Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 201

Fri, 07 Oct 2011

• 1. Re: losing 'nishba' status (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: national flag??? (Zev Sero)
• 3. malachim & mistakes (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 4. Avodah] Saying selichos after Shacharis (Joel Schnur)
• 5. Re: losing 'nishba' status (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Domesticated Camels (Jay F Shachter)
• 7. Re: losing 'nishba' status (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] second day of yom tov (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Tefilin on second day Yom Tov (Ari Kahn)
• 10. Re: malachim & mistakes (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] second day of yom tov (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: national flag??? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 13. Re: losing 'nishba' status (Meir Shinnar)

On Thu, Oct 06, 2011 at 10:50:33AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
:         the most  machmir  position i  ever heard  was a  rov  who said in 
: this era  [this was before internet yet]  so much  jewish  info is 
: available ,  no one should get a presumption of  'ignorance of the 
: law'....

(Two weeks ago, I commented here about this article
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n187.shtml#12>. I think that in
that one week she really "got" the difference between how her R community
sees religion, and the perspective of Yahadus.)


On RYGB's blog, he pointed to the same article. (Which he saw on RDE's
blog.)
<http://rygb.blogspot.com/2011/09/reform-judaism-magazine-campus-l
ife-201.html>

From the commnet chain:
    YGB said...

    1. Note that she never gets into the "dox" of Orthodox, but stays
    very much in the "prax" - as in Orthoprax. That is not sufficient
    to remove tinok she'nishba status.

    2. I think "we" came across in this article - and in the author's mind
    - with flying colors. Heck, even our mitzvas anashim melumada davening
    impressed her! How easy it can be to be mekkadesh shem shomayim!

    Tuesday, October 04, 2011 12:00:00 AM

We've argued here before whether TsN is only about a lack of information,
or also includes someone who knows the halakhah, but was raised with a
bias against believing it's real and binding on them. The CI's ruling about
lo maaleh velo morid indicates the latter, even though he was only talking
about a specific and chamur context -- that the person isn't a rasha in
terms of hatzalas nefashos.

Typical of such exchanges
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TINOK%20SHENISHBA>,
the thread that begins around RBK's v15n46 post.

R Dr Meir Shinnar, OTOH, tend to invoke the Radbaz (4:187), who olds
that someone who is led to believing apiqursus because of clear reasoning
from faulty assumptions, is not an apiqoreis. E.g. the thread at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TINOK%20SHENI
SHBA%20ETC>.

R' Charl Sherer has a friend in kiruv who was told by RSZA that all
chilonim in Israel are TsN. To quote RCS, "AIUI the reason is that the
chilonim are so hostile to fruhmkeit here that they do not and cannot
internalize what they learn." Rn Chana Sassoon (Luntz) adds the Binyan
Tzion and ROYosef among the meiqilim, and ROY includes people who go
to Seph minyan in the morning and then go to the game or watch TV in
the afternoon.

See RGS's response citing the Iqarim (who says that this is not true from
the one iqar of Torah min haShmayim) and the Abarbanel who disagrees
altogether. And the Minchas Elazar says that the only Qaraim the Mabit
declared TsN were ones who didn't live among Rabbinic Jews.

I don't understand the mi'ut of today's poseqim (and I say that with
confidence, since it implies that life is normal and ROY is following
rov) chamur posiiton, since the gemara doesn't so much make a chalos
sheim of TsN as much as give it as an example of shogeig or or oneis
(machloqes tana'im), a case where someone could be mechalel 2 Shabbasos
behe'elem achas. Which means that any valid reason why the person isn't
fully accountable for his decision ought to be a halachic factor. Even
if they aren't closely similar to a TsN.

GCT!
-Micha

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

It turns out that I was mistaken about this.  While free-flying flags
as we know them today were a medieval invention, cloths with devices on
them were used, in addition to standards, at least as far back as
Alexander the Great, and it's thus possible that they go even farther
back.   What I was thinking of was the modern system of hereditary
heraldry, which didn't appear until the 12th or 13th century.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

>Alternatively: Let's suppose the two people named by the malach DID marry 
each other. How does that force them to live happily ever after? Isn't it 
possible for one (or both) of them to mess up in a manner which causes the 
marriage to fall apart?

