Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 61

Tue, 09 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: Kitniyot (Zvi Lampel)
• 3. Yemin which is left, who brings the Chatos (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 4. Chazakah vs Plausibility (Micha Berger)
• 5. Short Shabbat Hagadol Drasha (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 6. YT Sheni in Eretz Yisrael (was Minhagim for Baalei Teshuva) (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Lisa Liel)
• 10. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Zev Sero)
• 11. PROPER ATTIRE FOR SHABBOS (cantorwolb...@cox.net)

Prof. Levine asked:

> I know that "his clothes would be acceptable in many places"
> in Israel.  I have never understood how or why this mode of
> dress on Shabbos became acceptable in EY in any place.

We might be able to explain it better if you'd tell us your theory of how
fashions differ by time and by place. How did MY mode of dress on Shabbos
-- white shirt, tie, black shoes, suit, but NO VEST -- become acceptable?
(Or maybe it's not?) Or, to use an example cited on the top of page 116 of
the article, is my rabbi wrong for not wearing a morning suit and top hat?

As I see it, the important thing is that the Shabbos clothes be nicer than
the weekday clothes. If the main difference is that the weekday clothes are
colored and wrinkly, while the Shabbos clothes are white and pressed -- and
that this is the norm for that society -- I can't imagine what the
objection might be.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5162ff9bb2f017f9b2a50st04vuc

Regarding the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah's constructing the second Temple's
altar larger than that of Shlomo HaMelech's Temple (Zevachim 61b-62a),
RMB (Avodah Vol 31, Issue 57) wrote,

> They continued with AkHG's pesaq even after they knew it differed from
> bayis rishon's. How do you think Chazal (Zevachim 61b) knew to point out
> the switch?... They [the AkHG had] pasqened in ignorance of prior pesaq

I question this. There is nothing in the Gemora to indicate that the AkHG
and the Torah authorities who followed them first became unaware that the
pesaq differed from Shlomo's only after the pesaq was made. (Aderabba: if
the AkHG didn't realize it, how would the later authorities discover it?)

The Gemora explains the switch to have been a matter of darshonning
a posuk. Namely, whether "mizbayach adamah" is a requirement for the
altar to be made of solid earth, preventing the insertion of channels,
or only a requirement that there is no space between the altar's bottom
and the ground.

(There was a special hole at the foot of the altar, and the nesachim
would stream down into it via the altar's side wall. Shlomo took the
original intent of the posuk to disallow channels that would enable
expansion that would cover the hole, The AkHG took the original intent
of the posuk to allow them.)

> I think we can agree that NO Sanhedrin during bayis sheini would
> consider itself gadol bechokhmah compared to Shelomo's -- they weren't
> overruling.

In matters based upon darshonning pesukim, Rambam, following Rav Hai Gaon,
teaches that even a lesser Sanhedrin could overturn a greater Sanhedrin's
pesak if they see their drash as being a better understanding of the
original intent of the posuk. And here is an example of that principle
actually applied. (I noted this back in 2005, Mon, 9 May 2005 11:42:23
-0400, Subject: Sanhedrin Overturning a Previous Drash.)

Further, the Gemora and Rashi clearly state that Shlomo failed to
correctly understand the prophecy given to David about the maximum allowed
dimensions of the altar, and the truth was testified to by three of the
Anshei Knesses HaGedolah's prophets.

Zvi Lampel

the RaMBaN, Sefer HaMitzvos Shoresh 1, also suggests a proof from Rabbon
Gamliels decree against RY.
However, the MaHaRatz Chajos is surprised since this case of Kiddush
HaChodesh is unique, requiring its own special Limmud.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130409/d9dc41b6/attachment-0001.htm>

Y-mi, Gittin 3:3, vilna 16b (near end of both halakhah and daf):

The topic is the chazaqah that a person is alive. The mishnah says that
when a man gives a shaliach a get, even if the man is old and sick,
the shaliach finished his job and does not worry that the man died
first. Because we have a chazaqah established by his being alive when
he left.

Similarly, a woman married to a kohein who went overseas can continue
to eat terumah and not be chosheshes that her husband died.

Bar Qapara says that even if he left gave the shaliach a get when he was
100, and was on the road for another 100 years, we give her the get on
the chazaqah that he is still around.

And the gemara follows up by saying, of course -- that's our mishnah!
Bar Qapara's statement is to the stam Y-mi no more a chiddush than
the original.

