Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 130

Sat, 20 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Grape Juice (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: self cleaning oven (Gershon Dubin)
• 3. Re: self cleaning oven (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. self cleaning oven (Prof. Levine)
• 5. abortion isnt murder (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: kinos (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: minhagei EY vs chul (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: arithmetic question (Chesky Salomon)
• 9. Re: Grape Juice (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: the 7 nations (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: the 7 nations (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: the 7 nations (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Grape Juice (Micha Berger)
• 14. boiling water (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Grape Juice (Kenneth Miller)
• 16. Abortion is not Murder (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 17. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Chana Luntz)

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 06:19:15PM -0700, martin brody wrote:
:                                 ( And also Kedem's claim that it does
: produce non-mevushal grape juice is a bit lame, because by FDA law and
: Kedem's own admission it is cooked at the regulatary minimum which I think
: is 160 degrees.Yes, I'm aware of the mevushal/temperature arguements)

There is an argument? (That's a question, not a rhetorical form of
rejection.)

The only person I know who speaks of pasteurization as sufficient to
render yayin mevushal is Silverman, in his C responsum, and he only
suggests it as one factor toward leniency that he wished to combine to
others. Could you please provide me with a mar'eh maqom of a halachic
source that holds pasteurization would make wine mevushal?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Yes.  I have heard this from poskim. Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.comFrom: Eli Turkel eliturkel@gmail.comFrom what I have
seen the consensus is that one can kasher a self cleaning oven by putting
it through its cycle. This also applies to the racks inside the oven.
Question: If one puts a pot that needs libun inside the self cleaning oven
during its clean cycle is that also ok?
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51e95c935a41e5c930a67st02vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130719/b01ff1a7/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
"

From  what I have seen the consensus is that one can kasher a self cleaning
oven by  putting it through its cycle. This also applies to the racks inside
the  oven.

Question: If one puts a pot that needs libun inside the self  cleaning oven
during its clean cycle is that also ok?

-- 
Eli  Turkel
 


>>>>>>
IIRC the Blumenkrantz Pesach book says you can kasher the grates of the  
stovetop this way -- by putting them in the self-cleaning oven -- so it seems 
to  me you could do the same with a pot, but I will let the scholars here 
answer  that question.
 
However:   be warned that if the pot has non-metal handles, they  will be 
turned into ashes snowing on the bottom of your oven.  I found that  out by 
accident -- I didn't notice the pot hiding in the back of the oven before  I 
turned it on.  Also, the incineration of the plastic releases malodorous  
and possibly dangerous fumes. 
 
PS In a Purim skit my husband once had people kashering paper plates with a 
 blowtorch.  
 
 

--Toby Katz
=============





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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130719/adacfd68/attachment-0001.htm>

At 11:26 AM 7/19/2013, R. Eli Turkel wrote:

> >From what I have seen the consensus is that one can kasher a self cleaning
>oven by putting it through its cycle. This also applies to the racks inside
>the oven.
>
>Question: If one puts a pot that needs libun inside the self cleaning oven
>during its clean cycle is that also ok?

I think there is a good chance that the pot will warp and be 
wrecked.  If it has non metal handles they will probably melt, unless 
they are removed.

Before Pesach I put our stove grates in our self-cleaning oven when I 
kasher the over for Pesach. The manual says not to do this,  but the 
grates are pretty much ok except that some of the shine is gone.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130719/2e12ccc0/attachment-0001.htm>

I am confused by the whole discussion.
If one looks at Encyopedia Hilchatit Refuit by Rabbi Dr. Steinberg he
brings a whole collection of shitot ranger from murder to destoying seed
(haschatatot zerah) to damage to the mother. Tosafot Nidah 44b Ihu seems to
say there is no prohibition at all for a Jew to perform an abortion (as
explained by Maharatz Chajes , Tzitz Eliezer among others). Sridei Eish
says it is prohibited by we dont really know why.

Given this range of opinions among important poskim I dont see how people
on this list are on the level to agree or disagree.
For actual psak halacha these various opinions have their ramifications.
Of course learning is always ok

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130719/472cc6c2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 08:36:58AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: [hakhel.info...
:> The Sefas Emes was once asked, "And what should someone do if he feels no
: anguish over the Churban of the Temple?"  The Rebbe replied, "Then he
: should be consumed with pain and anguish over his own personal Churban.  If
: a Jew doesn't feel real pain over the Churban, it shows that his soul is in
: a wretched, abysmal state!"

