Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 247

Wed, 14 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: new chumrah (Micha Berger)
• 2. bishul akum for a chiloni (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: tzitz eliezeer..... (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Gid Hanasheh (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Gid Hanasheh (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: new chumrah (Goldmeier Family)
• 7. Re: new chumrah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Lashon Hara? (Liron Kopinsky)
• 9. Re: Lashon Hara? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)
• 14. kol isha approaches (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Zev Sero)
• 18. Re: Lashon Hara? (harchinam)

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 11:23:23AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> No, it wasn't.  The article quoted the agency as specifically denying
> any such requirement.

I see where RMYG's misunderstanding comes from, and RZS's wording
reflects his not recalling the article either. So, here it is.

http://www.haaretz.com/pri
nt-edition/news/kashrut-inspectors-jerusalem-burger-joint-workers-must-don-
kippot-1.400439
a/k/a http://bit.ly/rSSXxH

    Kashrut inspectors: Jerusalem burger joint workers must don kippot
    On-site inspectors tell managers of restaurants under their
    supervision that only observant, kippa-wearing Jews are permitted
    to place food on the grill.
    By Nir Hasson 

    In some kosher Jerusalem restaurants, even male employees who are not
    observant Jews must wear a kippa. In some cases restaurant managers
    cite a desire to show respect for their customers, while in others
    the request or directive apparently comes from the on-site kashrut
    inspector, or mashgiah.
    ...
    According to Rabbi Yitzchak Weinberg, one of the heads of Rubin's
    certification agency, the agency does not get involved with employee
    apparel issues, which is left up to the owner "who wants to respect
    his religious and Haredi customers." Weinberg adds, however, that
    anyone who places food over a flame must at least observe the Jewish
    Sabbath. "It's not a question of clothing, it's Jewish law," Weinberg
    says. "Not the servers, though."

    The on-site inspector, however, speaking to Haaretz on condition of
    anonymity, said that anyone working at the restaurant has to wear
    a kippa; "it's important for the public," he said.

So, to whatever extent you can trust Haaretz on a halachic topic, it
would seem they're claiming it IS required, but for marketing rather
than religious reasons.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMF (YD 45-46), Tzitz Eliezer (9-41), and Yabia Omer YD 5-10 all state that
Bishul Akum does not apply to chilonim.
Teshuvot ve_haghagot 3-247 disagrees

This is besides all those that claim that a chiloni in modern society does
not have a din of a mumar.
----------------------------------------


the pot on the flame and not just light the flame.
ROY is "melamed zechut" on sefardim who use the general hechsher which only
has the masgiach light the fire. He combines several heters together
including but not only relying on the Rama.  He concludes that the proper
behavior for a sefardi is not to rely on this heter.

I note that ROY mentions the standard hechsher of the rabbanut as being
problematic. However, I assume(does anyone know the facts?)  the same
problem would effect restaurants under the Badatz of the Edah who in
general only insist on Ashkenazi  halachot, such as allowing more than 50%
of the wine or grape juice to be added water.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111212/ce141c91/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 02:09:31PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: from halacha.net,
...
:>                                                            Rav Eliezer
:> Waldenberg, shlit"a, in Responsa Tzitiz Eliezer (vol 11, no.17) writes
:> among other reasons that since a minor is also Rabbinically obligated
:> in mitzvot, we do not make a distinction between this obligation and
:> the Torah obligation, since this would appear to be a lack of respect
:> for the Rabbinic obligation.

: i don't have access to the tzitz eliezer, however, how can children be
: "obligated" to perform mitzvot (i was always taught, that the reason they
: say berachot, etc) is just to "train" them, and/or for chinuch purposes.

The mitzvah of chinukh could itself be the rabbinic obligation the TE
is speaking of.

But I was wondering... Turning 12 or 13 depends on a chazaqah to
approximate the age at which I child would grow 2 saaros. Meaning,
the whole concept of bar mitzvah is itself deRabbanan. Bar mitzvah is
for when the rabbanan require adulthood -- zimun, tefillah betzibur,
leining... When we need to determine adulthood deOraisa (eg geirus),
we do not rely on age alone.

