Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 81

Tue, 30 Apr 2013

• 1. Re: Ger Toshav (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Eel DNA (Isaac Kotlicky)
• 3. Re: Lag B'omer (Kenneth Miller)
• 4. Re: Pesach Sheni (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: Lag B'omer (Ezra Chwat)
• 6. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Mandel, Seth)
• 7. Re: The Un-Jewish Origins of the Making Bonfires on Lag Baomer (Micha Berger)
• 8. Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shach, and the Chazon Ish, ?? ? ?, On Going To Meron On Lag Baomer: Rav Elyashiv?s Talmid (Student) Speaks Out (Prof. Levine)
• 9. Re: Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shach, and the Chazon Ish, ?? ? ?, On Going To Meron On Lag Baomer: Rav Elyashiv?s Talmid (Student) Speaks Out (Gershon Seif)
• 10. Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (cantorwolberg@cox.net)
• 11. Re: Wearing Two Pair of Tefillen at the Same Time (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Rav Elyashiv, Rav Shach, and the Chazon Ish, ?? ? ?, On Going To Meron On Lag Baomer: Rav Elyashiv?s Talmid (Student) Speaks Out (Micha Berger)

RDB writes:

>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.

As RET has said, the follow up question to this is, what are vital
functions?  But that was not the question I thought we were discussing. I
thought the question was rather, is it better to rely on non Jewish (and
what may be gerei toshav) labour in performing those vital functions
(however one defines them to be) or is it better to try and work out other
halachic solutions, perhaps with the aid of modern technology, as Machon
Tzomet is trying to do, to avoid using non Jewish labour on Shabbat?  Both
may well involve kullos, so the question becomes, which kinds of kullos are
likely to be better? The RZ position is that use of non Jewish labour
involves extensive kullos, and even more so if you are talking about gerei
toshav.  Therefore it is infinitely preferable to work on technologically
based solutions that involve fewer kulos rather than throw up one's hands
and say "just use non Jewish labour".

>A)  Minhag kol yisrael is to be mattir remizah shelo bederech tzivui even
on de'oraysas,

We travel in different circles, and certainly in my circles, those who are
knowledgeable enough about the matter to know the halacha don't rely on
remizah shelo bederech tzivui unless there are other heterim (eg you could
probably use amira l'akum straight, but if you can get by with remizah, all
the better).

I fully agree that there are many in the community who are not exactly baki
in these halachos, but I am not convinced that their remiza is generally
very good either.  One of the consequences of having a very sick and
disabled child is that we have the most highly trained, Jewish wise, non
Jews living and working for us for miles around.  (Our au pair, who lives
with us, shabbas is one of her weekend days off, so we have another carer
who comes in for Friday afternoons and shabbas morning, so that gives two
options). We therefore periodically get knocks on the door from people
wanting to use one of our non Jews to deal with the urn or the oven or
whatever else it is that hasn't worked on shabbas.  Mutav yihei shogagin,
it's not my place to get involved.  But getting a non Jew to come into a
house that they normally wouldn't go into, often numbers of streets away, in
order to get them to turn on an urn or an oven derech remiza - well let's
just say the remez part of it is exceptionally thin.  That is the minhag
yisroel that you are relying on.

> unlike RSZA (even the later version of SSK did not back out of his
position)

But even the SSK (and Rav Moshe) doesn't allow it except in a case where eg
one can read with difficulty with the existing light - ie the reality is
that the minhag yisrael you want to rely on goes far further than this.  At
what point do we get to where the minhag yisroel trumps all sources against
(hair covering anyone?)?

> and this minhag kol yisrael is based on a presumption that it is not
included in the issur amirah, as MB >stated.

In a Mishna Brura that only brings a d'rabbanan as an example of what is
permitted.

That is, we have here a minhag that has only a very tenuous source in the
halacha - effectively a limud zechus from the Bach and the Mishna Brura, and
which relies on the Sefer HaMitzvot against the Tur and the majority of
rishonim.

