Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 77

Sun, 28 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Ger Toshav on Shabbos (was: Israel Torah (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Ger Toshav (Doron Beckerman)
• 3. eel DNA (saul newman)
• 4. Re: eel DNA (Micha Berger)
• 5. The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Micha Berger)
• 9. Lag B'omer (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 10. Kiddush HaShem, Defying Their Expectations and Demands (Meir Rabi)
• 11. Re: eel DNA (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Lag B'omer (Zev Sero)

RDB wrote:

>I don't know what you want. There are two distinct issurim involved when it
comes to a nochri on Shabbos. 1) >Issur amirah. 2) Issur Hanaa'h. The only
difference between a Ger Toshav and a regular nochri is regarding >Issur
no.1, which is usually derabbanan, but for a Ger Toshav is a deoraysa. Issur
no. 2 is the same >derabbanan; there are no separate issurim that apply to a
Ger Toshav deoraysa and to a regular nochri not at >all.

>I explicitly said that the kullos of shvus de'amirah lenochri or shvus
dishvus will not apply to a Ger Toshav, >which include Choleh She'ain bo
sakkanah, tzorchei rabbim, etc. Remizah shelo bederech tzivui, though, is
not >a kulla in Amirah, it is not bichlal amirah, see Mishnah Berurah
307:76. And it isn't wink, wink. It is >telling a story by which an
intelligent person would get what to do and certainly one who is shown the
ropes >in advance. It is easy.

>So getting back to the original discussion, the conclusion is
straightforward.

I guess I "want" if that is the word, or perhaps would argue, three things:

a) I don't agree that Remiza shelo bederech tzivui is not a kulla in Amira.
Remiza itself is considered part and parcel of Amira.  Remiza shelo bederech
tzivui is thus a (highly controversial) kula in this.

b) The essence of remiza shelo bederech tzivui is - obviously, that there is
no tzivui involved. I do not believe that we can run a state like that,
without the element of tzivui creeping in (and that we therefore are
assuming, to the extent we use non Jews, that other heterim, such a choleh
sheain bo sakkanah, tzorechei rabbim etc apply).  

c) I am not convinced that Issur no 2 is the same d'rabbanan. The logic used
by Rav Moshe Feinstein which I will discuss below would indicate that it
should not be. 
 
In more detail (capital letters correspond to small letters above):

A) It is agreed by all the remiza itself is part and parcel of Amira.  The
Rema brings it at the Orech Chaim Siman 307 si'man 22 which is the section
amira, and the Mishna Brura confirms it as part of amira in ois 76. He then
says that to it is also forbidden to say something that in the midst of his
words the non Jew will understand that he should do a melacha.  That too is
within the category of Amira. The example is telling him to do something
like wipe a candle when really he wants him to cut off the wick to make it
burn better.  The Mishna Brura then goes on to brings the heter of the Magen
Avraham that if here is a coal at the tip of a candle, he can say to the non
Jew not b'loshon tzivui something like "the light is not lighting well" or
"I am not able to read with this light because there is in a coal" and the
non Jew hears and he fixes it that is permitted, and this is not in the
category of Amira.

But there is an alternative understanding of what is going on here, which is
that the reason that he is permitted this form of remez is that even for a
Jew, cutting the top off the wick to get rid of the coal is only an issur
d'rabbanan, and in this context a remez shelo b'derech tzivui is permitted
(see eg Shut Yabiat Omer Chelek 10 Orech Chaim siman 55 who brings this
reason).  And so rules RSZA in Minchas Shlomo Tanina (2-3) Siman 60 ois 13
that for a melacha Torah gamur it is straightforward that it is forbidden
l'remez l'akum gam remez sheaino shel tzivui.

So what we are left with is this - that remez shelo bederech tzivui is a
machlokus in Amira.  The Mishna Brura and those who follow him hold that the
din of Amira does not stretch as far as a remez shelo bederech tzivui,
regardless, and others say it does when dealing with a melacha gamor, but
not for a melacha d'rabbanan, because that becomes a shvus d'shvus.

But this is all in the context of Amira l'akum, which is d'rabbanan.  In the
context of Amira l' ger toshav, which is d'orisa - it is logical to take it
up one step further.  Clearly according to those who hold that remez shelo
b'derech tzivui is assur for a melacha gamor for an Akum, and only where
there is a double d'rabbanan is it mutar, then here, where the Amira itself
is d'orisa, it would seem that remez shelo b'derech tzivui should be assur
even for a d'rabbanan.