-----  where does it  say in that  medrash that the two  people  named  by 
the malachim  are  meant  to be   ==happy==   together ? 
 did the tana'im  whose wives were shrews not  marry the one the malach 
named?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111006/d0dd36d9/attachment-0001.htm>

L'maase, you couldn't do that, daven with a 5:30 vasikin minyan and then do
selichos at 6:15 in the NY area right now bec the purpose of a vasikin
minyan is to daven SE with naitz, which is only a few minutes before 7,
nowadays.

 

As for the general concept of doing selichos after shachris, IMO, the
preference for minhag of selichos is early morning followed by shachris but
it can be said throughout the day, if it is not said earlier.

 

___________________________

Joel Schnur

Senior VP

Government Affairs/Public Relations

Schnur Associates, Inc.

1350 Avenue of the Americas

Suite 1200

New York, NY 10019

 

Tel. 212-489-0600 x204

Fax. 212-489-0203 

j...@schnurassociates.com 

www.schnurassociates.com
<http://www.schnurassociates.com/>  

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111006/70ff3161/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/6/2011 12:50 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2854
> discussion on emes  v'emunah  blog on this  article,  and the relevant 
>  question is--- how  much knowledge/practice  is  enough to make  one 
> lose  tinok shenishba  status, and therefore incur  liability for 
>  ones actions....
>         the most  machmir  position i  ever heard  was a  rov  who 
> said  in this era  [this was before internet yet]  so much  jewish 
>  info is available ,  no one should get a presumption of  'ignorance 
> of the law'....

I was talking with Rav Mendel Blachman in Israel once, and I asked him 
if my father, for example, would be considered a tinok she'nishba.  He 
asked me, "Does your father know that Jews are supposed to keep 
kosher?"  Yes.  "Does he keep kosher?"  No.  "So no, when it comes to 
kashrut, he isn't."

My first thought was that maybe my initial answer that he knows Jews are 
supposed to keep kosher isn't 100% accurate.  He knows it, but does he 
know that it's a mandatory obligation rather than just a cultural 
ritual?  I don't know for sure.

My second thought was that the idea that a person could be considered a 
tinok she'nishba in some areas and not in others was a fascinating 
chiddush, and that whether the sources support it or not, it makes a 
good deal of logical sense.

Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111006/558a2020/attachment-0001.htm>

>
> Archeology since showed, though, that in Egypt they [that is,
> camels] were already domesticated.  And note that of the three "she
> is my sister" stories -- Avraham and Avimelekh, Avraham and Par'o,
> Yitzchaq and Avimelekh -- it is only the one where they go to
> Mitzrayim where they are described as returning with camels. So,
> rather than being anachronistic, there is detail here that wouldn't
> have been known centuries later, and a differentiation between
> similar event that indicates they weren't variants of a single
> legend (as the critics claim).
>

It is interesting that no one in the Torah is described as owning
camels until Avram goes to Egypt, but bringing in the other two "she
is my sister" stories doesn't make this argument more persuasive.
First of all, the Avimelech Jr. story has no place here at all,
because there is no mention of property at all in the Avimelech
Jr. story.  Avimelech Jr. does not give Yitsxaq any camels, but he
also doesn't give him a basket of fruit, he gives him nothing except a
scolding (a couple of verses later, though, in Genesis 26:14, the
Torah gives us a rundown of Yitsxaq's wealth, and doesn't say anything
about camels).

Now, in the Avimelech Sr. story, there is a mention of property.  In
Genesis 20:14 Avimelech Sr. gives Avraham "tzon" (which could be
either sheep, or goats, or both), and cattle, and slaves; in Genesis
20:16 he also claims to have given him silver (although it is also
possible that he was just stating the monetary value of the property
he had given him in Verse 14).  Camels are not mentioned.  The
above-quote passage wishes to contrast these verses with Genesis
12:16, which tells us that when Avram was in Egypt, he had camels.
But it's stretch to say that this means that there were plenty of
camels in Egypt and few in Canaan.  The two verses really can't be
compared.  Genesis 12:16 is a rundown of Avram's wealth, and it's
similar in purpose to Genesis 13:2, whereas Genesis 20:14 describes a
specific act, it tells us what Avimelekh Sr. gave to Avraham on that
one occasion, it is not there to tell us what kind of wealth existed
in Canaan at that time, nor even what kind of property Avimelekh
Sr., or Avraham, had at that time.  You might be trying to read
Genesis 12:16 as a description of stuff that Pharaoh gave to Avram --
which would make the two passages more comparable -- but that isn't
what the verse says.  The verse doesn't say that Pharaoh gave that
stuff to Avram, it just says that Avram had it.  If the Torah had
wanted to tell us that Pharaoh gave Avram that stuff, it would have
used the verb n-t-n, as it does in Genesis 20:14.