And this minhag, even in those circles who use it today, seems on my
observation to be only in bideved situations - ie once the urn or oven has
not come on (ie they have tried use timeclocks or some other device to avoid
such a situation, but that has failed) and only irregularly.  Yes there was
a minhag in times gone by that the non Jew would come and light the communal
oven (but here we have tzorche rabbim) or to turn on the heating in the
houses of inviduals (but here we have cholim she ain bo tzakana) on a
regular basis - but is there any evidence that this kind of remiza was being
used on a regular basis as part of the established nature of shabbas?  In
the general case candles didn't have coals at their wicks preventing them
from burning properly, and if you thought you were going to read and that
one candle was not enough, you would light more from before - thus the
classic examples are all examples of a bidieved.  It seems to me to be
stretching the Bach and the Mishna Brura to say that if faced with a
situation where you could have lit more candles, but chose not to relying on
your ability to hint when necessary, that would still be OK to do prior to
Shabbat.  Why don't we all do that - save money by not having light for the
end of shabbas or heat for the morning, and rely on a non Jew to turn
everything on for us the next day, with the necessary hints and training (of
us and them)?  But even those who most heavily rely on remiza to non Jews
don't do it this way - they do everything in their power to ensure that what
needs to be done before Shabbat is done, by use of time clocks or other
technology, and only rely on non Jews as a last resort.

Now you want to turn a bideved leniency, based on minority positions in the
rishonim, albeit practiced regularly by the hamon am, into a regularly
organised and structured arrangement for a situation (running a state) that
was never part of the minhag, and will will turn this practice into a
l'chatchila - in circumstances where, with a bit of halachic thought, we
might be able to use technology.

And you are doing this with people (ie gerei toshav) about whom the posuk
says "leman yanuach" instead of about an akum where there is nothing but a
rabbinical prohibition.

>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.

But again there is another reason to be machmir.  The Rashba was talking
about non Jews who servants but not gerei toshav.  Here were are talking
about gerei toshav who may *also* be servants.

>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.

Do you hold the same thing for a behemah?  Ie just because a behemah might
do a melacha for himself (eg carrying out something that is for his own
benefit), does that mean that there is no issur b'etzem if he does it for
you?  How about mechamer - if the non Jew causes his donkey to plow that is
fine - so if you cause the non Jew's donkey to plow - there is not an issur
b'etzem?

And how about another case:

If a person is going on the way and Shabbat falls and there is a non Jew and
the Jew's his donkey with him, in preference he should give his purse to the
non Jew (as the Rabbis did not decree in this case, given people's
attachment to their money).  But if there is not a non Jew with him, he can
put it on the donkey when the donkey is moving and take it off before the
donkey stops and thus avoid the donkey doing a chakira and hanacha (and even
though he is violating the shvus of using the donkey, but that too is
waived).

The classic explanation is because for a non Jew there is only the shvus,
but for his donkey even though he is avoiding the issurei d'orisa by this
mechanism, there is a risk he might come to (two) issurei d'orisa, even
though no doubt he can get trained very well in this action of placing and
removal.  The same logic ought to apply if dealing with constructing
technology that turns something into a shvus (or less) versus a ger toshav.
One needs also to look at the risks of something not being done so well and
turning into a d'orisa.  Remezia it seems to me runs these risks, technology
much less likely.  So again, the same calculation ought to apply here - if
it is at all possible to investigate and find other ways of running a state
that do not involve gerei toshav, then aren't we mechuvav to investigate
them and utilise them?

Regards

Chana

>
>  I just grabbed a credible-looking article and trusted it.