And even for those, like the Mishna Brura, who hold that in the case of a
Amira l'akum, remez shelo b'derech tzvui is not prohibited, can you be so
confident that they would hold the same where the Amira itself is d'orisa?
Safek d'orisa l'chumra whereas safek d'rabbanan l'kula - so if the Mishna
Brura had held it was only a safek in Amira, then he would have likely ruled
leniently in the case of Akum (as he does), but would nevertheless rule
strictly in the case of Ger Toshav.  So you need to be postulating that he
held vadai this is not part of Amira, and given the other opinions, to rely
just on this postulation on this Mishna Brura, seems a pretty flimsy
halachic basis to  be running a state.


B) Firstly, the essence of remiza shelo bederech tzivui is - obviously, that
there is no tzivui involved. I do not believe that we can run a state like
that, without the element of tzivui creeping in.  Take even the case that
the Mishna Brura brings - if you say to him "wipe the wick" and he will
understand from that that he must get rid of the coal at the end, that is a
problem, but if you say "the light is not burning well", that is OK.  To be
careful about this in one relatively rare scenario, where the consequences
are d'rabbanan anyway, is one thing, but to run a state with thousands of
gerei toshav who will need guidance from the state, being given by thousands
of people who might just slip up and say it by way of oblique command,
rather than a statement of fact, and then bang, you are over on an issur
d'orisa, I just can't see anybody seeing that as a good solution.

Secondly, even if all the thousands of Jews who are giving this remiza shelo
b'derech tzivui manage to get it right,  we then end up relying on the good
sense of the non Jew in understanding what it is that we would like, but
without any obligation or requirement on them to act in the way that we
would like.  If they get it wrong or misunderstand (no matter how
intelligent there are), there is no comeback, and there is no obligation or
achrayis on the non Jew to do what we would like him to do.  He can decide
he doesn't feel like doing it for us that day, and that is fine.  I cannot
see how you can run a state like that, without any obligation on its
servants, when everybody else is dependent on them doing what we need (not
just want) them to do.

And thirdly, note the telling word - servants.  That is what we call the
people who do the work of a state, "public servants".  There is a good
reason for that. The nature of the master- servant relationship is that the
servant is, in the words of the Rashba, kivush tachas yado.  The
relationship between a public servant and the state is not the same
relationship as between an ordinary Jew and non Jew. Kivush tachas yad shel
hamedina does not seem an unreasonably characterisation.  Especially for
public servants whose income is from the state, and who might well struggle
to find any other source of work, if they were displaced.  They, even more
than the rest of us (who after all can be thrown in prison and have various
other penalties meted out by the state, according to law sure, but it is
part of the power of the state to administer such punishments) surely feel
kivush tachas yado.  And therefore, as the Rashba argues in the
servant/master relationship, even when in relation to other ordinary Jews,
he is considered to be acting al daas atzmo, in relation to his master, if
he does it in any way for him, even without any formal communication at all,
he is considered to be acting al daas his master and it is forbidden.  The
same could easily be said for any public servant who does a melacha as a
public service, which is precisely what you are asking these people to do.

C). I am also not convinced that the issurei hana'ah are the same between a
regular non Jew and a ger Toshav.
Rav Moshe has an interesting teshuva in Igeros Moshe Even HaEzer Chelek 4
siman 62 letter 3.  He is asked there about remez shelo b'derech tzivui in
the case of a non religious Jew - and he says it is assur even though he
allows it for a non Jew.  Why? "And the reason for the distinction between a
non Jew who lights for him that it is permitted even if he reveals his daas
because that with the non Jew there is no prohibition in essence (issur
b'etzem) but that the rabbis forbid it if he did it himself for the
Yisrael"... "but for a non religious Jew perhaps that which he does on
Shabbat is forbidden from the law because the ma'aseh shabbas is forbidden
in essence because it is said it is kodesh and even according to the one who
says that ma'aseh Shabbat is forbidden only d'rabbanan it is from the reason
that it is called kodesh, it is forbidden drabbanan since i is forbidden in
essence it is not appropriate to make distinctions .. [in the nature of the
hana'ah - like the distinction in the Mishna Brura where he lights a candle
where there is already another candle by which he can read with difficulty,
since it is nota hana'ah kol kach].