A more important point is that when archeologists and other social
scientists speak about domesticating an animal (e.g., "the camel was
not domesticated until such-and-such a time"), they are saying
something more than that people were using the animal, or even
claiming ownership over it, and trading in it.  They mean that the
animals were living with people, and that they were dependent on
people for their food.  Genesis 12:16 doesn't really support an
archeologist's claim that the camel was domesticated in Egypt in the
time of Avram, nor would it contradict an acheologist's claim that the
camel was not domesticated in Egypt in the time of Avram.  For
example, there were tame elephants in the ancient world -- even to the
point where they could be saddled, and effectively used in warfare --
but there were not domesticated elephants in the ancient world (nor
are there domesticated elephants today, for that matter).  We have
tame bears nowadays, and tame lions, but we do not have domesticated
bears, or domesticated lions.

Now, if archeologists wanted to claim that camels were not
domesticated in Mesopotamia in the time of Rivka, then they would be
claiming something clearly contradicted by the Biblical text.  Rivka
is a city girl, but she knows all about camels, both she and her
servants know how to ride them (see Genesis 24:61), she knows how much
they drink after traveling thru the desert (remember, that's the whole
point of the story, there wouldn't be much point to the story if she
volunteered to water the camels without knowing what she was in for),
and, most significant of all, her household is furnished with camel
food (see Genesis 24:32) and camel quarters (see Genesis 24:31).  This
is clearly a society that has domesticated the camel, and if
Mesopotamian society had not domesticated the camel by the time of
Rivka, then large portions of Genesis 24 are anachronistic.



                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"

On 6/10/2011 3:36 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> My second thought was that the idea that a person could be considered
> a tinok she'nishba in some areas and not in others was a fascinating
> chiddush, and that whether the sources support it or not, it makes a
> good deal of logical sense.

As RMB pointed out, TSN is not a status, it's an *explanation* for why
a person is shogeg.  So it makes sense that it could apply on a mitzvah-
by-mitzvah basis.  E.g. the classic TSN might know that he is Jewish,
and that Jews don't eat pork, but he might have no idea that chicken has
to be kosher.  Even if he's seen Empire chickens in the supermarket he
might not realise that this means Perdue chickens are not permitted.
Or he may know about kashering meat but not about shechitah, and imagine
that the only difference between Empire and Perdue is that the latter
must be salted at home.

Actually AIUI the "classic TSN" is someone who knows that Jews keep
Shabbos, but doesn't know that he is a Jew.  But "TSN" is really shorthand
for *two* cases: TSN and Ger Shenisgayer Bein Hanochrim, who knows that he
is Jewish, and willingly accepted the Ol Mitzvos whatever they might happen
to be, but the BD that converted him negligently assumed that he already
knew about Shabbos and didn't bother telling him about it.  This would
obviously also apply to someone who has been brought up to believe that
strict Shabbos observance is a custom of the very pious, the fanatical
and mysterious "Orthodox", and simply isn't relevant to the ordinary Jew.
Such a person could live among Jews and see them keeping Shabbos every
week, and yet remain in blissful ignorance that he's breaking halacha by
not doing so himself.  And if someone tells him otherwise he may believe
that they are speaking from ignorance, that they've been badly taught by
fanatical teachers, while he "knows" the "truth", that it's only a minhag
or a chumra.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 10/6/2011 1:20 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 6/10/2011 12:38 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:25:38PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> : Those outside of EY keep 2 days simply because it is an old minhag
>> without
>> : any modern rationale as demonstrated by the fact that it doesnt
>> hold in EY
>> : as Ilana mentions.
>>
>> The gemara explicitly says so, "minhag avoseihem beyadeihem". There
>> isn't
>> mention of keeping the idea alive in case it's needed when the Sanhedrin
>> is restored.
>
> "Hachaziku minhag avoseichem biydeichem" is the what, not the why.  The
> letter told the Bavlim to keep doing what they had already been doing,
> but the reason it gave was that perhaps due to future persecution they
> would make a mistake in the cheshbon.

Here's my problem with this.  There are a number of ways in which Yom 
Tov Sheni is treated, l'halakha, as Safek Yom Tov.  But if we're doing 
it as minhag avoteinu, and we *haven't* made a mistake due to 
persecution, then it isn't a safek at all, is it?