As I've mention ed in the distant past, there are many times this is the
best I can do for kavanah during the middle berakhah of Mussaf Amidah.
I must confess it's hard for me to relate to qorbanos, but I can relate
to the fact that I'm supposed to be missing them, and I can mourne the
fact that I don't. And so, I ask the RBSO not only for a restoration of
the qorban mussaf question and qorbanos in general, but that by doing
so I could see what I'm missing in my relationship to Him.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Take time,
mi...@aishdas.org        be exact,
http://www.aishdas.org   unclutter the mind.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:31:45PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: One thing that I *am* pretty sure of is that in general, the psak of
: the Gra tends to carry much more weight in EY than in chu"l...

Also, the Gra and the SA haRav veer from Ashkenazi precedent on many of
the same issues. Less suprising than that might sound, since both valued
textual argument more than historical practice, and both are Litvisher
mequbalim, after all. And, that veering from Ashkenazi precedent based
on arguments in sepharim will often land you in the same place as the
Sepharadim. Espactially if you accept the idea that Sepharadim have more
historical lineage to Bavel than Ashk do.

So, the Yishuv haYashan's three core communities often had a common
practice, and even more often two of them would afree on a practice,
that was not accepted across a similar percentage of chu"l.

And so I think minhag EY is shaped more by that overlap than by the
minhagei haGra brought by the Perushim in particular.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

The ranges in which ona'ah applies are determined like this
(formatting corrected):

* one-sixth of the starting price --
    1/6 * 210 = 35, so both 210 + 35 = 175 and 210 - 35 = 245 are ona'ah.

* one-sixth of the final price --
    6/5 * 210 = 252 --> 1/6 * 252 = 42 = 252 - 210, so 252 is ona'ah; and
    6/7 * 210 = 180 --> 1/6 * 180 = 30 = 210 - 180, so 180 is ona'ah.

(It has been pointed out to me that this does not in fact answer RET's
question regarding why milgav & milevar would apply simultaneously.)

--Chesky

On 19/07/2013 1:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Could you please provide me with a mar'eh maqom of a halachic
> source that holds pasteurization would make wine mevushal?

It depends at what temperature it was pasteurised.  I'm I'm reading this
http://tinyurl.com/nxkv75q correctly, the FDA recommended levels seem to be :

160 degrees F for 6 seconds (recommended treatment conditions in New York),
165 degrees F for 2.8 seconds,
170 degrees F for 1.3 seconds,
175 degrees F for 0.6 seconds, or
180 degrees F for 0.3 seconds

 From what I can gather, RMF holds that 170F is enough for mevushal,
while the Tzelemer (Kedem's original machshir) holds it's more like 190.
Nobody seems to hold 160 is enough, but they usually do it at 180, which
is enough for RMF.

-- 
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 Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:20:33PM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: http://torahtalk.michaelcarasik.com/files/8/9/4/8
: /3/147796-138498/45_Va_etchanan_5773.pdf
: is there a clear  reason for the variations?

I don't know about "clear reason", but RYGB has a peirush on seifer
Shofetim based on R' Tzadoq's idea that each of the amim represented
various middos ra'os, and which shevatim combatted them and how
demonstrates how to you your soul's positive forces to improve yourself.

I would suggest that when dealing with warring barbarian tribes, how
you divide them into nations is not black-and-white, and how various
groups allied themselves probably chyanged daily. So I'm not sure there
is a question to begin with.

But it would be sufficient to give room for the pasuq to emphasize
different grouping as the message about middos required.

RYGB?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/18/2013 11:20 PM, saul newman wrote:
> http://torahtalk.michaelcarasik.com/files/8
> /9/4/8/3/147796-138498/45_Va_etchanan_5773.pdf
> is there a clear  reason for the variations?

Well, there's a midrash that explains why the Girgashi are missing
from so many of those. They got Yehoshua's letters and fled to Africa.
I don't know about the rest.

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 10:38:18AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: Well, there's a midrash that explains why the Girgashi are missing
: from so many of those. They got Yehoshua's letters and fled to Africa.
: I don't know about the rest.

Rashi Shemos 32:2, 34:11.