It is interesting to me here that Rav Moshe appears to give significant
weight to the position of the Levush that maybe hana'ah from a ma'aseh
shabbas is d'orisa (Rav Ovadiah in Shut Yabiat Omer chelek 6 siman 34 gives
a whole long list of rishonim who holds it is d'rabbanan - as well as the
Rambam that I brought, he brings the Ramban and the Rashba and the Ra'ah,
and the Meiri and the Rif).  But if you apply the same logic as Rav Moshe
applies to the ger toshav situation:  If you did follow the Levush, then the
issur hana'ah from an action of a ger toshav would presumably also be
considered d'orisa.  And even if you follow this long list of rishonim, the
same logic would seem to apply.  With an Akum there is no issur in essence
except an issur d'rabbanan.  With a ger toshav, there is an issur b'etzem,
and so one might expect the issur hana'ah not to have the leniencies that
are found in the Mishna Brura, such as when he could read with difficulty by
way of the existing light, and rather to follow the stringencies of the
issur hana'ah of a non religious Jew.

Regards

Chana

In terms of the general approach regarding kullos to run a state, I would
think the opposite - we would only permit absolutely vital functions and
would thus rely on kullos as necessary, just as in the IDF.


A)  Minhag kol yisrael is to be mattir remizah shelo bederech tzivui even
on de'oraysas, unlike RSZA (even the later version of SSK did not back out
of his position) and this minhag kol yisrael is based on a presumption that
it is not included in the issur amirah, as MB stated.

B) It is simply a matter of training people. The point of the Rashba is a
good one, but still questionable. See Shaar Hatziyun 304:11.  Since the
mandate to follow the shittah of the Rashba ud'imeih against the Ramban and
Rambam is "yesh lehachmir," (see MB 15), piling on the Rashba's own safek
to be yet more machmir would seem to be going too far for vital functions
of a state. Vetzarich Iyyun.

C) I don't see the comparision to RMF. There is no issur b'etzem on a
maaseh ger toshav since he may certainly do melachah for himself.

Genetically Engineered Salmon: Coming Soon To a Bagel Near You

   -  <http://www.hillygram.com/index.php/component/content/article/1-l
   atest-news/253-genetically-engineered-salmon-coming-soon-to-a-bagel-near
   -you.pdf>
   -  <http://www.hillygram.com/index.php/component
   /content/article/1-latest-news/253-genetically-engineered-salmon-coming-
   soon-to-a-bagel-near-you.html?tmpl=component&;print=1&page=&g
   t;
   -  <http://www.hillygram.com/index.php/component/mailto/?tmpl=compone
   nt&;link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5oaWxseWdyYW0uY29tL2luZGV4LnBocC9jb21wb25l
   bnQvY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xlLzEtbGF0ZXN0LW5ld3MvMjUzLWdlbmV0aWNhbGx5LWVuZ2lu
   ZWVyZWQtc2FsbW9uLWNvbWluZy1zb29uLXRvLWEtYmFnZWwtbmVhci15b3UuaHRtbA%3D%3D
   >

Written by moshe

What is a GMO? A Genetically Modified Organism. Often also referred to as
Genetically Engineered.

What is GMO Salmon? This is Salmon bread with DNA from eels.

Hillygram thought this was an interesting story from a KASHRUS perspective.

IS GMO SALMON with EEL DNA, KOSHER?  While KASHURS was our main interest,
our physical health in eating such foods is also a major concern and of
interest to us.

Hillygram was alerted to this issue by one of our subscribers, Lisa Goldwag
Kassner. Lisa is an active member of the Los Angeles Jewish community, and
a San Fernando Valley area volunteer coordinator for the California Label
GMO's campaign. Lisa is very concerned about the entire GMO issue from a
Kashrus, Environmental and Health perspective. Lisa has supplied us with
much information about the subject.

Why GMO Salmon with eel DNA? Money, of course.  Lower farming costs and
higher profits, and the consumer wants lower prices. Salmon with eel
genes will grow to maturity twice as fast as normal.

In her article to the Hillygram, Lisa included the following information
from Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union (publisher of
Consumer Reports).  Dr. Hansen writes that the FDA determination of no
additional significant health risk is based on manipulated data and
inadequate studies. Allergy risk findings were based on only six fish, and
those allergic to finfish could experience severe allergic reactions.

Dr. Hansen goes on to quote Friends of the Earth, who writes ?GE salmon are
unhealthy and suffer from skeletal deformities, jaw erosions, inflammation,
lesions, increased susceptibility to disease, and increased mortality,
raising serious ? human health concerns from eating sick fish. Overall, GE
salmon have 40% higher levels of IGF-1.?

?IGF-1 is a hormone that has been associated with increased risk of a
number of cancers, especially prostate, breast, colorectal and lung,? adds
Dr. Hansen.

The *Center for Food Safety* summarizes that* *the science is not there to
say these fish are safe to eat. Further research is needed.