And in truth, we don't really hold that it's Safek Yom Tov, otherwise, 
the first day would be Safek Yom Tov as well.  And we do numerous things 
on most Yamim Tovim that are d'Rabbanan, which we presumably would not 
be doing if it was really a safek.  And yet, there are still those who 
treat it as a safek.

My second problem is the idea of "minha avoteinu b'yadeinu" trumping 
bracha l'lo tzorech and the like.  And then there's the inconsistency of 
no Yom Kippur Sheni.  I understand why we don't fast a second day, but 
at a time (not today, necessarily) when kiddush hachodesh was done al pi 
eidim, wouldn't people in chutz la'aretz need to keep a second day of 
Yom Kippur in case the 11th is really the 10th?  The excuse that fasting 
two days solid is unhealthy doesn't explain why all the other 
observances aren't kept.

Lisa

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
>
>  I know someone who spends more time here in the US than in EY, has a home
> here in the US and an apartment in EY.  However, he keeps only one day of
> Yom Tov, which I think is wrong.  I do not see him working on the second
day
> of Yom Tov, but I know that he puts on tefillin on Simchas Torah and
Achron
> shel Pesach,  because he has told me so.  I find his behavior bizarre,
given
> that he lives here more than in EY.  He is American born.
>
> Personally this fellows behavior has no psychological effect on me at all.
> Of course,  I consider his behavior wrong.
>

I am not paskening - but in the case where someone owns a an apartment Rav
Shlomo Zalman Auerbach does advocate putting on Tefilin. If a person lives
in the diaspora, and comes to Israel  for all 3 regalom RSZA says he should
keep the second day as if he is an Israeli - even if he occasionally does
not make it over - in which case he would hold 2 days in the Diaspora.
I know of other similar cases where RSZA told people visiting to put on
Tefilin. RSZA does use the Chacham Tzvi a "snif" -see Minchat Shlomo 1:16,
Yom Tov Sheni Kihilchato page 195 note 8.
If you do wish do know how I pasken, or want a review of the topic, you can
listen to:
http://www.yutorah.org/lecture
s/lecture.cfm/748708/Rabbi_Ari_Kahn/one_or_two_days_Yom_Tov_for_visitors_to
_Israel

Gmar Tov
Ari Kahn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111006/a003f126/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 11:48:30AM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: people think that maybe their marriages don't work out because the malach"
: who either named them, or set up their zivug (didn't hear correctly)

Bas qol is via mal'akh?

Personally, I like RSZN's point.

Too much of today's "hashkafah" books reduce Yahadus to self help. You
can have the happiness you seek through Torah. The Torah will teach you
how to be the parent you want to be, or be the person you want to be.

Torah, though, is about being the person HQBH wants you to be. It's
one thing to learn patience because Hashem wants you to be patient,
it's another to do so because you need it to be happy.

 From my notes of a talk by R' Hillel Becker that was part of
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2004/12/psychology-and-mussar.shtml>:

    Self-help addresses (1) loss of productivity; and (2) personal
    pain. In Torah (including Mussar) we'd call these yisurim
    (trevails). But Mussar wouldn't want you to attack yisurim. Yisurim
    are triggers, part of the solution. They aren't the things that need
    changing, they are causes to get up and change something. Mussar
    adds to self-help the notion of duty. One doesn't try to eliminate
    yisurim, but their causes -- which reside in flaws in our ability
    to carry out our mission.

The assumption that one's bashert is their path to happiness is self-help,
not Torah. Perhaps it's bashert that one's spouse is supposed to be
source of triggers for change?

GCT!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 6/10/2011 4:28 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> "Hachaziku minhag avoseichem biydeichem" is the what, not the why.  The
>> letter told the Bavlim to keep doing what they had already been doing,
>> but the reason it gave was that perhaps due to future persecution they
>> would make a mistake in the cheshbon.
>
> Here's my problem with this.  There are a number of ways in which Yom
> Tov Sheni is treated, l'halakha, as Safek Yom Tov.  But if we're doing
> it as minhag avoteinu, and we *haven't* made a mistake due to
> persecution, then it isn't a safek at all, is it?

That's right, it isn't really a safek at all.  But we treat it that way
because the Sanhedrin told us to keep doing what we were doing before,
not to invent new practices, and the way we were doing it before was
to treat it as a safek because there was one.  But RH was not always a
safek; the gemara describes in detail how it was possible (though unusual)
for both days to be vadai yomtov, even in the time of the BHMK.  So we
always treated RH as at least potentially having both days be yomtov, and
the Sanhedrin told us to keep doing so.


