Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 210

Tue, 25 Oct 2011

• 1. P'ru Ur'vu (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Picnics, restaurants, shops, and desks (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Re: p'ru urvu (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 4. Heter Iska (Chana Luntz)
• 5. More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (M Cohen)
• 6. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: The sukkah on Shemini Atzeret controversy (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: p'ru urvu (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Amalek (was rules) (Poppers, Michael)
• 13. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Harry Maryles)
• 17. mikva use (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 18. Gezeiras haKasuv (Micha Berger)

At 06:04 PM 10/23/2011,Cantor Wolberg wrote:

>We are taught that the first mitzvah given us comes from the command 
>given first to Adam and Chava and then in the next
>parsha, to Noach. My question is: Neither were Jewish. How then, can 
>we say that the first mitzvah is incumbent on us since
>it was not given to Avraham Avinu or anyone afterward?  If you say 
>that the mitzvah was for all mankind, we know that it is not
>so, since it is not one of the sheva mitzvot b'nai Noach. So how do 
>you explain the mitzvah given to two non Jews?

RSRH considers P'ru Ur'vu as two of the "four sections  of man's 
mission" and "embody his whole free-willed moral development." The 
other two are kivshuha and miloo es ha'aretz as stated in Bereishis 1:28.

He writes, "P'ru refers to marriage; R'vu refers to the family; miloo 
refers to society; and kivshuha refers to  the acquisition of 
property.  Thus it seems to me that RSRH believes that the Torah 
obligates all of mankind to do these four things. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111023/9373ae31/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Reviewing the halachot in siman 640, it occurred to me that it
> should be permitted to have picnics on sukkot, and even to eat
> in restaurants without a sukkah.

I recently responded to the above, citing Rav Moshe Feinstein, in Igros
Moshe OC 3:93, who says that one may *not* do so, and that the heter for
"holchei derachim" exists only for one who has a real "l'tzorech" need,
such as for business, but not for "tiyul v'taanug b'alma" - a mere
enjoyable outing.

But over Yom Tov, a different approach occurred to me: I have reviewed that
Igros Moshe, and it seems that at no point therein did Rav Moshe mention
anything about what sort of eating the questioner might do while on this
taanug outing.

It seems rather straightforward to me, that the p'tur of Holchei D'rachim
-- which was the source of both RZS's question and the Igros Moshe's psak
-- refers specifically to the chiyuvim of sukkah, namely, eating a seudas
keva and sleeping. It would be preposterous, for example, to suggest that
this Igros Moshe forbids *women* from such an outing on Sukkos. Women have
no chiyuv to be in the sukkah to begin with, so it does not make sense to
invoke Holchei D'rachim to explain why they cannot go on an outing.

If so, then shouldn't the same apply to a man who plans to eat only achilas
ara'i on his outing? In other words: It seems to me that the Igros Moshe
prohibits a man from going on a pleasure trip IF that man intends to rely
on Holchei D'rachim to eat a seudas keva while on that pleasure trip, but
the Igros Moshe is NOT making a total ban on such trips, provided one's
eating is limited to achilas arai.

Would others agree?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
57-Year-Old Mom Looks 25
Mom Reveals $5 Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ea4bc563abcefcd34dst01vuc

     RMicha Berger writes:

>There is a difference between those mitzvos explicitly repeated as part
of the covenent in later books, and those only re-given in Sinai when
Moshe was given sefer Bereishis. Those repeated twice in the chumash
(such as the issur AZ) are both universal and included in the beris
Sinai. Those which only appear in bereishis (milah, peru urvu, and since
we don't hold like R' Yehudah, gid hanasheh) were limited to Jews once
the concept existed.

R' Noach Witty (former list member) asked me in shul on Simchas Torah
why, according to this, is the berakhah we make at a beris "lehakhniso
bivriso shel Avraham avinu", if the Abrahamic covenant was *replaced*
(rather than enhanced) by a later one at Sinai and not currently in force?<

     It is the mitzva which was repeated at Sinai, and its b'racha is "al
     hamila."  However the covenant was not repeated; all the Torah stated
     in Vayikra was "uvayom hash'mini yimol b'sar orlaso."  The only bris
     (or rather, thirteen b'risos) was made with Avraham Avinu, and was
     neither repeated nor replaced.  Indeed, the original b'ris was to be
     kept by "ata v'zaracha acharecha l'dorosam."  Hence, the b'racha on
     the entry into the b'ris, as opposed to the b'racha on the mitzva of
     mila, refers to b'riso shel Avaraham Avinu.

