Volume 32: Number 40
Fri, 14 Mar 2014
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: sholom <sho...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 12:55:58 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women
> In contrast to Suma, Women are not obligated in Keri'at haTorah
(this is the view of all known Rishonim and the overwhelming opinion of
Aharonim - thoroughly documented in the article, Section III and note
85). Hence shome'ah ke-oneh cannot work and the Berakha would be
le-vatala. As a result, there is no such dispute or ruling regarding
women receiving aliyyot in the posekim.
Naive question: why doesn't the
gemara bother mentioning this in Megilla when it quotes the baraisa that
says women aren't called up because of kavod ha'tzibbur?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140313/5d656ab6/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: H Lampel <zvilam...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:07:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eitz HaDa'at
On 3/13/2014 12:05 PM, avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> Sun, 09 Mar 2014 16:53:35 -0400 R. David Riceman<drice...@optimum.net> wrote:
> To:avo...@lists.aishdas.org
>
> The Rambam says that if a story in the Bible contains a mal'ach, EVEN AT
> THE VERY END (emphasis mine), the entire story is a retelling of a
> prophetic vision rather than physical history (MN II:42). And, of
> course, the story of etz hada'as ends with the kruvim and the lahat
> haherev hamis'hapeches.
>
> So, "if you go with the Rambam", the question should be "what is the
> nimshal in the nevuah?", not "what species is the tree?".
>
I don't think this is a correct application of the Rambam's thesis. His
logic (see 1:49 and 2:6) is that since melachim are not physical beings,
they cannot be physically seen by humans, and therefore any narrative of
a person seeing a malach must be speaking of what he saw in a prophetic
vision. However, here the narrative is not saying that Adam saw the
keruvim, etc. but that Hashem placed them there. No reason to restrict
the meaning to a mashal.
Zvi Lampel
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:16:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:55:58PM -0400, sholom wrote:
:> In contrast to Suma, Women are not obligated in Keri'at haTorah....
:> Hence shome'ah ke-oneh cannot work and the Berakha would be
:> le-vatala. As a result, there is no such dispute or ruling regarding
:> women receiving aliyyot in the posekim.
: Naive question: why doesn't the
: gemara bother mentioning this in Megilla when it quotes the baraisa that
: says women aren't called up because of kavod ha'tzibbur?
In the days of the gemara, the kohein said the opening berakhah and
read for himself, no ba'al qeriah. Then the levi read without berakhos
(still no ba'al qeri'ah), then shelishi, etc... Finally the maftir made
the closing berakhah after he finished. Before we accomodated people
who couldn't lein their own aliyos by inventing the ba'al qeri'ah, most
olim didn't make berakhos.
So this is a problem only with the "modern" definition of aliyah, and
wouldn't explain why a woman couldn't get shelishi. For that, we need
to invoke kevod hatzibbur.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:11:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women
On 13/03/2014 12:55 PM, sholom wrote:
>> In contrast to Suma, Women are not obligated in Keri'at haTorah
>> (this is the view of all known Rishonim and the overwhelming
>> opinion of Aharonim - thoroughly documented in the article,
>> Section III and note 85). Hence shome'ah ke-oneh cannot work and
>> the Berakha would be le-vatala. As a result, there is no such
>> dispute or ruling regarding women receiving aliyyot in the
>> posekim.
>
> Naive question: why doesn't the gemara bother mentioning this in
> Megilla when it quotes the baraisa that says women aren't called up
> because of kavod ha'tzibbur?
Why would it? There's no suggestion there that women are obligated. The
braisa certainly doesn't suggest this.
--
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
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:42:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Philosophers and philosophy
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:40:01AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: By "a certain extent", what I mean is this: Certain truths have been
: Revealed to us from our mesorah - that is to say, from God. Other truths
: are revealed to us by our senses. Still other truths are revealed to
: us through logic...
I do not agree with this categorization.
Logic builds conclusions from givens. Without pre-existing prepositions,
there is nothing to apply logic to.
Thus, a conclusion we reach logically is built from truths we got through
looking at the world or through revelation. (Either could be first hand,
such as my seeing on a large number of clear days that the sky is blue,
or from trusted authorities -- science books and teachers, sefarim,
baalei mesorah, etc...) It is not so much a third source of ideas as a
spectrum -- more explicit in vs. more derived from the original science
and/or revelation. And yes, that's "and/or", nothing keeps us from applying
logic to ideas we accept because the Torah says so in combination to those
we accept because they describe the world.
An example of this messiness:
: I said before, and I say again, that I acknowledge philosophy to be a
: very rigorous school of thought, and I am probably treating it with too
: little respect. But we are talking about subjects which touch on very deep
: areas of Torah. Rambam may have thought that Aristo/Aristotle/whoever
: was almost a navi, but "almost" means that he was NOT a navi, in which
: case *everything* he said about metaphysics is based on nothing more
: than his own logic.
(I generally just call him "Aristo" because (1) I'm a lazy typist, and (2)
the Rambam and his Hebrew translators do, giving me license to be lazy.)
Well, Aristo's metaphysics here is reasons out from his physics. His ideas
about intellects is not entirely divorced from what we would later call
"science".
Aristo noticed that every new process is set in motion by someone choosing
to set it in motion. (This is sort of tautological, hidden in the word "new".