Wouldn't this be an easier reason for saying that bar mitzvah isn't
a personal chag? One is merely celebrating reaching a chazaqah, not
the primary shiur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On Sat, Dec 10, 2011 at 06:16:40PM -0500, Henry Topas wrote:
: We have an issur of gid hanasheh which is from this morning's parshah.
: 
: However, the construct of most lavin are those misinai with some
: exceptions, mostly related to the korban pesach which predates sinai.

See also Sanhedrin 59a-b.

R' Simlai's prooftext for 613 mitzvos is "Torah tzivah lanu Moshe",
where "Torah" = 611, and the first 2 mitzvos in the 10 Diberos were
directly from HQBH. So the Rambam concludes that all the mitzvos must
be miSinai.

According to the Rambam (peirush on Chulin 7:6) the rule is that all
mitzvos given before Sinai and not repeated (except when Hashem dictated
the text describing the first act of commanding) are for Benei Yisrael
only and not benei Noach. Those that are repeated belong to all people.

This is counter-intuitive, although I think the question I asked above
points toward a possible resolution. Anything given only in Bereishis
or early Shemos is like any mitzvah. However, by repeating the mitzvah,
it implies that the telling in Bereishis was for a different reason than
the normal tzivui -- the tzivui to all people.

Alternatively, we are the inheritors of the spiritual legacy of Adam,
Noach, the Avos, and the generations up to Sinai. Therefore a tzivui
to them devolves to only being to us. If the tzivui is to Noach qua
ancestor of Jews, there would be no need to repeat it during the beris
Sinai. However, if it's to all his children, then it's in the beris
Noach and need repetition for beris Sinai.

Less quoted is Rashi's position that the mitzvos accumulated over
time.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Many meforshim on the story of Yaacov and the angel seem to connect the
gid hanasheh with the generative organ and the power of procreation.
Could someone explain what is the connection, apart from them both being
in the same general area?  Surely it has nothing to do with the mistaken
etymology that Ibn Ezra rejects, linking "nasheh" to "nashim".  There
must be some connection in inyan between the two, but I don't know what.
(When Avraham says "tachas yereichi" I assume it's a euphemism, and he
actually meant the milah; but here there's no question that it means the
sciatic nerve, so that answer won't work.)



-- 
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

                    
                

isnt having all staff wear kippot just masking the problem? sure, the 
customers arent worrying, but the fact is that these people handling the 
meat and cooking are still not shomer shabbos and dont really wear 
yarmulkas. I, the customer, just dont know it. Isnt this in a sense 
either gneivas daas or some form of fraud (i.e. making me think it is 
all ok when in fact it isnt)?

kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

---------
Goldmeier
goldmeier.fam...@gmail.com

Advertise on Life in Israel blog!! See 
http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/p/advertise-on-life-in-israel.html for
more information!

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com
http://rabbirunningamarathon.blogspot.com


On 11/12/2011 1:45 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 11:05 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I put down even a goy for emphasis. The original statement was for a 
>> non shomer shabbat Jew. As far as I know bishul Akum doesnt apply to 
>> non-religious Jews as there is no problem marrying the daughter/son 
>> of a chiloni
>
> OTOH a mechalel shabbos befarhessia, dino kenochri, so there's at least
> a shayla.  Having a shomer shabbos put the food on solves the shayla.
> And having all staff wear kippot stops the customers from worrying about
> it.
>

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:25:16AM +0200, Goldmeier Family wrote:
>                                                Isnt this in a sense  
> either gneivas daas or some form of fraud (i.e. making me think it is  
> all ok when in fact it isnt)?

I think the desire is to mask something that people think is an issue,
but isn't. IOW, the meat is no less kosher than they think it is, just
that rabbanim can't disabuse people of the error.