How does that line up with the date Carthage (Kart Chadasht --
Newburg?) was founded by the Phoenicians? (Descendents of Kenaanim who
were living on what would be Zevulun or so -- they build Tzidon and Tzur.)
Does it fit any of the more discussed chronologies (or your own) to
place the building of Carthage contemporary to Yehoshua?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:09:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 19/07/2013 1:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> It depends at what temperature it was pasteurised.  I'm I'm reading this
> http://tinyurl.com/nxkv75q correctly, the FDA recommended levels seem to be :
..
> 170 degrees F for 1.3 seconds,
> 175 degrees F for 0.6 seconds, or
> 180 degrees F for 0.3 seconds
>
> From what I can gather, RMF holds that 170F is enough for mevushal,
> while the Tzelemer (Kedem's original machshir) holds it's more like 190.
> Nobody seems to hold 160 is enough, but they usually do it at 180, which
> is enough for RMF.

That does answer my question of how it's halachically plausible, but
according to RMF, would this be enough -- less than 1/4 of a cheileq?
The wine won't be reduced in volume at all! (Which they take efforts to
catch anyway, but that's a different discussion.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

My daughter learned in seminary that you're not allowed to (or should not)  
drink water that has been heated but not to the point of boiling.  If it  
was boiled and then cooled off that's OK but you can't pour yourself a cup of 
 coffee from the kettle before the water boils.  I told her I had never  
heard of this and would ask my learned friends on Avodah.  Anybody?
 
--Toby Katz
=============



-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130719/12350371/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Martin Brody wrote:

> The grape juice of the gamara, squeezed before Shabbat, has
> already started the fermentation process, so as undetectable
> as it is, a short while later, it does have the potential to
> become wine and is permitted for kiddush.

What is your source that being the fruit of the grape is insufficient, and that the fermentation process needs to have begun? 

> ... all stam grape juice is probably kosher, mevushal ...
> And also Kedem's claim that it does produce non-mevushal
> grape juice is a bit lame, because by FDA law and Kedem's
> own admission it is cooked at the regulatary minimum
> which I think is 160 degrees.Yes, I'm aware of the mevushal/
> temperature arguements)  As an added protection, grape juice
> is then pasteurised 3 more times during the production/
> bottling etc.

Then perhaps you should call it "cooked" or "pasteurized". But to call it
"mevushal" is to invoke halachic factors which you have not proven. It is
similar to saying that carrying a piece of paper in the street is not a
melacha; it very well might not be "work", but "melacha" is something else
entirely.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
New Policy in Mississippi
March 2012-Drivers w/ no DUIs may qualify for $9/week car insurance...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51e9b346686b933462dbdst02vuc

The 7MBN are categories which embrace many more than 7.

It is not a case of Avos and Tolados but general guidelines that embrace a
very broad spread.

Thus destroying an embryo falls within although is not Retzicha.

The proof that HaAdam is a descriptor and not a definition is compelling
from other parts of Shas, AniYim BeMaKom Echod ?... they have already been
elaborated in this discussion. Does anyone suggest that a Y who dispatches
a foetus is tried by BD as a Rotzeach? Or even before it is 30 days old?


Re illustration from Ben PeKuAh:

If anything the parallel to Ben PeKuAh suggests that an Ubbar is not an
independent life, since the BP has no need for Shechitah, it is K even if
it is UN-Shechtable i.e. not yet 8 months, or is dead or is chopped up,
similarly BP is not disqualified by Treifos nor is its Cheilev nor its Gid
Assur.

Clearly it is not a being like its mother which is inside its mother, it is
BeHeima BaBeHeima although it is not defined but only described as a
BeHeima.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130721/348ad689/attachment-0001.htm>

I  wrote:
> RZS writes:
>> Please cite *any* source that distinguishes between harigas ubar and 
>> harigas ben noach.
>
>> How about we start with the Tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmoel on 
>> Sanhedrin 57b.

And RZS responded:

>That is a good point, but we pasken like R Yishmael.  Or at least the
Rambam does, and almost everyone follows >him on this topic.

That the Rambam does I certainly agree, as I posted in my previous piece:

>> Now while the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim perek 9 halacha 4 poskens 
>> like Rabbi Yishmael, as the Kesef Mishna there notes  [...] 

But

>> as 
>> the Achiezer notes (Achiezer Chelek 3 siman 65 towards the end of the 
>> siman) the simplest way to explain the Tosphos in Nida 44a-b and the 
>> Chiddushei HaRan in the third perek of Chullin is that they posken 
>> like the Tanna Kama and not Rabbi Yishmael.

