Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 149

Fri, 16 Aug 2013

• 1. Re: Whose Bells? (Akiva Blum)
• 2. Re: Whose Bells? (Rich, Joel)
• 3. off the derech (saul newman)
• 4. Synthetic meat, Ben PeKuAh (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 5. lost articles (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Must we agree with the Torah?, Retzoncha and Retzono (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 7. Re: abuse vs gneiva (Liron Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: abuse vs gneiva (Eitan Levy)
• 9. Even vaAven -- pratical applications (Micha Berger)
• 10. Shiluach Haken (menucha)
• 11. Hair Coverings for Married Women (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Shiluach Haken (Micha Berger)

On 13/08/2013 10:42, Rich, Joel wrote:

> Interesting- are tashmishei Kodesh forbidden to be sold? Is there a 
> presumption that the original donors donated them al tnai they not be 
> sold....?
Shulchan Aruch OH 153:2

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130815/32081ab2/attachment-0001.htm>

Interesting- are tashmishei Kodesh forbidden to be sold? Is there a presumption that the original donors donated them al tnai they not be sold....?

Shulchan Aruch OH 153:2

Akiva
====================================
Yes, and see 153:7 when being sold by authorized authorities as in:
"When holy things are sold, or money is collected to buy them, or materials
are collected to make them, the sale must be advertised (see 153:7) and the
proceeds may be used only for purposes that are at least equally holy; but
once the purpose of the collection has been achieved, any surplus may be
used for other purposes (see 153:2-5), but must not be used for
disrespectful purposes (see 153:9). [Holy things may also be sold for such
purposes as supporting scholars or marrying off orphans (153:6,13).] These
rules do not apply to property that belongs to an individual (see
153:10,12,14-20,22; 154:15), or that has not yet been used for holy
purposes, or to a sale made with the agreement of the city's leaders (see
153:7-9)

KVCT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130815/27223056/attachment-0001.htm>

r oberstein  at c-c  comments---

Rashi on this week?s parsha comments that the parents of the engaged girl
who is beng stoned have to be there when the sentence is carried out. ?See
the one you raised? seems to me to be public shaming of the mother and
father for having a child go far off the derech. Does the Torah really mean
that if a frum family has a child who leaves Yiddishkeit, becomes an
addict, gets into big legal trouble, that his father and mother should be
publicly held accountable? Isn?t that what Rashi is saying and does it not
negate much of what we have learned subsequently . Can you imagine how
hurtful this is for anyone who isn?t fortunate enough to have 100% sucess
with all of their children. This affects people from the very best families.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130815/85d40b79/attachment-0001.htm>

I wrote:

It should be noted that there is only a very weak decree that applies to
Ben Pekuah. And it does not even apply to all BeNey Pekuah. This is the
decree that it requires Shechitah. There is no decree to prohibit Tereifos,
there is no decree to prohibit Gid or Cheilev.

Indeed as Rabbi Teits indicates, YD 64:2 states explicitly that once the
ben p'kuah has stood or acc to some, walked, on the ground (the condition
that triggers the decree requiring sh'chita), its cheilev and its gid are
prohibited, v'yeish om'rim (which includes Rambam) that if it was
full-term, then even without standing on the ground the cheilev is
prohibited min haTora and carries the penalty of kareis.

However, it is equally clear that this is only true of a full term foetus.
A non full term foetus ? even if it stands or walks and even if it lives
for many years, is not subject to any such decrees of Maris Ayin.

I also posted that -
If we argue that the Ben Pekuah is Parev, there is no indication that our
Sages decreed that it should be treated as though it is meaty.
I say IF because I am unsure and have for the time being very powerful
Sevara that appears to be supported by the Meshech Chochma, that it is
Parev i.e. it is not meat (just as deer and giraffe may be cooked with
milk, although different in that Chazal made no decree) but I otherwise do
not know yet of any [other] Posek who openly says it is Parev and there is
no decree.

On another related matter
The Heter of BP has nothing to do with it being deemed to be Shechted. Here
is the proof. It is Kosher even if it is not able to be Shechted, i.e. it
is dead inside its mother, in which case there is full agreement that it is
Kosher, its Gid is Kosher its Cheilev is Kosher. More than that, even if it
is a Min that cannot be Shechted, i.e. it is a CAMEL, [Gem Chullin 69a I
think, Shitas Rebbi Shimon] it is also Kosher. Ben Pekuah has NOTHING to do
with Shechita in the way we normally think about Shechita.