Whether that qualifies as geneivas daas...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

See below. I am cropping the letter a little bit to remove information
about what the actual service is.

I recently posted a review of a session I had with a councilor on a group
on Facebook.  A woman emailed me saying that she thought the review was
lashon hara because it could negatively impact the councilor's parnassah.
 I am under the impression that one is allowed to give honest feedback
about a business to other people who are researching the product/service.
Here is what I wrote:
OK, so since we are all talking about <these> workshops, let me share my
experience. I had a private meeting with <so-and-so> (the woman who'll be
teaching the class). She is very knowledgeable and helpful and I
appreciated learning from her how to understand <subject-she-teaches>. I'm
glad I went to her, but it was expensive and I honestly think I could have
figured most of it out on my own by reading <a well-known book on the
subject>. The only reason why I went to her is because I <have some
specific issues and my situation is a little complicated>. So she did help
me figure that out, but if you <are in a normal situation>, I suggest you
read the book first. I'm also a self-learner and can figure things out on
my own and already have a good working knowledge of the <subject-at-hand>.
Some people do better with an instructor, so the class would be great for
you. But for me, it wasn't worth the money. Hope that helps!
Do you think that is problematic vis-a-vis hilchos lashon hara?
Thank you!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111213/1cbadde5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 07:48:34AM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: I recently posted a review of a session I had with a councilor on a group
: on Facebook.  A woman emailed me saying that she thought the review was
: lashon hara because it could negatively impact the councilor's parnassah.
...

I'm not sure why it's more LH if it impacts the bottom line. LH is about
saying something negative. Perhaps there is a second issue of hezeq one
could ask about.

But if it's to save the readers' money because the councelor didn't provide
value, one is balancing damage done to one vs helping others decide whether
or not to risk money. It's not single-sided.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 01:02:57PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: > But I think the issue is in how we define rov and whether the
: > probabilities add if we rely on them in one maaseh, if we rely in them
: > altogether, or not add at all. Can mi'ut be undone through
: > recombination, and if so, how?

: > To my mind, the parallel case in taaroves would be subjecting the
: > mixture to a cenrafuge. Now, eg, the top of the mix has too much issur
: > for bitul. Does one thereby undo the bitul?

: See this is where I disagree.  I think you need to distinguish the case of
: the three pieces of meat and the genuine mixture case, by which I mean eg
: the classic case of a drop of milk falling into a meat stew.  In the latter
: case, it seems to me it is nothing to do with probabilities, it has to do
: with the drop of milk being completely overwhelmed by the meat stew and
: thereby disappearing from existence, with its identity and particularly its
: taste disappearing.  There is no more issur, period, it has been overwhelmed
: by heter, and what is left is solely a permissible meat stew. Centrifuge is
: therefore irrelevant.  The forbidden milk no more exists in Torah terms than
: these microscopic bugs that we keep swallowing from the air and water and
: food, they don't count.

So, if you bring the milk back up to the top, visible be'ein, it can still
be eaten with the rest of the chulent?

The possibility of unmixing the taaroves doesn't impact bitul, so why should
the possibility of combining the odds of each mi'ut into a rov canceling its
bitul?

: But in the case of the three pieces of meat, there really genuinely is a
: piece of treif meat in there that has not disappeared from existence, and
: which everybody knows about...

BTW, when it comes to safeiq, there is cheilev out there somewhere. And
if you eat only one piece, you don't even know if you ate cheilev.
WRT taaroves, if it's well mixed, you know you definitely ate cheilev
with your first bite. So if you want to say the two forms of bitul
differ in kind, I could in theory argue that it's the bitul berov of a
safeiq that is more "real".

But I don't think they are. The rov of a safeiq is actually called
a taaroves and bitul. For that matter, "isa -- lashon safeiq" (Rashi
Kesuvos 14a) -- in general, a safeiq thought of as a kind of mixture.

You're modeling safeiq using concepts of probability that they didn't have,
nor would necessarily have used if they did. To chazal, safeiq about which
piece of fat is cheilev is a case of mixed identity.

