs to be, Kosher.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110818/c595fe9e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:05:24PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> No, I am assuming R' Yehudah, who wrote the currently used triad of
:> berakhos, set it up because /he/ holds that way.

: Which is fine.  But then you have to justify why we say it today if we do
: not hold like this position.  (I am not saying that is the case here, you
: can, presumably, hold l'halacha that avadim are not chayav in any more
: mitzvos than women, but if you do not hold vadai that is the case...)

Perhaps we shouldn't aske whether or not we hold that avadim would be
chayavim in more mitzvos than women, and simply take the berakhah's
continued existence in the siddur as a raayah that we do.

...
: But this isn't just about taamei hamitzvos and aggada.  As you correctly
: quoted, the Magen Avraham used this reason for the bracha to posken halacha
...
: So it would seem that if you posken like Tosphos, the Maged Mishna or the
: Turei Even, or are even mesupik that they are correct, then this reason
: cannot be the reason for the bracha today, otherwise you may be prohibited
: (either d'orisa or d'rabbanan) from saying it....

Why? These are birkhos shevach. The notion that you can't praise HQBH in
zu ve'ein tzarikh lomar zu format isn't necessarily a given.


The question appears to revolve around whether we repurpose or retire
nusachos that no longer "work". If I phrase it that broadly, the nusach of
"Retzeih" appears to be an example of RnCL's position. "Ve'ishei Yisrael
usefilasam teqabeil beRatzon" worked when Retzeih was originally composed,
used as part of tefillas hakohanim in bayis sheini, and perhaps also
used in its current role -- but at a time when Yisrael was offering
qorbanos. The Granikim try to repurpose the phrase by (awkwardly IMHO)
moving the period to make it:

    Vehasheiv [two things:]
        - es haavodah lidevir veisekha,
        - ve'ishei Yisrael.
    Usefilasam teqabel beRatzon...

Keeping the matbeiah by changing its meaning, and where one pauses.

But I have been arguing until now with the assumption that the matbeiah
proves the aggadita, without assuming repurposing. And as you have yet
to convince me that we repurposing is actually needed, I am sticking
with my default assumption.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 11:05:02PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:>: different to telling them to act to violate a prohibition.  An example of an
:>: enactment vis a vis d'orisa aseh is the rabbinical prohibition on blowing
:>: shofer on shabbas

:> According to R' Yonasan Sacks (of YU and the Agudah of Passaic-Clifton),
:> this power is limited to gezeiros protecting more chamur mitzvos. Not
:> all rabbinic legislation are gezeiros -- gezeiros here means specifically
:> avoiding violation due to habit or accident

: Not sure what this adds.  Clearly the rabbis are not likely to just stam
: tell people to shev v'al ta'aseh for no reason at all...

I am just being more specific. You wrote about "enactments", I added
that from what I learned, this is only permitted of specific kinds of
enactments. If the chakhamim wanted to make a different kind of din
rerabbanan that implied violating a deOraisa besheiv ve'al ta'aseh,
they lack the authority to do so.

:                        For example, since we are getting in to Shmitta
: below, how about the statement that when the rabbis instituted Shmitta
: rabbinically, that causes a shev v'al ta'aseh situation regarding the
: collecting of d'orisa loans (Gitten 36b).  How does that fit within the
: definition of gezeros as defined here?

I don't understand the question. I'm talking about violating an issur or
chiyuv deOraisa. Is there a chiyuv to collect your loans? Second, CM has
entirely different mechanics open to them -- hefqeir BD. But really I
want to focus on the first point: I understood RYS to be speaking about
violating the chiyuv of blowing shofar, not about telling people they
can't collect a loan HQBH tells them it's within their rights to.

...
:> : b) once you are in the realm of aseh's the gemora in Brachos 19b- 20a
:> : seems to suggest that the principle of kovod habrios allows you to shev
:> : v'al ta'aseh even for a aseh d'orisa.

:> I think this is a case of deOraisa vs deOraisa. Showing another person
:> kavod isn't derabbanan. Even if it was left to Chazal to spell out how
:> to balance the two dinim in specific cases.

: What is the halachic basis ie source text for kovod habrios...

I would think proof is from Bereishis 1, but it seems we misunderstood
the gemara.

Rav bar Sheva and the Chakhamim of EY reject the notion that the heter
there is kavod haberios. The gemara's masqanah is that (barring a spcific
derashah) kavod haberios only overrides a deOraisa besheiv ve'al taaseh.

Which would seem to indicate that either
1- Kavod haBerios is deOraisa, but not as high of a priority as to
   justify a qum va'asei. Or,
2- Laws protecting Kavod haBerios are gezeiros. (Which by RYS's rules, as
   I understood them, would require that there is a deOraisa which the
   kavod haberios legislation is protecting from violation. Ie back to
   #1.)

...
:> Pruzbul circumvents shemittah derabbanan.

: Only according to Abaye.  According to Rava it would seem it would even
: circumvent shemittah d'orisa (not that that necessarily means we have
: shemittah d'orisa, but that is not how it works).

But because of hefqer BD -- IOW, the money really isn't moving because
shemittah no longer exempts the loan, but because BD artificially move
it themselves.

There is a machloqes Rashi and Tosafos as to whether Rava is replacing
Abayei's answer, as you assume, or is adding to it. IOW, according to
Tosafos, Rava invokes HBDH to override "gadol mimenu", not the deOraisa.

: > This requires believing that mishum eivah means very different things
: > in different contexts. I doubt mishum eivah between spouses, from parent
: > to child, or between two Jews is about an expectation that things would
: > get homocidal. And doing business beyom eideihem mishum eivah -- is that
: > really about piquach nefesh?
: 
: No, I don't believe that any of these relate to pikuach nefesh.
: 
: But you have to get back to basic principles.  A rabbinic enactment in any
: form or fashion cannot simply allow you to violate a lo ta'aseh of the
: Torah, and certainly not one of shabbas....

Which is the second assumption that something is derabbanan. (Kavod
haberios and now mishum eivah.) Perhaps neither is, veharaayah, it allows
the violation of Shabbos bequm vaasei even though we know from its other
usages that "mishum eivah" doesn't refer to piquach nefesh or another
already-known matir.

I'm arguing that preserving human dignity and avoiding enmity are both
chiyuvim deOraisa. (At least there is a consistent trend emerging to
my madness.)

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

> You seem to have ignored my comment that followed this statement, namely,
"I
> heard Rabbi Yisroel Belsky speak about alternative medicine some years ago
> and he said the same thing.  What impressed me about his talk was the fact
> that he had spent time reading scholarly journal articles about this
topic."
> ...
>

I did not ignore it at all. What Rabbi Belsky said, it seems, follows what
was in the body of the article and not in the bolded sentence that came from
the headline. The bolded sentence was wrong, ignorant, and put there [IMO]
to make rabbis look bad. No one denies that some alternative approaches are
based in AZ just as no one knowledgeable denies that most are not. Judaism
has always utilized proper diet, herbal medicines, and other natural
treatments for various pathologies. This is nothing new.

Read the comments below the article to see how well the headline served its
purpose. Many attacks on frum Jews and rabbis for their ignorance and worse.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110818/58681828/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 166
***************************************

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..."