Even though in BQ's case we're using a chazaqah to assert a physical
impossibility -- a 200 yr old man?!

Li nir'eh the kashrus of a get, or the permissability of an eishes
kohein eating terumah, rests not on the actual life of the husband,
but on the chazaqah of life.

Without abstracting the din from the physical reality, I don't see how
to explain this gemara.

Which is why I thought the chevra here with our current mix of threads,
might want to take a crack at it.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

Their answer is that bedikas chametz requires tircha gedola and, 
as the Yerushalmi states, women are lazy,

If you study the "Eishes Chayil," it will be obvious that women are
not lazy and also on a higher spiritual level than men. To be fair
to chazal, the cultural context is a salient consideration.
ri
Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many			   
									   
									   
									   
			   for appointment by the corrupt few.		   
									   
									   
									   
								  George
Bernard Shaw


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130409/c90f692b/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB writes:
>I think that's the implication from the sugyos in Maqom sheNahagu (Pesachim
pereq 4). Minhag primarily means minhag hamaqom. One keeps
> one's minhag hamaqom until one is in a maqom that has a different minhag.
(What it takes to be in a new place is one of the key open
> questions behind the question of whether a tourist observes YT sheini shel
goliyos.)

I am hoping some time in the future to discuss the more general question of
minhag and minhag hama'akom - but I don't think whether a tourist in Eretz
Yisrael observing YT sheini shel goliyos is a good example of the question.

If anything, that question illustrates beautifully the tension between
halachic logic, which would seem to point one way, and minhag, which points
the other.  It is very hard to read the Chacham Zvi and conclude anything
other than it is forbidden for a tourist to keep two days Yom Tov when in
Eretz Yisrael.  And yet on the other hand we have the testimony of Rav Yosef
Karo, no less, in Shut Akvat Rochel siman 26 that from as far back as
anybody living in Eretz Yisroel can remember it was a common situation that
Bnei Chutz L'Aretz came up to Israel for the shalosh regalim, and they keep
two days, and not only that, but (and he really struggles to justify this
bit) they publically gather minyanim and daven the Yom Tov davening on the
second day, and layn from the Torah, and this was done in front of many of
the great ones of the generation and they made no objection. And similar
testimony can be found from various other difficult to ignore sources. Ergo,
it must be alright.  

And yet here is the Chacham Zvi in all his glory:

???? ??? ?"? ????? /??????/ ??"? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???
????? ?? ???? ?"?: 
????? ???"? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??' ???? ?"? ??????? ???? ??
???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ????
???? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????
??? ???' ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????????
????? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????
???? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ?' ???? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?"? ??? ????
?????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???
????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????
??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???
?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???????? ??
????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??"? ??? ?????? ??"? ?? ????? ?????
???"? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?' ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?"? ?????? ??? ?' ????
?????? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ??"? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ?"? ?? ????? ?? ???
??? ??"? ???' ??? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???

Shut Chacham Zvi Siman 167

Question: Bnei Chutz L?Aretz who go up to Eretz Yisrael for a temporary
period how should they conduct themselves on the shalosh regalim if like
Bnei Eretz Yisrael or like Bnei Chutz L?Aretz.
Answer: It seem to me that they need to conduct themselves in the matter of
the festivals like one of the settled Bnei Eretz Yisrael, and that there
isn?t in relation to this the general rule of keeping the chumros of the
place that he came from  and not in relation to tephilos and brachos and
kriyas hatorah since these are not chumros in essence since behold one who
comes to be stringent to bless and to pray the prayers of the festivals in a
time that is not a festival has a sin in his hands rather even work which is
permitted to them that they should do like all the people of the place that
go out from there to here routinely it is simple that it is forbidden that
they do more than one day because of ba?al tosif since behold one who sleeps
on the eighth in the Sukkah receives lashes and so on Pesach and on Shavuos
one who makes one day a festival more that he is commanded is over on baal
tosif and we do not say that he takes on himself the chumros of the place
that he goes out from there except for chumros that are permitted to the
people of the place that he went out this from there to conduct themselves
with the chumros in a place where they are accustomed to go l?kula even if
they fix their dwelling in [that] place but with a thing that if people of a
place come with their chumra to a place of kula and fix their dwelling there
they are forbidden to conduct themselves according to their chumros in this
we do not say in regard to this that even if the messengers of that place
were careful with the custom of their  father perhaps there will be a decree
of shmad and they will come to be mekalekel since a kilkul itself is not
relevant here except when they are in their place in chutz l?aretz but when
they are in Eretz Yisrael it is not relevant, and since when they are in
Eretz Yisroel it is forbidden to add a day on to the mitzvos, and it is not
in the hand of the people of Eretz Yisrael to add one day more than that
which is written in the Torah, and to go l?chumra even those who come from
Chutz L?Aretz are forbidden to conduct themselves with the second day of Yom
Tov of the exile all the time that they are in Eretz Yisrael even
temporarily since it is the place that causes and there is not in this the
general rule of the chumros of the place that one left from there.