The reference to Meat in the Basket is misapplied in our discussion. The
Gem there is merely discussing if we can use the BP for Pidyon Petter
Chamor, and argues that it cannot since it is like it is dead already.
   However, since the permissibility of BP is because its mother's sh'chita
permitted it, it is like any other flesh permitted by that sh'chita --
i.e., fleishig.  Indeed, the g'mara in Chullin 74b refers to the BP, even
while alive, as "bisra b'dikula" -- meat in a basket.  There is no
indication of a decree that it be fleishig because it is so midin haTora,
not by rabbinic decree.



Sholom Simon <sho...@aishdas.org>
queried
If an egg found in a Shechted chicken is considered a fleish egg, one would
think a BP would certainly be fleish, no?

I say in response
Nice thought, but consider this - how does it become non-meat once it is
laid? We may fry eggs in butter. So, you will say its not really meat Min
HaTorah, its just a Rabbinic ordinance; thats great - so tell me how it
transitions from a Shekets into a Kosher chick, when it opens its eyes or
according to others, when it emerges from its shell?





Best,

Rabbi Meir G. Rabi


Its Kosher and Exodus Matza

it's kosher Authority Pty Ltd    ABN: 77 160 144 374


ra...@itskosher.com.au    +61 0423 207 837


kal...@itskosher.com.au    +61 0431 559 695
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/21bc7e34/attachment-0001.htm>

Sfat Emet has a nice vort on this weeks parsha.
Hashev Teshivem - If a person gets lost then the way to bring him back is
for us to do teshuva and show him the way

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/921ee024/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 06:54:52PM +1000, Meir Rabi wrote:

: I gathered through the discussion, that some contributors were
suggesting that the notion of Ma Hu, Af Atta; applies also to those things
He prohibits us from doing...but I don't think this correct. Ma Hu, Af
Atta, is illustrated exclusively by those Middos that are of interpersonal
values...

Reb Micha responded;
We were discussing "asei Retzono kirtoznkha", which doesn't have this
limitation. And implies we should not only do His Will because it's His
Will, but we should try to adapt our desires to match His.

I reject Reb Michas explanation:
It is a remarkable response, remarkable that Chazal should see [if Reb
Micha is correct] an expansion of Ma Hu into a completely new arena. The
Gemara would disqualify such an interpretation with its standard rejection,
- Why not say the bigger Chiddush and never mind with the smaller? In
Australia we are fond of the bloke who puts two flywires over his windows,
one with small holes and one with big holes. Mr. Bloke explains, the first
flywire with the big holes keeps the big flies out, the second layer with
the small holes keeps the small flies out. [this story is the best way for
kids to learn this piece of Talmudic knowledge, it is sweet and memorable]

Can we seriously contend that Mu Hu Rachum means ACT as though we are a
Rachum without actually feeling Rachmanus? I would say NO. So we are
instructed to be like HKBH or more accurately ? HKBH created within us such
feelings so that we can understand and relate to HKBH and be like HKBH in
those particular things alone.

Besides how does one explain the very selfish sounding conclusion of that
statement in Avos? IN ORDER THAT HE WILL MAKE His will like your will. Reb
Ch Volozsiner has a lovely understanding of this. Avos 2:4, which clearly
avoids Reb Michas perspective.

No, we are not instructed to feel that pig or anything else forbidden is
ugly or distasteful, OTHER THAN THOSE THINGS which to us NORMAL people are
NATURALLY disgusting and reprehensible. Like eating Shkotzim, as the Gem
says HaMaAleh EsChem from Mitrayim, we were elevated from those dregs of
humanity who ate these disgusting things. WHY does it not say that we were
elevated from those PAGANS who worshipped the sheep and the cats? Because
there is no such disgust, neither natural nor that should be promoted
through some artificial and self deluding regimen of religious imaginary
fantasy.

I am passionate about this after seeing and hearing the ridiculous and
distorting consequences that develop from such perverted propositions. For
example, the person who proudly tells me that their father would not eat
from dishes that the Goytte had washed, in their own house, maintaining the
strictest care of all Kashrus guidelines. And this was not an unhinged
fanatic, but a person well respected in the community. Nebech, Yiddishkeit
is misdirected and misinformed.

Rabbenu Bachya, also goes out of his way to make it clear that there is no
suggestion that we ought to feel, only that we ought to be as enthusiastic
and vigorous in performing HKBHs will. He says KeLoMar which is the
equivalent of ringing a warning bell ? DON?T think this means what is said,
what he REALLY means to say is the following ?? Rashi says it means Do it
LeSheim ShaMaYim. See Chassid YaAvetz [amongst those exiled from Spain] who
also explains RaTzonCha differently.