And both rely on rov as darshened from the same pasuq. (R' Chaim notes
this, and that the original source "acharei rabim lehatos" is beis din,
which is a taaroves of opinions.)

But now I'm just explicating what I took for granted when I wrote previous
posts -- bitul berov is the same mechanics in both cases.

:> We were talking about consuming the approved-but-not-certified product. I
:> believe it's really a case of both probability AND taaroves. After all,
:> we aren't relying on bitul for a substance we know to be there, we are
:> relying on bitul in order to not have to know -- the issur is itself only
:> "present" as a mi'ut (or perhaps even ruba) deleisa leqaman.

: No, I believe we are relying on bitul for a substance we know to be there,
: but which is insignificant (ie overwhelmed by the heter)...

The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we know
it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning is that we
don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have bitul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

More along those lines... The Rashba, Toras haBayis 4:1, explains bitul
berov in a taaroves in terms of kol deparish, meiruba parish, which is
why he requires not eating the entire taaroves. Isn't it much like not
eating all three pieces in the case of safeiq? But in any case, he invokes
the safeiq kelal to explain the taaroves one.

Bekhoros 23a gives a complex answer if bitul renders the minority of a
taaroves keman deleisei dami. When touching a tamei item, since you are
only touching at one point, we say keman deleisei. But when it comes to
masah, since you are carrying the whole item, if part is tamei you are
carrying the tamei within.

Tosafos say that when earing, each bit is a mi'ut, and therefore even if
you eat the majority of the taaroves, it's like touching the taaroves
multiple times.

The Rosh (Gid haNasheh, 37) says that if Tosafos's answer was right (not
that he attributes the answer) one would have make sure that each bite
might only be kosher food. He therefore distinguishes between kashrus and
tum'ah instead. I didn't spend the time to follow what he wrote before
replying, since that's off topic.

So, I'm not sure if RnCL's assumption about bitul betaaroves stands. It
seems that bitul is keman de'isa dami unless there is a possibility you
didn't encounter the mi'ut.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On 13/12/2011 2:25 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> : No, I believe we are relying on bitul for a substance we know to be there,
> : but which is insignificant (ie overwhelmed by the heter)...
>
> The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we know
> it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning is that we
> don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have bitul.

What do you mean by "the product isn't inspected"?  Items on the kosher
lists that we're discussing are certainly inspected.  The rabbonim know
what's in them.  The question is what they do when they know of a treife
ingredient that is batel.  And the psak is that since the goy is putting
the ingredient in for his own purposes, not in order to be mevatel an
issur for us, this is not called bittul issur lechatchila, and we may
buy and eat the mixture.

-- 
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, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:43:56PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we know
>> it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning is that we
>> don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have bitul.
>
> What do you mean by "the product isn't inspected"?  Items on the kosher
> lists that we're discussing are certainly inspected.  The rabbonim know
> what's in them...

Well, from Prof RYL's original post (28 Nov), quoting
<http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Poli
cy/The_Kashrut_Authority_and_Kashrut_in_Australia.html>
"The Kashrut Authority and Kashrut in Australia":
> 3. We have a third level (that does not exist in the USA). These
> are what we have called ?approved? products manufactured by persons
> not of the Jewish faith....

> a. If there is a definitely non-kosher ingredient then the product will
> not be listed regardless of the ability to nullify. We do not rely on
> bitul in such circumstances.

> b. If there is uncertainty as to the nature of an ingredient or if
> it's sub-components have not been able to be thoroughly investigated --
> provided that there is a reasonable likelihood that it is of kosher origin
> and in the worst case scenario the ingredient would anyway be batel --
> the final product will be approved ( but never certified) .

> c. Certain leniencies may be employed in relation to the kosherisation
> of equipment and supervision of such kosherisation as well as frequency
> of visitation.
...

a and b are relevent, and the bassi of my claim that we're relying on
bitul to take care of any tiny amount of ingredient that might be there (b),
but not is the item is actually known to be there (a).