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ea4c1d2edd9ffcec00st01vuc

I wrote:
> 
> >This is if the correct analysis is to look at the device as a whole,
> > then I would agree.But the question becomes, at what point do you look
at "the device
> >as a whole"? Because, if you look at a bank as a whole, one that makes
> > a billion loans -then, even with a reasonable (eg well above 5%) risk on
every
> >single one of these loans, according to this analysis, the bank as a
> > whole will still "work" and is "virtually guaranteed to make a profit"
because spread
> >over that number of loans at a reasonable level of interest, even
> > having a significant number of loans going bad would still leave it with
a tidy
> > profit. So if you look at a bank as a whole, then you can say that in
fact the bank
> > takes virtually no risk whatsoever, or has only a one in billion chance
of
> > not working. Thus if your overall "one in a billion chance of not
working" is
> > applied to a bank, whatever heter iska you attempt to write for any
individual loan is
> > completely irrelevant,the bank takes virtually no risk, and hence cannot
charge interest.
> 

And RYC replied:

> I don't know about the broader issue under question, but I want to
> point out that Rn Luntz's analogy doesn't really work. Even though the
many successful loans cover for
> the loans that fail, that doesn't mean the bank doesn't lose. If the loans
that failed hadn't failed, the
> bank would make even more profit than they do. So, the bank has a loss.
> 
> The confusion seems to come from the attempt to compare the bank loans to
the 'Shabbos switch' that began
> this discussion (and, similarly, to a coin toss). But, with the switch,
you either have a success (the light comes on)
> or a failure (it doesn't). But a bank's outcomes aren't dichotomous like
that: Sure, the bank doesn't fail because of
> one failed loan. But, it has less success than it would otherwise...

But the light also has "less success" than it does otherwise, because if the
coin toss fails the first time, then the person gets "less light" because
he/she has to wait for the second toss, or the third toss, or whatever.  Now
the reality is that the person probably doesn't mind, he is happy with the
reasonable light that he achieves after however many coin tosses it takes,
but it is still true that he has the benefit of fewer minutes of light if
the coin toss falls (or bigger electricity bills, whichever way you want to
look at it).

Similarly with the Bank. While agreed, if the bank was spectacularly lucky,
and no loan failed, then it would indeed make a greater profit (just as, if
the coin toss worked first time, the person would get more light), but it is
happy with a reasonable level of profit, and that is the basis on which is
has engineered its business.  You can see this perhaps more clearly if you
think of an insurance company.  Yes, if nobody the insurance company insures
has a fire or similar accident requiring a payout, then the lucky insurance
company will clean up.  However, the reasonable assumption is that some
people will have a fire or similar accidents, resulting in the insurance
company having to pay and having few profits, but since the insurance
company will have set its premiums based on the known accident statistics,
which will then allow it to make a reasonable profit from those premiums
even if the reasonably expected accidents and payouts occur.  Thus the
insurance company really "does not mind" making a reasonable number of
payments - it has factored them into its business model, and it is therefore
regarded as trivially as the person who has to wait for a bit of light
Where it really starts to mind is where the statistics turn out not to be a
reasonable predictor of the number of accidents, reducing the profit that
the insurance company reasonably expected.

Regards

Chana

RYL writes ..I can only wonder what Rav Feinstein, zt"l, would say about 
permitting a married woman to wear a human hair wig that is virtually 
impossible to tell is a wig and that is more beautiful and attractive than
the woman's natural hair.

I can't help but think that the current minhag haposkim to be lenient 
(against that which appears s/ be asur because of maaris ayin, etc), 
at least partially stems from the fact that we want to encourage/make it
easier for them in 
this difficult and uncomfortable mitzvah.