It happens. The gemara in question was going through various additional
obligations of the bnei noach, such as the issur of kililas Hashem, which
is part of their seven. Rav Eliezer makes his statement about kilayim, but
no means is provided through the gemara, rashi, tosafos, maharsha, etc. for
connecting this one to the original seven. Searching online has people
bending over backwards to say that it's some sort of bizayon to "correct"
the beriyah through modification, and yet we have a chiyuv to do so through
milah and, as the famous gemara says, we don't eat wheat - we eat bread. It
is the tafkid of man placed within the world "l'ovdah ul'shomrah" - to
protect and ENHANCE the world through our activities.

>
>> That is not the point.  Of course the word chukosai appears many times
> in the Torah.  But where else is it used of a specific mitzvah?
>

I provided two examples - avodah zarah and arayos - perek 18 and 20 clearly
connect the term chukosai to those sets of lavin.


> Doesn't he?  Not specifically to the 7 mitzvos, but to laws that
> already exist.   That's what the drasha seems to be: "es chukosai tishmoru"
> always refers laws that you already know about, that I've already told you
> in the past; otherwise how can I expect you to keep them?


Beginning of this weeks parsha, there's a Rashi that handles that - "Mai
shemitah etzel har sinai?" A: EVERY mitzvah was given, klalos upratos, at
har sinai. Therefore, the command on kilei behemah was given at sinai with
everything else, and the past tense reference (which, by the way, still
isn't muchrach from the possuk - the lashon is an untensed, possessive
noun, not a past-tense verb) still holds.

Here (and AIUI only here) the pasuk tells us specifically which laws it has
> in mind, so those must have been told earlier.  But there's no record in
> the Chumash of this, so it must have been told long ago, to Adam or Noach.


We have two specific mitzvos who have pratos that NEVER appear in the torah
- tefillin and shechitah! Do we then say that these ALSO were given long
before matan torah? Clearly, an absurd postulate!

>
> Where is this expression used for Shabbos?  I can't find it.


"Es Shabsosai tishmoru" - Chazal understand this (Shamor v'zachor bidibbur
echad) as an azhara specifically for lo sa'asei malacha, which means that
this phrase (used multiple times) is, in fact, a tzivoy.


>  I'm saying that it didn't exist, at all.
>

And yet the Avos kept it. Which means that it DID exist to
a recognizable extent?

Not because it's not mentioned, but because we know that it was commanded
> at Marah.
>

And kilayim was commanded, along with everything else, at sinai.


> Kilayim we don't know anything about; ... so this language hints to us
> that it's an old law.
>
> And we NEVER learn anything about tefillin and shechita (ka'asher
tzivisicha) from the torah. Even the lashon of the ketores and shemen
hamishcha says "asher tzivisicha," yet we aren't given clear instructions
other than to "make it." With these, the presumption is that the details
were provided as part of TSBP, and only hinted in TSBK. There does not
appear to be a reason for the Rambam ignoring this method of explanation
other than attempting to explain the source for Rav Eliezer's opinion in
Sanhedrin, who is a das yachid in the gemara and against the chachamim.
That achronim (such as the GRA) give it so much weight is a bit of a pliyah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130430/708106b2/attachment-0001.htm>

On the question of which days of Sefirah have the prohibition of simcha, M Cohen wrote:

> This is a mistake that many people make. They go Motzoei Shabbos
> to music and dancing and then they are Maikil with music and
> dancing after Lag B'omer as well which is a Tarti D'sasri. You
> have to choose one or the other.

and R' Saul Newman remarked:

> and yet they can go to a wedding of people with the different
> minhag of aveilus days than theirs.

It is not clear to me what RSN is trying to say. But I do know that many
people find it contradictory that they are allowed to attend a wedding on
the same day that they're not allowed to get a haircut or listen to music.