It's only usable because they do not have the ability to inspect, or at
least not to the point of knowing the full ingredient list.

It is bitul of both the taaroves and safeiq sorts, together.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

http://morethodoxy.org/2011/11/30/recently-a-kol/
  some   articles on the topic 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111213/82377c4a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/12/2011 4:04 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> b. If there is uncertainty as to the nature of an ingredient or if
>>  it's sub-components have not been able to be thoroughly investigated --
>>  provided that there is a reasonable likelihood that it is of kosher origin
>>  and in the worst case scenario the ingredient would anyway be batel --
>>  the final product will be approved ( but never certified) .

This refers to where the ingredient comes from somewhere else, and
*that* factory has no hechsher.  In the USA and EY they follow the chain
of manufacture all the way down to the ultimate raw material.  In Oz they
may try to do this, but if they can't they can fall back on bittul.
But the principle they're using would apply even to an ingredient known
to be assur; the goy is being mevatel it for his own purposes, not for
our sake, and doesn't really care whether we accept it or not, so there's
no element of "lechatchila".


-- 
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, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> But the principle they're using would apply even to an ingredient known
> to be assur; the goy is being mevatel it for his own purposes, not for
> our sake, and doesn't really care whether we accept it or not, so there's
> no element of "lechatchila".

They're relying on two princples in combination, two forms of bitul --
rov unknown ingedients aren't a problem, and bitul betaaroves. Yes,
either alone is sufficient, but lemaaseh they won't approve a product
without the combination.

And thus RnCL's and my discussion about whether they are the same thing,
and if not whether bitul berov in the case of safeiq is weaker, really
has nothing to do with the original topic. The original topic was a case
of using both.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 13/12/2011 4:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 04:13:11PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> >  But the principle they're using would apply even to an ingredient known
>> >  to be assur; the goy is being mevatel it for his own purposes, not for
>> >  our sake, and doesn't really care whether we accept it or not, so there's
>> >  no element of "lechatchila".

> They're relying on two princples in combination, two forms of bitul --
> rov unknown ingedients aren't a problem, and bitul betaaroves. Yes,
> either alone is sufficient, but lemaaseh they won't approve a product
> without the combination.

Not "rov unknown ingredients".  They do have a general idea of whether
*that particular ingredient* is likely to have a problem.  It's "most
olive oil is kosher", rather than "most ingredients are kosher".

-- 
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

                    
                

> : I recently posted a review of a session I had with a councilor on a group
> : on Facebook.  A woman emailed me saying that she thought the review was
> : lashon hara because it could negatively impact the councilor's parnassah.
>

According to hilchos LH, you are NOT forbidden from answering a question
about a service person provided that you meet 7 conditions. Among them are,
that it is only truth without any exaggeration, that it is for toeles [that
the person would intend to use this person's services], that you not have
any ill intentions or anger toward the person you are speaking about, that
you answer only what you are asked without adding on, and that it must be
your experience and not hearsay unless you explicitly say so.

There is no mitzva aseh to make sure that you only say things that will
ensure that everyone else makes money no matter what, and there is likewise
no mitva lo saseh that forbids one telling the truth when asked for toeles
that might cause someone not to choose to patronize a provider, providing
the conditions above are met. You are not required to be the world's
salesman and to ensure that you either lie or fudge the truth in order that
someone else make money.

There is however a mitzva not to stand by one's brother's blood [or let him
lose money if you can stop it] and a mitzva not to put a stumbling block in
front of the blind.

I think that what you wrote was very fair and honest and did not negatively
attack the counselor at all. You merely gave your experiences and
recommended a book that could also help the person. You did not say that
your experience would be that of everyone else and you did not discourage
people from this person.

Sorry, it seems to me that the person who complained should get a chavrusa
and learn the halachot better.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20111214/4b2bfe59/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 247
***************************************

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..."