Rav Ya'akov Emden, (ie his son) seems to try and go the other way - ie given
that he acknowledges that it has been the minhag from as long as anybody can
remember for tourists to keep two days Yom Tov, he effectively appears to
suggest that everybody in Israel should even permanent residents (see Shut
Sheilat Ya'avetz siman 168).  And yes the assumption of Rav Yosef Karo and
others in justifying the minhag appears to be based on this idea that one
should keep the minhag of the place on came from if one has the intention to
return - but that is why the public minyanim thing is so difficult, because
it is pretty explicit from the sources that in a place where there is a
different minhag, which there clearly is in Eretz Yisrael, one should only
keep the chumros in private, to avoid machlokus - and Rav Yosef Karo is
forced to say (his language) that this must only be in the case of things
like not doing melacha, and not things like tephila and Torah reading (but
even that doesn't seem to me to work, because there is, of course, an issur
melacha component of Yom Tov sheni as well, and if you hold that nobody can
really tell that you are not performing melacha you are undermining those
rishonim who say that that is what the gemora is talking about).

And I have yet to find anybody who really seems to take this Chacham Zvi
head on and argue on halachic grounds, rather than - well the minhag has
always been this way grounds, for why there is in fact no issur of Ba'al
Tosif (although I have seen one attempt based on Sukkah 44b).  

I haven't been in Israel on Yom Tov Sheni for a long time - and yes when I
was there as a single girl I kept two days - including, once, holding the
most surreal second night seder in the kitchen of my Israeli relatives, with
leftovers from their first seder, all completely on my own.  And I do have
to say that nothing quite feels like brochos levatalos than that.  But at
that point I hadn't read the Chacham Zvi (nor Rav Ovadiah, who might have
helped me then, as he says in Shut Yechave Da?at Chelek 1 siman 26 that a
single bachur can keep one day, since surely if he found a good shidduch he
would stay, and that must even more so apply to a girl, since it is more
common for women to move to the place of residence of their husband than the
reverse - but for the more general case is forced to say that we have to
follow Maran).  And I suspect that one of the reasons that my husband and I
have never been back to Israel for the shalosh regalim might well be because
we would end up feeling very uncomfortable whatever we do.  So I don't think
the second day Yom Tov in Israel question is nearly as simple as you make
out.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

Funny.  Today's Bavli daf was also about chazaka and shlichut.

The laws of chazaka are not dependent on likelihood.  Once a chazaka is 
established, it stands until something specific comes to break it.  At 
the time the man gave the shaliach the get, the chazaka was established, 
based on "chazaka shaliach oseh shlichuto".  There's no specific point 
at which that chazaka gets broken.

Any legal system can have situations that appear absurd from the 
outside.  That doesn't mean they're entirely divorced from reality.

Lisa


On 4/9/2013 5:23 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Y-mi, Gittin 3:3, vilna 16b (near end of both halakhah and daf):
>
> The topic is the chazaqah that a person is alive. The mishnah says that
> when a man gives a shaliach a get, even if the man is old and sick,
> the shaliach finished his job and does not worry that the man died
> first. Because we have a chazaqah established by his being alive when
> he left.
>
> Similarly, a woman married to a kohein who went overseas can continue
> to eat terumah and not be chosheshes that her husband died.
>
> Bar Qapara says that even if he left gave the shaliach a get when he was
> 100, and was on the road for another 100 years, we give her the get on
> the chazaqah that he is still around.
>
> And the gemara follows up by saying, of course -- that's our mishnah!
> Bar Qapara's statement is to the stam Y-mi no more a chiddush than
> the original.
>
> Even though in BQ's case we're using a chazaqah to assert a physical
> impossibility -- a 200 yr old man?!
>
> Li nir'eh the kashrus of a get, or the permissability of an eishes
> kohein eating terumah, rests not on the actual life of the husband,
> but on the chazaqah of life.
>
> Without abstracting the din from the physical reality, I don't see how
> to explain this gemara.
>
> Which is why I thought the chevra here with our current mix of threads,
> might want to take a crack at it.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
>    

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:10:15AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Any legal system can have situations that appear absurd from the  
> outside.  That doesn't mean they're entirely divorced from reality.