The reality is that Rambam comes with three huge advantages that makes him
the rishonic source of choice for laypeople to cite (or to be taught to
children) namely:

a) he writes in clear, concise, simple Hebrew;
b) he does not assume that the reader is familiar with the terminology and
concepts of the gemora, but rephrases and explains them (according to his
shita); and
c) the Mishna Torah is superbly organised, so much so, that if you are
looking for what the Rambam says on a topic, it is often very easy to go to
the logical place, and hey presto, there it is.

Ma shein ken for the other rishonim who tend to:

a) write in an difficult mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic;
b) use shorthand references to gemora concepts and terminology, assuming you
are totally conversant with such language; and
c) are commonly found (at best) on relevant dafim of the gemora (which means
you need to know where to find the topic in the gemora), but (aside from
Rashi) not even usually the most logical place on the gemora, but on some
gemora that has a tangential connection with the main relevant gemora and
where they cross reference and then explain.

As a consequence, whole swathes of the olam just have no tools to properly
access the other rishonim.

I am amazed by how often, even in situations where the Shulchan Aruch has a
ruling, that the Rambam is quoted out there in the "olam", without reference
to the Shulchan Aruch (which of course is the more authoritative  work).  It
is true that frequently the Shulchan Aruch rules precisely according to the
words of the Rambam, but also frequently he changes it a little bit, to pick
up some nuance of the other rishonim (often as explicated in the Beis Yosef)
or rules against him, based on his assessment of the other rishonim.

And certainly in an area which the Shulchan Aruch and Tur does not touch,
there often seems to be an assumption amongst laypeople that we rule like
the Rambam (on just about anything).  But that is unquestionably not the
approach taken in the teshuvos of the achronim, who invariably do a survey
of wider rishonic opinion (more or less extensively).  Even if (sometimes)
they end up poskening like the Rambam.

>OK, but that seems not to be the consensus of halacha.

In this particular case, there are at least a couple of dozen or more
teshuvos from the achronim on the question of abortion (admittedly, the vast
majority the actual shiala deals with abortion in a Jewish context) and
while of course, all of them cite the Rambam, including his ruling regarding
Bnei Noach, this is where you are wrong, and the consensus of halacha is in
fact not like the Rambam. This is the point that RMB and RET and others keep
trying to make.  RMF is a notable exception.  Unlike the others, he holds
basically like the Rambam, reads expansively instead of more limitedly,
starts with the position vis a vis Bnei Noach, and then tries to bring the
other rishonim into line with that Rambam, rather than the other way around.

Now, as I said, the vast majority of these teshuvos deal with abortion in a
Jewish context.  The reason that the whole question of Bnei Noach has to
come up, is the principle set out on Sanhedrin 59a that there is nothing
forbidden to a Bnei Noach that is permitted to a Jew (almost always
accompanied by Rashi's explanation there that this is to ensure that when a
person goes out from the category of Bnei Noach to become a Jew, he does it
to sanctify himself and not to be lenient). 

If anything I would say that the split is between:

a) those who hold like the explanation of Tosphos on Sanhedrin 59a and
Chullin 33a (ie as opposed to the position of Tosphos on Nida 44a-b) that
while a Ben Noach is chayav for killing foetuses, based on Rabbi Yishmael's
drasha, and Jews are patur, based on the gemora in Nida, it is still assur
for Jews to abort for a different reason, ie that an issur from the Torah
exists nevertheless (and that is enough to satisfy the rule about nothing
being permitted for a Jew and forbidden to a Bnei Noach); and 

b) those who hold like the Ran, the Tosphos in Nida, the Ra'avid and the
Ramban that the issur for Jews is d'rabbanan, and that therefore, at least
implicitly, if not explicitly (cf the Meharit chelek 1 siman 99) that it is
mutar for Bnei Noach.  

The most logical explanation for those of the second school is the Achiezer
I quoted, ie that they are just not poskening like Rabbi Yishmael.  

And if one plays the numbers game amongst the rishonim, they would seem to
outnumber the Rambam, just as the numbers of achronim who do not follow the
Rambam vastly outnumber those who do.  Thus it is just not true that
consensus of halacha favours the Rambam.