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/121a5b75/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:02 PM, saul newman <newman...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> I am just working on Yevamot (21a) and I came across this Gemara, which
> states that the sin of uneven measures is worse than the sin of arayot,
> because one can do teshuva for the latter:
>

I don't think this would hold true for molesters for two reasons:
1) The sin is not just the act itself, but also the effect it has on the
victim, for which one cannot really do Teshuvah,
2) The fundamental difference between uneven measures and arayot is that
uneven measures affects many many people, thus making the possibility of
Teshuva impossible. But with molesters, there is almost never just one
victim. All cases I know of, are serial cases with many many victims. As
such, here too, Teshuvah would be impossible.

The Gemara must rather be talking about a "normal" case or arayot: a
singular assur relationship between two consenting people, where the
Yeitzer Hara got the better of them.

Kol Tuv,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/6eed6f8a/attachment-0001.htm>

Saul Newman quoted a letter which included, as it?s conclusion:
?Perhaps this goes some way to explain why incest and other sexual crimes
are not treated as seriously as they should be in certain communities.
Firstly, the possibility of real teshuva is something which I imagine
psychotherapists would challenge. But the Gemara says it is possible. And
incest (or other sexual sins) are not as bad as stealing (though I know
that in some communities stealing is also not considered such a serious
sin).?

1. Arayos are not the same as sexual abuse, which is a form of violence.
Arayos may or may not be involved, but I don?t think the term captures what
is being discussed.
2. Why would psychotherapists challenge the ability to do teshuvah? It doesn?t require the person be returned to their prior state if they forgive you...
3. This is more of an open question and tangential rumination on my part,
but relevant: In the ancient world it seems clear they were much less
sensitive to certain issues than we are today, particularly as pertaining
to psychological health and physical well-being and particularly comfort.
Perhaps this is because violence (sexual and otherwise) was such a common
part of most people?s lives. Children, women, and slaves were commonly
beaten. Constant warfare meant rape, kidnapping and the destruction of
entire cities were common occurrences (see Tana?ch for evidence, not to
mention any history book of the ancient world). In a sense, everybody
probably had some sort of PTSD, or were simply inured to violence by
constant exposure. How do we take discussions which took place at that
time, and apply them to the relatively safe world that most of us, B?H,
live in? Certainly the words of Chaza?l are eternal and binding, but just
as we have special allowances for the physically sensi
 tive (istanisim) which could be applied to pretty much everyone in our
 generation (e.g. showering during the 9 days), perhaps we need to consider
 that the amount of harm which certain experiences would have caused in
 their time is not the same as in our day.
--
B?ahavat Yisrael,
-Eitan Levy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/87178d46/attachment-0001.htm>

From' R' Sender Haber's blog at <http://www.torahlab.org/outoftheloop/honesty>.
I think these are halakhos that ought to be disussed more than they are,
so I'm including the post as a whole.

What he doesn't emphasisize is that chazal note that *using* two sets of
weights is generivah; the to'eivah is simply *having* them. That fiscal
dishonesty is SO repugnant that even the tools for doing it cause an
"ewww" reflex.

Which then explains some of the rulings he discusses, like not
intentionally missetting your bathroom scale. No one uses them for
business, but the whole topic should be respulsive.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Out of the Loop
a blog by Rabbi Sender Hsber

Monday, September 03, 2012
Honesty

There are very few things that the Torah calls disgusting. Most of them
have to do with idol worship, illicit relationships and eating snails. But
in Parshas Ki Seitze we are told that owning false weights and measures
is not only a To'eivah -- disgusting, but a To'avas Hashem -- something
that Hashem finds disgusting and abominable.

Back in the days of old fashioned scales, shopkeepers would measure the
produce that they were selling against a one pound weight. The customer
would depend on the storekeeper to use an accurate one pound weight and
there was a certain trust that existed. Dishonest shopkeepers would shave
a little metal off of the weight and the customers would get slightly less
than they thought they were getting. Of course, when the shopkeeper was
buying produce from a wholesaler he wouldn't use a smaller weight. He
would keep a bigger weight so that if he is the one buying, he can be
sure that he is getting his full money's worth (and possibly more).

Gas stations purchase gasoline from wholesalers and measure it at sixty
degrees Fahrenheit. Sometimes, when they sell the gas, it is dispensed
in the middle of the day when temperatures reach eighty or ninety
degrees. The volume of the gas goes up but the weight of the gas (and
the energy that it produces) does not. They are charging you an extra
7-10 cents on the gallon because they are not giving you the full weight
and mileage that you are paying for. If this fact is misrepresented by
the gas station, it may be forbidden.