I continue to be impressed when married baalai tshuvos (as part of their
'process of return') 
accept upon themselves this mitzvah.

(especially when how one looks is such an important part of today's culture
and feminine human nature)

Mordechai Cohen

RYL writes ..I can only wonder what Rav Feinstein, zt"l, would say about 
permitting a married woman to wear a human hair wig that is virtually 
impossible to tell is a wig and that is more beautiful and attractive than
the woman's natural hair.

I can't help but think that the current minhag haposkim to be lenient 
(against that which appears s/ be asur because of maaris ayin, etc), 
at least partially stems from the fact that we want to encourage/make it
easier for them in 
this difficult and uncomfortable mitzvah.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if you are correct	it begs the question of why yes to this but no to
other approaches to a similar issue that would seem similar based on first
principles (e.g.  no loose fitting pants, yes tight fitting skirts)? I'm
also not sure that the authorities who forbid wigs would say that it's
"only"	marit ayin etc.
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

At 10:54 AM 10/24/2011, M Cohen wrote:
>RYL writes ..I can only wonder what Rav Feinstein, zt"l, would say about
>permitting a married woman to wear a human hair wig that is virtually
>impossible to tell is a wig and that is more beautiful and attractive than
>the woman's natural hair.
>
>I can't help but think that the current minhag haposkim to be lenient
>(against that which appears s/ be asur because of maaris ayin, etc),
>at least partially stems from the fact that we want to encourage/make it
>easier for them in
>this difficult and uncomfortable mitzvah.

My wife says that wearing a wig is easier than having to "maintain" 
one's own hair.  One simply takes a wig that is ready to wear and 
puts it on and that is that.  Hair requires dying (after a certain 
age), combing, styling, etc.  Of course, I probably should not say 
anything about this and let the ladies comment.

Is it indeed more difficult to wear a wig?  Furthermore, a proper 
fitted wig is not, according to my wife, uncomfortable.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111024/795d680c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 03:36:32PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/6dpqu3g

> Arguments about eating in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret outside of  
> Israel have a long and somewhat baffling history.[1] While not the only 
> example of practice in opposition to the Shulchan Aruch, it appears to be 
> among the most argued. The gemara, Rambam, the Tur and the Shulchan 
> Aruch, written in many locales...

The gemara (Sukkah 46b-47a) actually records the makhlokes, and
it's quite involved. The question is why it's not put to rest by
the gemara's conclusion: "Vehilkhisa: yesuvei yasvinan, berukhi
lo mevarkhinan". Obviously the Rambam, Tur and SA thought so. (Even
though the Rambam would have to hold that a "vehilkhisa" is after R'
Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah.)

The Minchas Elazar has a interesting take, reading this line bebitmiyah:
"Could it possibly be the halakhah that we would have an obligation to
sit in the Sukkah if we cannot make the berakhah on that mitzvah?" IOW,
any argument against making leisheiv baSukkah on Shemini Atzeres would
have to rule out the mitzvah itself too!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 01:38:54AM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
: It is the mitzva which was repeated at Sinai, and its b'racha is
: "al hamila." However the covenant was not repeated; all the Torah stated
: in Vayikra was "uvayom hash'mini yimol b'sar orlaso." The only bris (or
: rather, thirteen b'risos) was made with Avraham Avinu, and was neither
: repeated nor replaced...

Even though the terms on us of that beris /were/ replaced by Sinaitic
equivalents? Does a one-sided beris have meaning?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Related might be the machloqes of whether a mechitzah that is 10 tefachim
high, and thus qualifies as a mechitzah, but is not high enough to block
the view, is kosher. IIRC, RMF requires high enough to block view,
not the normal halachic height for a mechitzah. And RYBS was meiqil,
at least in cases where even gettting the qehillah to agree to that much
is a battle, if not in general.

Sei'ar be'ishah ervah is different than other examples of
dress. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between single and
married women.

It seems more that there is a gezeiras hakasuv requiring hair
covering by married women (from parashas sotah), and then once uncovering
her hair is rare, its exposure is ervah. The issur causes the label
"ervah", and in other cases (eg revealing or tight-fitting clothing)
the ervah is inherent and is the cause of the issur.