>> And note that if you do posken like Rabbi Yishmael, you might have 
>> something of a problem with the actions of Yehuda and Tamar. After 
>> all, Tamar was three months pregnant at the time that Yehuda ordered 
>> her killed. But after all, if there is a prohibition on killing 
>> foetuses, then Yehuda would have been violating that prohibition twice 
>> over (for Peretz and Zerach) in not waiting until she gave birth. And 
>> the same would have to be said for Tamar. It is one thing to say that 
>> it is better to that I, Tamar, be thrown into a fiery furnace than 
>> whiten the face of my fellow [ie Yehuda] in public. It is another to 
>> say, it is better that I, and two additional innocent halachically 
>> defined souls, whose destruction is murder, be thrown into the fiery 
>> furnace rather than one person [Yehuda] be embarrassed in public. Even 
>> if being embarrassed in public is akin to murder, you suddenly don't 
>> have the
>> 1-1 ratio everybody assumes (Yehuda versus Tamar) but 3:1. How could 
>> Tamar take that sort of risk? The whole story really only makes sense 
>> if one holds that uber k'yerech imo applied also to Tamar, even though 
>> she had the din of a Bas Noach (it being pre Matan Torah).

>I don't think that's a problem, for the same reason that it's not a problem
with a Jewish woman who's >convicted of a capital crime. AIUI, "ubar yerech
imo" doesn't mean the ubar isn't a person, it means he's not >a *separate*
person from his mother. He's part of his mother, and shares her identity, so
her chiyuv misa >applies to him too. (Perhaps we can analogise this to the
way a ben pekua's mother's shechita renders him >kosher.)

I probably shouldn't have used the term ubar yerech imo, because that
muddies the waters.  But your argument doesn't work either - if he is "part
of his mother, and shares her identity, so her chiyuv misa applies to him
too", then you have got a problem at the other end.  What if after the gmar
din, but before the woman is actually executed, she gives birth?  According
to you, her chiyuv misa applies to him too, so that one would be obligated
to execute him as well, now that he was born.  That is precisely the
conclusion of Ravina on Sanhedrin 80b (in relation to a cow that killed a
person and her offspring, if she gave birth between the gmar din and
actually being executed - because ubar yerech imo) and the reason the Ran
gives in explaining Rabbanu Tam's rejection of poskening like Ravina (and
hence holding ubar lav yerech imo).  However those who still holds that ubar
yerech imo and posken like Ravina (as does seem to be the maskana of the
gemora there in Sanhedrin), can argue that in the case of Arechin 7a (ie
where the mother is convicted of a capital crime), once the woman sits on
the birthing stool (we might say, goes into labour, although that may be a
slightly earlier stage), in the case of a human, there is a change from ubar
yerech imo to lav ubar yerech imo (ie it is not longer k'yerech imo, as is
explicit in Arachin there, since once it uprooted itself it is considered
another body (presumably ma she ain ken for a cow)).

That by the way is the simplest explanation of the rodef discussion in the
Rambam (and the Shulchan Aruch who follows him Choshen Misphat Siman 425
si'if 2) regarding chopping up the baby to get it out.  Both specifically
refer to a woman mekashe l'led - ie we are clearly talking about a woman in
labour here, who is in difficulty.  This is case where, according to Arachin
7a, the uber has uprooted itself, and can now be considered a gufa achrina
(at which point it is required to hold up the execution of the woman until
she gives birth). (Although I do confess that while it seems pashut to me
that the uber is a k'rodef, and not rodef mamash, that seems to me to have
little to do with the question at hand.  A rodef mamash has to have intend
to kill (or rape or whatever).  If I chase after you to kill you, I am a
rodef.  If I accidently fall out of a tall building, or are pushed by
somebody wanting to hurt me, and you happen to be underneath where I am
falling, you might get killed, but I can't see how you can say that I am a
rodef mamash.  A baby has no intent to kill its mother, quite the opposite,
if it had an intent, it would be to save her.  Therefore it cannot be
described it as a rodef mamash, the most it might have is a halachic status
like a rodef).

Note also, getting back to Tamar, that even were you correct in your
position regarding the gmar din falling also on the uber vis a vis Yehuda
(who believed she was guilty and hence would therefore be justified in
putting her and the two ubarim to death, since the gmar din fell on them
too), but that doesn't work for Tamar herself.  Tamar knows she is innocent,
and hence her deliberately putting Peretz and Zerach into the fire (via
herself) to be killed, would clearly be a violation of the issur of rechitza
if indeed issur of rechitza there was.

Zev Sero

Shavuah Tov

Chana



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


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 130
***************************************

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