In grocery stores, there are always two types of scales: there are the
scales available to the customers as they shop for tomatoes and then
there are the scales used by the cashiers at checkout. According to
halacha, the scales used by the customers need to be just as accurate
as the scales used at the register.

The same applies in our homes. We may not rig a scale to make us feel
bigger or smaller and we may not adjust our measuring cups so that we
eat less sugar. Reb Shlomo Zalman allows some leeway based on societal
expectations, but ultimately the prohibition to have false weights is
very real and an important and practical part of the Torah.

The Netziv and the Klei Yakar write that the prohibition against
owning and using false weights is not just stealing. It is about living
a lifestyle that goes against the Torah. If we honestly believe that
Hashem will provide for us (or cause us losses) we won't make ourselves
crazy trying to make shtick with larger weights and smaller weights.

The Yerushalmi tells us that when we come up to heaven we will be
asked six questions. The second question is: "Were you faithful
in business?" Rav Pam explains that this doesn't just refer to being
faithful to our customers -- it involves having faith in Hashem. If we
have faith in Hashem when we conduct business, all of our attitudes and
strategies and ways of thinking will be different.

The same applies to all areas of our lives. As Rosh Hashana approaches we
need to make sure that we organize and arrange our lives and schedules
in ways that are conducive to the type of life that we want to lead. It
is hard to quit smoking with a box of cigarettes in your pocket. It is
hard to come to Mincha if you need to have a beer and a cigar at 6:00
every evening.

When Rav Gifter was living in Waterbury, CT there were not many frum
Jews around. When rabbis cme to visit, he would always invite them to
inspect his home. "Open the cabinets, look under the beds", he would say,
"Make sure that my home is conducive to Torah growth".

As we think about our lives and the coming year, we need to be honest
with ourselves and with others. Honest for its own sake is a virtue,
but honesty is so much more important when it is part of allowing our
trust in Hashem to be a part of everything that we do.

Having found a dove's nest outside my window the week of Parshat Ki 
Tetze , naturally led to me looking up the finer details of kinyan,, 
differentiating between a male and female dove and other minutiae tied 
to this mitzva. But now, I am looking for ideas (preferably with 
sources) about the concept of doing, or not doing shiluach haken in a 
situation where I really do not want the babies, have nothing to do with 
them, (and personally find the idea of me or a family member handling 
them very yucky).  And feeling intimately attached to this seemingly 
loving family of doves (The father brings twigs, and helps the mother 
put them in the right place, and they coo at each other a lot), I really 
would love to see them "live happily ever after".
Mishatkin oto and all that,  but I am awaiting responses.
thanks
menucha

Please see http://tinyurl.com/mkwwlqf

Also please note that following information about the author of this article.

Alieza Salzberg is a graduate student at the Hebrew University where 
she studies Rabbinic Literature. She is a fellow at the Hartman 
Institute's Seder Nashim, Beit Midrash for Judaism and Gender. She 
lives, writes and studies in Jerusalem.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130816/2b9f0171/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:17:54PM +0300, menucha wrote:
>           ...   But now, I am looking for ideas (preferably with  
> sources) about the concept of doing, or not doing shiluach haken in a  
> situation where I really do not want the babies, have nothing to do with  
> them...

I remembered there was a machloqes acharonim. RNS, kedarko, says it's a
"rationalist" vs "mystic" thing. The rationalist sees no pont and in fact
disturbing the mother bird for naught is a bad thing. The mystic will
talk about how the crying of the bird awakens Midas haRachamim... But
I don't believe that his favorite cleaving point is even real. Mesorah
has had rational mequbalism (Ramchal), mystical non-mequbalim (Maharal),
and every other mixture.

Here, the Ben Ish Hai (ad loc) is definitely a mystic and a mequbal,
but he *prohibits* sending away the mother. Not only isn't it shiluach
haken, but the mother may not go back to feeding the child.

But in trying to see if anyone online has something that reminded me
who the sources were, I think I hit the mother lode. From Kollel Iyun
haDaf (Insights, Chullin 139b)
<http://dafyomi.co.il/chulin/insites/ch-dt-139.htm>:

    3) HALACHAH: ONE WHO CHANCES UPON A BIRD'S NEST BUT DOES NOT NEED
    THE EGGS

    OPINIONS: The Gemara derives from the words, "Ki Yikarei" -- "if a
    bird's nest chances to be before you" (Devarim 22:6), that one is
    not obligated to go searching in the mountains and valleys in order
    to find a bird's nest to fulfill the Mitzvah.