But even if this theory is wrong, there must be some distinction between
an ervah that applies to all women, and one that applies to married
ones only. One can't simply assume it has to do with sexuality, because
attraction isn't correlated to her being married.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On 24/10/2011 6:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Related might be the machloqes of whether a mechitzah that is 10 tefachim
> high, and thus qualifies as a mechitzah, but is not high enough to block
> the view, is kosher. IIRC, RMF requires high enough to block view,
> not the normal halachic height for a mechitzah.

No, he explicitly does not require it to block the view, but merely to
prevent mixing; thus he holds that it only needs to be shoulder height.

-- 
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

                    
                

In Avodah V28n208, RJK wrote:
> RYBS...writes, in the name of his father, that there are 2 halachot
> regarding Amalek.	The first is based on Dvarim, and is a commandment
> on each individual Jew to wipe out individual Amalekites.	The second
> mitzvah is found in Shemot, and is a commandment to the People of
> Israel to wage war against the  community of Amalek.  The first
> mitzvah applies only, the Rav emphasizes, to genealogical descendants
> of Amalek who, since Sancheriv mixed up the nations, are unknown.	The
> second mitzvah applies to any nation that seeks to destroy the Jewish
> People. <
Wouldn't it accordingly make more sense to lein the "People"-level parasha
at the first communal opportunity (the Shabbos before Purim) rather than
only at the second (Purim morning), especially considering the relative
turnout of anashim nashim v'taf at the first opportunity (a Shabbos) vs.
the second (a weekday, usually earlier in the morning than the previous
Shabbos's leining)?  (Of course, if we leined from the seifer-Shmos parasha
on that Shabbos, we might not call it "P'Zachor" :).)  Perhaps such a
question is why we are commanded to lein the seifer-D'varim parasha first
-- with its "zachor eis asher asah l'cha,"_it_ is directed at Am Yisrael --
and the seifer-Shmos parasha later, on Purim, when we recognize H' working
on fulfilling His "machoh emcheh" promise. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:07:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 24/10/2011 6:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Related might be the machloqes of whether a mechitzah that is 10 tefachim
>> high, and thus qualifies as a mechitzah, but is not high enough to block
>> the view, is kosher. IIRC, RMF requires high enough to block view,
>> not the normal halachic height for a mechitzah.
>
> No, he explicitly does not require it to block the view, but merely to
> prevent mixing; thus he holds that it only needs to be shoulder height.

I thought shoulder height /was/ to block the view, but in any case...

RMF is saying that you can't fulfil mechitzah with a barrier that doesn't
accomplish the point. RYBS is saying mechitzah is a din with specific
parameters, and in a pinch can be fulfilled with a minimal separation.

Seems pretty parallel to our two sides on the human hair sheitl issue.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 25/10/2011 5:31 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 09:07:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>  On 24/10/2011 6:02 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>>> a mechitzah, but is not high enough to block
>>> the view, is kosher. IIRC, RMF requires high enough to block view,
>>> not the normal halachic height for a mechitzah.

>> No, he explicitly does not require it to block the view, but merely to
>> prevent mixing; thus he holds that it only needs to be shoulder height.

> I thought shoulder height/was/  to block the view, but in any case...

By definition a shoulder-high mechitza can be seen over!  RMF permits it
because the purpose is not to prevent the men from seeing the women, but
rather to prevent them from mingling.  A waist-high mechitza wouldn't do
that, but a shoulder-high one does.  For the same reason, RMF would
presumably permit a glass mechitza.

You seem to be under the impression that RMF is a machmir on mechitza,
rather than the meikil that he is known to be.  The usual position of
poskim is that a mechitza is indeed to block the view, and therefore
must be over head height.


-- 
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 Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:19:42AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I thought shoulder height/was/  to block the view, but in any case...
>
> By definition a shoulder-high mechitza can be seen over!  RMF permits it
> because the purpose is not to prevent the men from seeing the women, but
> rather to prevent them from mingling....