Rav Moshe Feinstein addresses this in Igros Moshe Orach Chayim 1:159, near the end of page 280:

"Vadai, the mesader kiddushin and all the guests are allowed to attend both
a chupah of the Mechaber's minhag, and a chupah of the Rama's minhag,
because there's no issur on the guests to have simcha at the wedding -
proven by the fact that we make Sheva Brachos all week for one who got
married on R"C Iyar or on Lag Baomer, even though these are days of
[aveilus in] Sefirah. The chasan and kallah have no issur because it is
their Yom Tov and they have a chiyuv of simcha, but the others, for who it
is not Yom Tov and they have no chiyuv of simcha, how can they have simcha
at a Sheva Brachos during Sefirah? Rather, it must be that the issur is
only on the chasan and kallah, and if they are allowed [to get married]
then there is automatically no issur on the mesader kiddushin or guests."

He does not says so explicitly, but it seems to me that support for this
can be found in the Mechaber 493:1. He writes that "The minhag is not to
marry a woman [during Sefirah]" - but not that there is anything wrong with
*attending* a wedding.

HOWEVER, if all the above is correct, then what is wrong with listening to
music on the radio during Sefirah, even if I listen specifically for
enjoyment? If this is assur, then attending a wedding or sheva brachos is
certainly assur, and Rav Moshe has disproved that. My wild guess is that
the avoidance of music in general was never part of the original minhag to
begin with, but was a secondary minhag which developed in more recent
generations. If so, it can be a legitimate minhag which should not be
violated lightly, but *can* be easily trumped for the mitzvah of Simchas
Chasan V'Kallah.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 60 But Looks 25
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/517fb80523b2638045fc0st04vuc

I wrote:
> I think the best example of this might be Lechem Mishne, which
> actually fell from Shamayim on **Erev** Shabbos.
>Logically, we ought to use double loaves for our Friday meals.

R' Isaac Kotlicky responded:
> On the contrary - your math is off. They would eat either two
> or three times per day, and each meal would consist of its own
> loaf. ...
> The use of two whole loafs on Friday night is therefore
> indicative of the fact that AFTER having eaten their (2 or 3)
> loaves for the day, they will still have more left over - it is
> the presence of the second loaf that indicates lechem mishne,
> not some conjunction of the two together. Similarly, there may
> not be an obligation (though many people do it anyhow) of
> lechem mishne by seudas shlishit because you've already eaten
> the other loaf for the day during seudas shniyah.

I recall the Medrash that some people collected mon-flour and made the
bread themselves, while tzadikim found ready-made loaves at their door each
morning. But I never really stopped to think about the shape or number of
those loaves. For example, on a weekday morning, did they get one whole
loaf which would last the whole family for two meals, or was there two
loaves per person? RIK seems to say that on a regular weekday, there were
two loaves, but on Friday there were four - one each for Friday morning,
Friday late day, Shabbos morning and Shabbos late day.

But mimah nafshach. According to me logic would require us to have multiple
loaves even on Friday morning, and according to RIK logic would require us
to have *three* loaves on Friday night. Either way -- and most especially
for people whose ancestors weren't zocheh to ready-to-eat loaves at all but
had to collect the mon-flour and bake it themselves -- we set logic aside,
and we use the *emotional* trigger of using double loaves at all the
Shabbos meals.

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/TGL3131/517fc39496433439470bcst01vuc

"I don't think the girsa difference matters"

A proper observation.

... Pri Etz Chaim MSS confirm that yes, it is RShBY's yartzeit after all"

But even so, for the record, there are three manuscripts of Pri Etz Haim
(Editor R'M Poppers). All Ashkenazi:

 Oxford mss 1760: "simhat"; Jerusalem NLI 4?6720 (dated 1651): "smh'
 (apostrophy)"; Oxford 1700 (dated 1712): "sm-(apostrophe)". From here
 to print (1782) "Shemet" in clear disagreement with the first half of
 the sentence. The chronological sequence is clear. Eleven Roman legions
 couldn't execute Rashbi, but a printer did so with one errant stroke,
 and of all irony, on the date of his Hillula!!.

"...and how the typo went without notice for so long..."