We asked the OU to comment on the subject and we received the following
email:

Beginning of OU
email--------------------------------------------------------

Salmon with eel DNA is fine as long as it has fins and scales.

The OU is a Kosher certifying agency. Health aspects of food production are
beyond our area of expertise.  Issues of health and safety are the domain
of the FDA and USDA, and the OU will certify products that are in
compliance with FDA and USDA regulations.

Halacha is extremely sensitive to matters of health, to the extent
that *chamira
sakanta meisura* (life-threatening health concerns generally take
precedence over Halachic restrictions). Nonetheless, as a kashrus agency,
the expertise of the OU is limited to the domain of kosher supervision, and
the evaluation of the health status of a product is beyond the scope of the
OU?s mandate. There are government agencies that are entrusted with the
responsibility of insuring the safety of food items, and the OU certifies
products that meet the criteria of public health and safety requirements.

OU Kosher

End of OU email--------------------------------------------------------

For another perspective on the KASHURS issue, Brooklyn Orthodox Rabbi Yosef
Yitzchok Serebryanski said even though a small amount of a non-kosher food
doesn?t usually render a food non-kosher, it does when it becomes an*intrinsic
part* of the food. It is prohibited to genetically engineer salmon with eel
genes because such boundary crossing is prohibited by the Creator. Using
genetic engineering to cross boundaries set up by the Creator creates an
imbalance and distortion, disrupting a person?s connection with the Creator.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is taking public comments
through April 26, on whether to approve the first genetically engineered
(?GE? or ?GMO?) animal species: Atlantic salmon with chinook salmon and
ocean pout (eel, non-kosher) genes forced into its DNA.  (to voice your
opinion to the FDA see below)

Lisa, suggests that if you would like to make your voice heard Comments to
the FDA may be made until April 26 at:888/463-6332,
x3<http://www.hillygram.com/Local%20Settings/Temp/888/463-6332,%20x3>
then
x6 (Center for Veterinary Medicine) or   http://tiny.cc/in82qw.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130426/0c5110df/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:50:01AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: Genetically Engineered Salmon: Coming Soon To a Bagel Near You
...
: For another perspective on the KASHURS issue, Brooklyn Orthodox Rabbi Yosef
: Yitzchok Serebryanski said even though a small amount of a non-kosher food
: doesn't usually render a food non-kosher, it does when it becomes an*intrinsic
: part* of the food....

I'm not sure who RYYS is, but I find it startling that someone I've never
heard of before is being presented as a bar pelugta of RYBelsky and
RHSchachter, the OU's posqim. I'm sure he is a fine rav, but there
aren't too many people with expertise in this area posessed by either
of them. (Is he related to R' Aharon of Mercos L'Inyanei Chinuch" of
the L community of Melbourne?) But then, I don't know who this "moshe"
is who authored the email you're quoting, either.

Even without my phenomenological philosophies, there is ample precedent
for ignoring the microscopic in dinei kashrus.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

According to RSRH there is a major difference between the way the 
uses the terminology un-Jewish and non-Jewish.  Un-Jewish things are 
things that are incompatible with Yahadus, whereas non-Jewish things 
are things of non-Jewish origin that are compatible with Yahadus.  YL

See R. Seth Mandel's post on Avodah 21 May 2003 
at  http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130426/848eaf10/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:57:48PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> According to RSRH there is a major difference between the way the uses 
> the terminology un-Jewish and non-Jewish.  Un-Jewish things are things 
> that are incompatible with Yahadus, whereas non-Jewish things are things 
> of non-Jewish origin that are compatible with Yahadus.  YL
>
> See R. Seth Mandel's post on Avodah 21 May 2003 at  
> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17

WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
celebrate a happy occasions.

Are we also going to do away with kumzitzin, because they too are not
mitzvos or ancient minhagim?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On 4/26/2013 2:41 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:57:48PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
>    
>> According to RSRH there is a major difference between the way the uses
>> the terminology un-Jewish and non-Jewish.  Un-Jewish things are things
>> that are incompatible with Yahadus, whereas non-Jewish things are things
>> of non-Jewish origin that are compatible with Yahadus.  YL
>>
>> See R. Seth Mandel's post on Avodah 21 May 2003 at
>> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n014.shtml#17
>>      
> WADR to RSM, bonfires aren't un-Jewish, non-Jewish or Jewish, they are
> primal. They instigate an emotional response for reasons universal to
> all humans. It's like discussing the origins of making a big meal to
> celebrate a happy occasions.
>
> Are we also going to do away with kumzitzin, because they too are not
> mitzvos or ancient minhagim?
>    
Do people get hurt every year doing kumzitzin?