But I never claimed they were "entirely divorced", and tried repeatedly
to remove this absolutist form of my opinion from the discussion because
it stands as a strawman.

My point is, as you acknowledge here, that it's a legal system that must
be understood on its own terms. It is not a science, and therefore won't
necessarily track empirical reality.

But that doesn't mean it can't track it.

Such as when I wrote:
: I believe there are times evidence will overturn pesaq. But because pesaq
: is law, there are times it won't.

Or:
: Halakhah has rules of legislation. Apparently it is not a given that
: "corrected to match intended reality" is one of them.

Or:
: ...
: Which I am using to buttress the idea that halakhah must be reasonable
: in its application of the legislative and interpretive rules, but may
: not be logical a priori.

Etc...

My objection started with an argument based on realia against qitniyos
and an argument based on historical olive sizes against current shitos
defining the kezayis. The argument could be more or less valid, and I
think it takes someone who did shimush and whose rebbe found him ready
for "yoreh yoreh" to decide.

(If my theory about halakhah and experience is valid [further generalizing
from R' Dovid Lifshitz's generalization from bugs to beitzei qinim], it
would mean that for halakhah to track reality we would need two criteria:
(1) the reality is being invoked prescriptively, not descriptively; and
(2) the reality must be on the scale of human senses, and not something
we can only know via tools and/or reason. But my point doesn't really
rest on this theory; they just dovetail well.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?

On 4/9/2013 8:55 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:10:15AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>    
>> Any legal system can have situations that appear absurd from the
>> outside.  That doesn't mean they're entirely divorced from reality.
>>      
> But I never claimed they were "entirely divorced", and tried repeatedly
> to remove this absolutist form of my opinion from the discussion because
> it stands as a strawman.
>    

And yet you're treating them that way.  Chazaka is a special case.  It's 
recognized as such throughout the halakhic literature.  You can't use it 
as a support for your theory that reality needn't override psak.

Look... I'm going to use really strong language now, but it's necessary, 
because I don't think I've made it clear enough.  Those rabbanim who 
paskened ridiculously large shiurim without actual exposure to what 
olives were paskened ignorantly.  Not stupidly, chas v'shalom, but 
ignorantly.  Out of ignorance.  Lacking knowledge.  We do not refrain 
from paskening merely because we can't be sure.  But when we pasken in 
ignorance, knowledge comes and changes things.

Chazaka is actually a great example of this.  A chazaka does not stand 
once there is solid evidence to take it out of the chazaka.  No more 
should psak that comes in ignorance of facts stand once those facts are 
present.

> My point is, as you acknowledge here, that it's a legal system that must
> be understood on its own terms. It is not a science, and therefore won't
> necessarily track empirical reality.
>    

Your conclusion doesn't follow.  The laws of chazaka say exactly the 
opposite of what you've been arguing.

> But that doesn't mean it can't track it.
>
> Such as when I wrote:
> : I believe there are times evidence will overturn pesaq. But because pesaq
> : is law, there are times it won't.
>    

That's a vague statement that lacks content.  But I'll buy it if you 
recognize that the times evidence will overturn psak include times when 
it's demonstrable that the original psak was given as a "best we can do" 
in absence of actual knowledge.  Which is the case for most of the 
outrageously oversized shiurim.

> Or:
> : Halakhah has rules of legislation. Apparently it is not a given that
> : "corrected to match intended reality" is one of them.
>    

This, I disagree with entirely.

> Or:
> : ...
> : Which I am using to buttress the idea that halakhah must be reasonable
> : in its application of the legislative and interpretive rules, but may
> : not be logical a priori.
>    

No.  And logic isn't the issue here.  Fact is the issue here.

> Etc...
>
> My objection started with an argument based on realia against qitniyos
> and an argument based on historical olive sizes against current shitos
> defining the kezayis. The argument could be more or less valid, and I
> think it takes someone who did shimush and whose rebbe found him ready
> for "yoreh yoreh" to decide.
>    

Good.  Rabbi David Bar Hayim suffices for me.  And since he did shimush 
and his rebbe found him ready for yoreh yoreh, you can't merely dismiss 
his position.