The Chida noticed it immediately (Mar'it Ayin VII 8) and commented that
the inherent disagreement of the sentence must be errant copy. Note,
that the Chida is correcting here what he wrote in his youth -- (Birkey
Yosef 493d). that "ptirat Rashbi hayah yom Lag b'Omer", relying on an
undisclosed source, probably the Shabetean "Hemdat Yamim (1731):"yom
d'itpater Rashbi").

In Chida's footsteps, as one would expect, is the Ben Ish Hai (Rav
Pa'alim XI). This was no reason for him to be less enthusiastic about
Lag Ba'Omer, as is apparent in his popular piyyut for the Hillula --
'V'Amartem Koh Lechay', perhaps the more so.

See also RMM Schneerson (not yet the Rebbe at the time), Iggrot HaKodesh
485 in response to R Zevin's 'Hamoadim B'Halacha' noted that Rav Zevin
was relying on errant copy, as the first editions of Pri Etz Chaim do
not mention Lag B'Omer as Rasbhi's yartzeit, and that he should correct
this error.

Ezra Chwat
The Department of Manuscripts
The National Library of Israel
blog: Giluy Milta B'Alma: http: http://imhm.blogspot.com/
<http://web.nli.org.il/sites/nli/hebrew/pages/default.aspx/>

At 06:07 AM 4/30/2013, Micha Berger wrote:
> If a practice moves people on a primal level, RSM's post hoc ergo propter
> hoc is insufficient to prove such borrowing occured. There is strong
> enough common cause to justify the practice on its own. And indeed
> singing around a pyre or a campfire is found in many cultures.

WADR, Micha, I understood you perfectly. I had thought, however, that
you had accepted the various proofs, not only from me, but from everyone
else who has looked into the matter, that all the Meron business is
borrowed from existing Arab customs. The only thing I added to what
everyone else has said is that the bonfire business existed by Christian
Avoda Zara also. I do not know whether the Muslims saw the Christian
who came in the Crusades doing it and imitated them or not, but the fact
was that the Muslims lit bonfires when celebrating at the graves of the
"holy blissful martyrs," as Chaucer put it, and the fact is that the
m'kubbalim at that time attributed it specifically to the "mitaslamim,"
those who adopt Arab customs.

I never denied that customs with bonfires or campfires might evolve
spontaneously. But that is obviously not what the followers of the Ari
thought happened at that time.

Seth Mandel

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 06:08:41PM +0000, Mandel, Seth wrote:
: I never denied that customs with bonfires or campfires might evolve
: spontaneously. But that is obviously not what the followers of the Ari
: thought happened at that time.

Note that Cherokee stomp dancing, dancing around a fire on Bon in Japan
(holiday name is coincidental), in Botswana
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfnICGqopbs>, and Midsummer fire dancing
by pre-Xian Teutons, all managed to emerge without Xian influence.

IMHO what happened to put a focus on Meron was a hijacking of the earlier
practice of celebrating Shemuel hanavi's yahrzeit, which according to
the Tur (OC 580) is 28 Iyyar (43rd of the Omer, the future Yom Y-m). There
are piyutim written to be said on 28 Iyyar at ShN's qever. Combine that with
a minhag of going to the qevarim of Hillel and Shammai on Pesach sheini --
also believed to be in Meron.

Nor do I know from where you're deriving a particular opinion of what
they thought happened.

And I don't know when a bonfire was added the annual trip to Meron. For
all I know, it's the influence of early 20th cent summer or paramilitary
camp. Or, for all I know it dates back to before the Ari, to the trips
to Nabi Samwil or on Pesach sheini. It isn't mentioned as a feature of
the Ari's trip from Egypt.

Last, as I have noted a few times in the past half-year, it really
looks like Purim costumes derive from Carnival (the custom did begin in
Italy) and milchig on Shavuos just happened to start in the same part
of Germany as celebrating on Wittmontag (the Mon before Xian Pentacost)
the resurgance of the milk supply with the return of spring grass.