Lisa

On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 02:45:34PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Do people get hurt every year doing kumzitzin?

That is an different argument than the one by RSM that R/Prof Levin
is trying to revive. I'm saying that

1- one can't call "derekh Emori" on a primal symbol like sitting around
   a campfire; and

2- one shouldn't assume that a passionate religious experience must be a
   chiyuv or a minhag. Yahadus is more than a set of laws. And I think
   Prof YL is erring in that direction in a counter-reaction to the
   spread of a chassidish-like search for ecstatic experience among the
   current generation.

If you want to raise other arguments, I might agree; I wasn't discussing
the conclusion as much as the line of reasoning. But I think the new
argument against bonfires you are actually raising is an avoidable problem
in implementation. It would be like Americans agitating for an end of
July 4th fireworks or (sly grin as he ducks-n-runs) gun ownership....

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 31st day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        4 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Hod: What level of submission
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      results in harmony and balance?

Although the Shaarei Teshuvah brings the Mor U'ketziah that is meikil with
the Sefirah strictures on the night of Lag B'omer, the Mishneh Berurah
himself (who cites him in the Shaar HaTziyun) and many others require
aveilus until the morning of the 33rd, as Miktzas Hayom K'kulo. Yet I see
that the minhag - based on the proliferation of bonfires and musical
accompaniment - seems to be like the Mor U'ketziah. Does anyone have an
explanation as to why the "olam" is meikil tonight?

 

KT,

MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130427/8a8fdf68/attachment-0001.htm>

A qualified medical doctor, who was offered a job and although Halacha did
not require a Mezuzah, he insisted that a Mezuzah be affixed to his office
door or would otherwise not accept the job.

Is this a Kiddush HaShem?


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130428/0ca35f60/attachment-0001.htm>

On 26/04/2013 1:50 PM, saul newman wrote:
> For another perspective on the KASHURS issue, Brooklyn Orthodox Rabbi
> Yosef Yitzchok Serebryanski said even though a small amount of a
> non-kosher food doesn?t usually render a food non-kosher, it does
> when it becomes an/intrinsic part/ of the food.

Interesting theory, but 1) where's a source for it, and 2) there is not
a small amount of issur, there issur at all, so bittul is irrelevant.
Suppose instead of splicing a few eel genes into the salmon DNA, we were
to splice just a few salmon genes into an eel's DNA, to produce an eel
with fins and scales.  Even if its genome were 99% eel and only 1% salmon,
and thus no chance of bittul at all, it would still be kosher.


> It is prohibited to genetically engineer salmon with eel genes
> because such boundary crossing is prohibited by the Creator. Using
> genetic engineering to cross boundaries set up by the Creator creates
> an imbalance and distortion, disrupting a person?s connection with
> the Creator.

This supposed prohibition cannot be found anywhere in the Torah.
If the Creator objected to it, He could prohibit it either in the Torah
or in the laws of nature.  If something is possible then by definition
it's natural, part of Hashem's creation, and if He didn't say not to do
it then we have no reason to suppose He doesn't want it.

On the contrary, creating genetically modified organisms such as Golden
Rice is a great mitzvah, and the scientists who worked on it have an
enormous zechus.  And those engaged in the campaign to obstruct it are
knowingly murdering millions of people.

-- 
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

On 27/04/2013 9:35 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> Although the Shaarei Teshuvah brings the Mor U?ketziah that is meikil
> with the Sefirah strictures on the night of Lag B?omer, the Mishneh
> Berurah himself (who cites him in the Shaar HaTziyun) and many others
> require aveilus until the morning of the 33^rd , as Miktzas Hayom
> K?kulo. Yet I see that the minhag ? based on the proliferation of
> bonfires and musical accompaniment ? seems to be like the Mor
> U?ketziah. Does anyone have an explanation as to why the ?olam? is
> meikil tonight?
>
While people thought it was just the end of aveilus, then 1) when you get
up from shiva you do so in the morning, not at night; and 2) when you get
up from shiva you don't start dancing and singing.  The end of aveilus is
not a simcha.   So it's not a yomtov, the restrictions are relaxed only
in the morning after miktzas hayom has passed, and there's tachnun in
mincha of the previous day.

Once it was revealed that the true reason for celebrating the day is
Hilula deR"Shimon, the whole story changes.  Now that we know this we
understand that it's a yomtov, and like any yomtov it starts on the
previous evening, and there's no tachanun in the previous mincha.

-- 
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


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


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 77
**************************************

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.)