> My second problem is the idea of "minha avoteinu b'yadeinu" trumping
> bracha l'lo tzorech and the like.

Once again, we do *not* keep YTSh because it is minhag avoteinu.  We
keep it because the Sanhedrin told us "hachaziku minhag avoteichem
biydeichem".  So your question doesn't start.  The same chachamim who
told us to treat chicken as fleishig told us to continue our old
practices regarding YT.  Whatever it was we did when there was a real
safek, we should keep doing that.




-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Flags were invented in the early 2nd millennium CE.  They did
> not exist in Biblical times, or in Chazal's.  I don't know when
> standards were invented; the medrash about the tribes' standards
> may be historical for all I know, but it wouldn't shock me if it
> weren't.

I was totally confused by this, and I was going to ask you about it,
because "flag" and "standard" have been pretty synonomous in my experience.
But then R' Micha Berger wrote:

> So, a neis is a pole on which Moshe put the nechash nechoshes,
> which combined make what certainly sounds like a standard of
> the sort used by the Roman Army.

So: Am I to understand that a flag is a sheet of fabric containing a
two-dimensional design or symbol of some sort, while a standard is a pole
which supports a three-dimensional object which is serving as a symbol of
some sort?

If that is the distinction, then I must still ask RSZ about his understanding of the word "neis":

> It's probably something that serves the same purpose for which
> flags were invented, but it can't mean a flag, unless they're
> a technology that was lost and rediscovered.   Chazal seem to
> have thought it meant a standard, which was an invention known
> in their day, but perhaps not in David's; I don't know.

What sort of flag technology was lacking? My understanding (Shemos 26:31)
is that the Paroches had images of keruvim embroidered into it. If one can
make such a Paroches, what additional technology is needed for a flag?

Anyway, I concede that on Bamidbar 21:8, Rashi says that a "neis" is a
"klonas" - a pole. But there's another common word for flag: "degel". And
Rashi on Bamidbar 2:2 seems to use "degel" in what seems to me like a
pretty good description of a flag (although it is a flag of one solid
color).

Akiva Miller


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

> We've argued here before whether TsN is only about a lack of information,
> or also includes someone who knows the halakhah, but was raised with a
> bias against believing it's real and binding on them. The CI's ruling about
> lo maaleh velo morid indicates the latter, even though he was only talking
> about a specific and chamur context -- that the person isn't a rasha in
> terms of hatzalas nefashos.
>
>
>
> R Dr Meir Shinnar, OTOH, tend to invoke the Radbaz (4:187), who olds
> that someone who is led to believing apiqursus because of clear reasoning
> from faulty assumptions, is not an apiqoreis. E.g. the thread at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
I think that there are several different issues conflated here.
1) Does TsN status apply only to those without any knowledge, or also
to those who have a bias against the knowledge?
One of the issues that arises is that the classical literature assumes
that public lack of practice (eg mehallel shabbat befarhesya) was
associated with an act of rebellion against the torah and community,
as distinct from just personal weakness (mumar leteavon) - but
therefore, has no good category for modern nonobservance - those who
are not rebelling, just don't think it applies to them or their
circumstances (I think it is the binyan tzion who talks about people
making kiddush and then going to work on shabbat - very different in
character from a classical mehallel shabbat befarhesya...)
The closest classical construct that exists is Tinok shenishba - but
the question is how far to extend it.
BTW, My understanding of the CI is somewhat more expansive, even
though the specific issue answered is as Micha says- because his
reasoning is that he views general culture to be so pervasive that we
are all "nishba" by it.  This used to be the standard understanding...

2) Is the TsN, even though technically not hayav, still has a shem rasha?
Here, I and RYGB had a debate - he cite sources calling them still a
rasha, while I cited Rav Hutner (Pahad Yitzhak on Pesach) that the
tinok shenishba does not have a shem rasha.

3) Is epikorsut defined by belief or by the reason for belief (eg, an
element of rebellion)
Many use the term nebbich epikorus for those who have problematic
beliefs due to general upbringing, but the radbaz I cite (4:187) is
clear that wrong beliefs due to error (rather than rebellion) do not
make one a kofer. (BTW, the same radbaz is also crystal clear that
notions of kfira do not evolve over time - that something that was
acceptable in the past remains acceptable, another major point of
contention) - and the radbaz wold therefore drastically limit who we
would call an epikorus.

Meir Shinnar


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 201
***************************************

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..."