I'm not sure finding some long forgotten Xian source would negate the
practice. Especially once Jewish religious meaning was assigned to it
post-facto. But I'm not convinced that Xian source exists.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

Please see http://tinyurl.com/crexuqz  and the link there.  YL

When I read of all the people who suffered from the heat at Meron this
year, as well as some cases of sever burns to some, it gave new meaning to
me of the Gemara Shabbos 33b where RaShBi came out of the cave and started
burning up people.

IIRC the Ben Ish Chai wrote to put both pairs on at once.

First of all, how in the world can that be accomplished physically speaking?
And even if it could, wouldn't it appear inappropriate?
All that aside, what is to be gained halachically, by wearing it simultaneously
as opposed to wearing one set for part of shacharis, followed by the second set
for the next section of the service. And for those very few who wear four sets,
the service would be split up into four sections and each pair of tefillin would follow
the next. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130430/4dde6172/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:43:48PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
:> IIRC the Ben Ish Chai wrote to put both pairs on at once.

: First of all, how in the world can that be accomplished physically speaking?

RGS testifis (in a hacked-up post at
http://torahmusings.com/2007/05/room-enough-for-two-tefillin ):
> Once, when I was in Israel for a week, I attended a Sephardic synagogue
> for all of the services and the rabbi there wore two pairs of tefillin
> on his head, one in the "normal" place above the hairline and another
> higher up on the head, which he covered with a big yarmulka. That sight
> gave me a new understanding of the above-quoted Gemara in Eruvin about
> wearing two pairs of tefillin at the same time.

RDZFeldman writes <http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/713274>
quoted in full:
> The Sanzer Rebbe (Resp. Divrei Chaim, II, O.C. 6) dealt with the question
> of whether it is appropriate to use a mirror to ascertain that one's
> tefilin are properly positioned. (The question is predicated on the
> assumption that men should not use mirrors, out of concern for "beged
> ishah", as stated in Y.D. 156:2; however, see Rama, who notes that in
> societies in which men also use mirrors, it is permissible to do so). He
> responded that there is no need to use a mirror for this purpose, in
> light of the statement of the Talmud (Eiruvin 95b) "there is room on the
> head to place two tefilin". If this is the case, that there is twice as
> much room as is necessary, it would certainly be possible to place one
> tefilin box within the appropriate parameters without use of a mirror.

> His assumption is that the Talmud's statement is a reference to placing
> two boxes side by side. It can be argued, however, that the Talmud
> only referred to placing two boxes one on top of the other; going
> across, however, the space is more limited, as indicated by the Torah's
> requirement of "between your eyes". As R. Shlomo Wahrman (She'erit Yosef,
> II, 5:1) observes, this is apparently the view of the Radbaz (916) and
> the Rosh (Hil. Tefilin, 9a, s.v. amar), as well as the Taz (O.C. 32:2),
> and that both views are noted in the Beit Yosef (O.C. 27).

> It should also be noted that the Taz also states that it is unclear if
> the halakhah actually accepts the view that "there is room on the head
> to place two tefilin", and that the Magen Avraham (301:54) writes that
> in present times we are not sufficiently expert to know where the two
> boxes would fit. (See also Resp. Hit'or'rut Teshuvah, O.C. 12-13).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:58:03PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Please see http://tinyurl.com/crexuqz  and the link there.  YL

Eilu va'eilu. Yes, the trip to Meron wouldn't fit a Litvish hashkafah.
R' Elyashiv's words about prefering to learn R' Shim'on in the mishnah
than to go to Meron reminds me of RYBS wondering if he would be able in
bayis shelishi to tear himself away from Hilkhos Avodas Yom haKippurim
in the Yad long enough to watch the actual Avodah!

I never claimed /I/ would go. I just don't see this need to reject it
for others.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?


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


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 81
**************************************

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.)