    What is the Halachah when one happens to find a bird's nest, and he
    does not need the eggs or chicks? Is he obligated to go over to the
    nest and send away the mother bird in order to perform the Mitzvah
    of Shilu'ach ha'Ken, or does the Mitzvah to send away the mother bird
    apply only when one wants to use the eggs for himself? (The following
    discussion is based on the research of Rabbi Naftali Weinberger in
    SEFER SHALE'ACH TESHALACH, a comprehensive treatise covering the
    laws and meanings of the Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Ken.)

    (a) The PISCHEI TESHUVAH (YD 292:1) cites the CHAVOS YA'IR (#67) who
    concludes that one is obligated to send away the mother bird whenever
    possible. He proves this from the Gemara here, which, according to his
    understanding, teaches that one is not obligated to go searching for
    a bird's nest in order to fulfill the Mitzvah, but one is obligated
    to perform the Mitzvah when he chances upon a bird's nest, even if
    he does not need the eggs. (The Chavos Ya'ir cites proof for this
    ruling from the words of the Zohar; see Insights to Chulin 138:5.)

    This is also the view of the MAHARAL (Tiferes Yisrael, end of chapter
    61), MAHARSHAM (1:209), BIRKEI YOSEF (YD 292:8), and ARUCH HA'SHULCHAN
    (YD 292:1-2).

    This obligation applies even to a person who has absolutely no
    interest in owning the contents of the nest, and even if stopping
    to fulfill the Mitzvah will cause him to suffer a monetary loss,
    as the CHASAM SOFER (OC #100) and NETZIV (in Meromei Sadeh here)
    explain this view. The reason for this is that since the performance
    of this Mitzvah hastens the Ge'ulah (as described in Insights to
    Chulin 138:4-5), one is not allowed to squander such an opportunity,
    and thus one is required to fulfill the Mitzvah.

    It is interesting to note that the ARIZAL (quoted by RAV CHAIM
    VITAL in his introduction to Sha'ar ha'Mitzvos; Birkei Yosef,
    Gilyon Shulchan Aruch YD 292:6, and Aruch ha'Shulchan YD 292:1)
    writes that according to Kabalah, one must make every effort to
    perform Shilu'ach ha'Ken. He adds that one who does not perform the
    Mitzvah of Shilu'ach ha'Ken will return to this world as a Gilgul.)

    (b) However, the CHACHAM TZVI (#83) and CHASAM SOFER (OC #100) rule
    that when one has no need for the offspring, he is not obligated to
    send away the mother bird. The Chasam Sofer adds that if the purpose
    of the Mitzvah is to inculcate in the person the trait of compassion
    (see Insights to Chulin 138:4), then it is clear that one is not
    obligated to send away the mother bird when he has no need for the
    offspring, because doing so causes distress to the bird for no reason.

    This is also the opinion of many Rishonim, including TOSFOS (140b,
    DH Shnei), the RAMBAM (Hilchos Shechitah 13:5), RAN, ME'IRI (139b),
    and RABEINU BACHYE (end of Devarim 22:7).

    Some agree that it is meritorious to pursue and perform the Mitzvah,
    but it is not mandatory to do so and one is not punished for not
    doing so. Others, such as the Me'iri, maintain that one should not
    send away the mother bird when he has no need for the eggs. Indeed,
    the Chasam Sofer writes that according to the Ramban's reason for the
    Mitzvah (see Insights to Chulin 138:4), one should not send away a
    mother bird when he has no need for the eggs, because doing so would
    constitute an act of cruelty. (See also Insights to Chulin 141a.)

    HALACHAH: Most Acharonim rule that there is no obligation to send
    away the mother bird when one chances upon a nest and has no need
    for the eggs. This is the ruling of the Chasam Sofer (loc. cit),
    AVNEI NEZER (OC #481), CHAZON ISH (YD 175:2), CHAZON YECHEZKEL,
    MINCHAS CHINUCH (#544), and the CHAFETZ CHAIM (in SEFER MITZVOS
    HA'KATZAR, Mitzvos Aseh #74).

    Most contemporary Poskim also rule this way, including RAV SHLOMO
    ZALMAN AUERBACH zt'l (in MINCHAS SHLOMO 2:5:4), and RAV YOSEF SHALOM
    ELYASHIV shlit'a and RAV CHAIM KANIEVSKY shlit'a (in personal
    conversations with Rabbi Naftali Weinberger). This is the common
    practice today. (Rabbi Weinberger quotes RAV YAKOV YISRAEL FISHER
    zt'l, however, who was of the opinion that one is obligated to send
    away the mother bird when he chances upon a nest, even though he
    does not need the eggs).

:-)BBii!
-Micha

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


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


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 149
***************************************

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.)