> (If my theory about halakhah and experience is valid [further generalizing
> from R' Dovid Lifshitz's generalization from bugs to beitzei qinim], it
> would mean that for halakhah to track reality we would need two criteria:
> (1) the reality is being invoked prescriptively, not descriptively; and
> (2) the reality must be on the scale of human senses, and not something
> we can only know via tools and/or reason. But my point doesn't really
> rest on this theory; they just dovetail well.)
>    

K'zayit is prescriptive, and it's on the scale of human senses.  I don't 
see the problem.

Lisa

On 9/04/2013 6:23 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Even though in BQ's case we're using a chazaqah to assert a physical
> impossibility -- a 200 yr old man?!

The gemara does not believe this is a physical impossibility; not only did
many people in Tanach live longer than that, the gemara says that there
were contemporary people who lived longer than that.  So however unlikely
it may be, it's not impossible, at least as far as the gemara is concerned.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Regarding this topic, it would seem that there are arguments
on both sides.
The argument for conformity could be "minhag hamakom"
In addition the following are some references which imply definite 
standards by which we are expected to comply.


Megilla 24a  A person in rags may repeat the blessings before the shema and
translate, but he may not read in the Torah nor pass before the ark nor
lift up his hands.							   
									   
					 24b Question (Ula bar Rav): Is a
child in rags allowed to read in the Torah? Abaye replied: You might as
well ask about a naked one. Why is one without any clothes not allowed? 
Out of respect for the tzibbur. Here, too, [he is not allowed] out of respect for the tzibbur.
Berachot 30b  Read not hadrath [beauty] but herdath [trembling]. But how
can you learn from here? Perhaps I can after all say that the word
'hadrath' is to be taken literally, after the manner of Rab Judah, who used
to dress himself up before he prayed!

Shabbos 113a The School of R. Jannai said: They learnt this only of one
man, but [it may] not [be done] by two men. And even of one man, we said
[this] only of new [garments],	but not of old [ones]. And even of old
[garments], we said this only of white, 
but not of colored [ones]. And we said this only if he has no others to
change, but if he has others to change it is not permitted. It was taught:
[The members] of the household of R. Gamaliel did not fold up their white
garments, because they had [others] for changing.
R. Huna said: If one has a change [of garments],  he should change [them],
but if he has nothing to change into, he should lower his garments.  R.
Safra demurred: But this looks like ostentation? ? Since he does not do
this every day, but [only] now [on the Sabbath], 
it does not look like ostentation. And thou shalt honor it, not doing thine
own ways:  'and thou shalt honor it', that thy Sabbath garments should not
be like thy weekday garments, and even as R. Yohanan called his garments
'My honorers' (the garments dignify the person).
113b Wash thyself therefore, and anoint thee, and put thy raiment upon
thee. R. Eleazar said: This refers to the Shabbos garments. (Source: Ruth
3:3 ?simlosayich?)

114a Whence do we learn change of garments in the Torah? Because it is
said, And he shall put off his garments, and put on other garments (Vayikra
6:4) and the School of R. Ishmael taught: The Torah teaches you manners: In
the garments in which one cooked a dish 		 for his master,
one should not mix a cup [of wine] for his master. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in
R. Johanan's name: It is a disgrace for a scholar to go out with patched
shoes into the market place. But R. Aha b. Hanina did go out [thus]? ? Said
R. Aha son of R. Nahman:		       The reference is to patches
upon patches. R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Yohanan's name: Any scholar
upon whose garment a [grease] stain is found is worthy of death (not
literally), for it is said, All they that hate me [mesanne'ai] love [merit]
death. (Mishlei 8:36)

On the other side, it could be argued that it is better to welcome everyone
to shul whether or not they are dressed formally.			   
									   
									   
						     Shabbos 127a   Rab
Judah said in Rab's name: Hospitality to wayfarers is greater than
welcoming the presence of the Shechinah,				   
									   
									   
			     for it is written, And he said, My lord, if
now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not away, etc.  Bereishis 18:3

The essence of the mitzvah of "hospitality," says R. Isaiah Horowitz (the
Shelach Hakadosh) is that of following in God's ways for are we all not
guest in His world? For this reason, welcoming mortal guests leads to
humility, for we realize that all are equally guests before		   
     the Almighty. Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin once received guests who came to
visit him before shacharis, so that he missed t'fillah b'tzibur for he held
that hachnasas orchim is greater?

From this one could reasonably infer that it is better not to criticize someone who might not be dressed as we deem appropriate. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130409/5d21b997/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 61
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)