It depends what you aren't supposed to be looking at. At shoulder height,
the mechitzah reduces the people on the other side to floating heads. And
so I misunderstood RMF as not being choleiq by defining the point as
preventing mingling as much as blocking the view of torsi. But analyzing
my error any further is pointless.

> You seem to be under the impression that RMF is a machmir on mechitza,
> rather than the meikil that he is known to be..

No, I'm using him as a foil against RYBS, who is yet more meiqil.

My point, to pull the conversation back to it (for the 2nd time)
isn't machmir vs meiqil, but pasqening based on letter of the law
(RYBS) vs requiring one ALSO fulfil the intent (RMF). Belaboring my
misunderstanding (already conceded, also twice) of RMF's intent distracts
from the original conversation.

According to RYBS, who says that the taqanah is a mechitzah of the usual
dinim, so that one can use lavud to construct a 10 tefach high plane
and still be yotzei, why not say the parallel -- that a woman can be
yotzeit with a human hair sheitl that looks real? And more to the point,
the majority who are choleqim, wouldn't the same approach to halakhah
require disallowing such sheitlach?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

--- On Mon, 10/24/11, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:


Sei'ar be'ishah ervah is different than other examples of
dress. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between single and
married women.

It seems more that there is a gezeiras hakasuv requiring hair
covering by married women (from parashas sotah), and then once uncovering
her hair is rare, its exposure is ervah. The issur causes the label
"ervah", and in other cases (eg revealing or tight-fitting clothing)
the ervah is inherent and is the cause of the issur.

But even if this theory is wrong, there must be some distinction between
an ervah that applies to all women, and one that applies to married
ones only. One can't simply assume it has to do with sexuality, because
attraction isn't correlated to her being married.
------------------------------
?
Minor quibble: AIUI Seir B'Isha Erva is not a Gezeras HaKasuv. It is a
D'Oraisa MeiDivrei Sofrim. There is no explicit pasuk that says a married
woman must cover her hair. It is extrapolated from Sotah.
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111025/6f377009/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4135447,00.html 
1. who should control who is allowed  to  toivel?
2. would it be better to  allow  mikva use t remove  nidda  issues  even 
if other  issurim  will transpire as a result ?

[is the answer to no 1  somewhat different , since  the mikva is a 
publicly paid-for institution?  }


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111025/556d3efa/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:38:23AM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Minor quibble: AIUI Seir B'Isha Erva is not a Gezeras HaKasuv. It
: is a D'Oraisa MeiDivrei Sofrim. There is no explicit pasuk that says a
: married woman must cover her hair. It is extrapolated from Sotah.

I don't understand how you use these terms. Until this email causing my
current confusion, I thought:

divrei soferim: a derabbanan created by someone serving the role later
    called "rav" who happens to be a navi and therefore knows HQBH
    agrees with the taqanah. Nevu'ah can't create a din, this is clearly
    derabbanan; but one POST FACTO ratified by HQBH.

    E.g. the whole issue of whether megillah is derabbanan or midivrei
    soferim, or midivrei soferim for men and derabbanan for women.

gezeiras hakasuv: I took to mean that we do simply because the Torah
    says so, and we therefore divorce its details from any rules we
    can comprehend. (Kind of like a mitzvah could be a choq, but specific
    dinim within a mitzvah that makes sense overall could be gezeiros
    hakasuv.)

I don't think I ever thought about whether derashos could be gezeiros
hakasuv. But that's not relevent here, since the deduction is sevara
(a logical deduction), not derashah (via the 7/13/19/32 middos). If
the sotah uncovers her hair, then we deduce from needing to state this
exception that the rule is a married woman would cover hers. ("The
exception that proves the rule.")

Interestingly, Googling "gezeras hakasuv derashah" found
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n093.shtml#01>, where R' Akiva
Miller (2005) posted pretty much the same argument I made about how
hair covering differs from other forms of ervah as being caused by a
different issur rather than erva causing the issur. And then, as I just
did, used it to argue that we therefore don't know the point of the
issur and can't deduce whether or not human hair sheitlach are a bad idea.

(RAM and I have been on the same email lists for well over a decade;
I wonder if we're passing the same idea back and forth across each other.)

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 28, Issue 210
***************************************

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..."