If one ball moves because it was hit by another ball, no intellects involved,
Aristo wouldn't have thought of it as a *new* process.) And things intellects
start in motion eventually stop. (Today we attribute this loss of momentum
to friction, including air drag, friction with the flaw, etc...)
Aristo concluded that all action starts with an intellect, which then
imparts impetus to an object, which then is in motion/change until the
impetus runs out. Since the spheres in which the stars nd planets are
embedded never run out of impetus, they must have intellects. And since
nature causes change, there must be intellects beyond/behind physics --
thus "*meta* physics".
It's the Rambam who identifies this system of metaphysics, the ideas that
disembodied intellects link the Prime Mover with the physical world, with
the Torah's ideas of mal'akhim and G-d.
So, Aristo based himself on logical conclusions from science, the Rambam
added postulates from revelation to logically build his theological
position.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507 matters? - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:29:46 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Hashem Sees (was: Time for the Deceased)
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:20:35AM +0000, R Akiva Miller wrote:
: I think we all might agree that the things God does are good by
: definition...
I wouldn't define good that way. See our discussion of Divine Command
Theory and the Eythyphro Dilemma.
Rather, I would define moral "good" as "serving the purpose for which
is was made". Much the way we define functional good. A good pen writes
well and doesn't get ink all over my hand. It gets the job done. A good
person is one who gets what he was made for done.
The same is true of the Hebrew "tov". "Hatavas haneiros" is making the
lamps functionally good, ready to light easily and burn well. Tov
also spans both the functional and moral, which to me implies that
a moral tov is also doing what one is made for.
(Similarly, ra appears to be related to reish-ayin-ayin, broken.)
So, I would modify your statement to say that everything G-d does is
good because Hashem Echad -- he has no ulterior motives or distractions
that would cause Him to act against his own Ultimate Plans.
> He is difinitionally unable to make the rock or the rectangle...
Like I said besheim the Rambam about G-d doing something Kant would
consider a false analytical preposition -- the Rambam considers them
meaningless gibberish, not ideas that can or can't be done. IOW, it's
not Hashem's definition, but the rock's or rectangle's, that's in
play.
> I think
> RDR is saying that God is not only definitionally unable to *do* evil,
> but even to *look* at evil. And I might agree, except that I don't really
> know what "God looking at evil" *means*.
Well, according to the Rambam, Hashem not looking at evil is either a
description of what He isn't, or a description of how is actions look
to us humans. R' Saadia Gaon has a third category of Dicine Attributes,
attributes of His relationship with us. Which is much like a subset
of what the Rambam said about actions, but allowing RSG to treat the
relationship as a "cheftza" with its own attributes. Does Hashem act
in a way we interpret as merciful, or is there actual Mercy in the
relationship?
A hint toward the latter is in the Rambam's need to rephrase chazal in
Dei'os 1:6. Rather than Abba Sha'ul's original "mah Hu Chanun veRachum,
af atah heyeih chanun verachum", etc..." the Rambam has "mah Hu *niqra*
chanun... mah Hu *niqara* rachum". OTOH, RSG would have to either do
the same, or he could be loose with the meaning of Abba Sha'ul's "Hu".
Also, RSG gives us the ability to distinguish between two idioms in the
siddur, "[Av] haRachaman" and "haMeracheim". (Av haRachamim implies that
He created the rachamim others can choose to practice, an entirely
different idea.)
Here, I would say it means one of
1- Hashem doesn't act in a way that we would associate with looking for
infractions to respond to.
2- Hashem doesn't look for infractions to respond to.
Or some other statement about how He acts, appears to act, or appears to
relate to us. Since Omniscience is absolute, there is no reason for Hashem
to actually look or see anything; it's known either way.
:> "V'habit el amal lo suchal" (Hab. 1:13), "lo hibit aven b'yaakov
:> vlo ra'ah amal b'yisrael" (Balak 23:21). So God doesn't see
:> everything.
: If "looking at" something means to look *approvingly* at it, then
: I can agree that God is definitionally unable to look approvingly at
: evil. And the context of these pesukim is indeed saying that God does
: not look approvingly at these things.
I see no reason to introduce "look *approvingly*". But I did mention
above why He would never approve evil, since that would by definition be
His being "of two minds" on something, rather than One.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 22:24:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Esther in a hurry
R' Eli Turkel asked:
> 1) Esther says that she has not be called to the king for 30 days.
> What is the rush why not wait a while longer after all there are
> 11 months to go
> 2) Esther suggests a fast for 3 days that includes Pesach. Again
> why not set the fast for after Pesach since there is plenty of time
> until the following Purim.
Because between then and eleven months later, Haman's party was sure to
make lots of preparations to anihilate the Jews, and it was of paramount
importance to hip this in the bud. In fact, in line with RZS's observation,
I may add that it is reasonable to assume that Esther, who lived isolated
in the palace, could not see the harm of waiting a few days or even weeks.
Mordechai, however, knew Haman's party well and saw the potential for
terrible things the next few days and weeks would bring, so he appealed to
Esther (and gave her a guilt trip).
A frailikhn Pierem,
--
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wieviel Feste feiern wir an Sukkot (Audio-Schiur)
* Die ethische Dimension des Schma Jissra?ls (Audio-Schiur)
* Ein Baum, der klug macht?! (Audio-Schiur)
* Podiumsdiskussion ?J?dische Religion zwischen Tradition und Moderne?
* Great Videos from the CER in Berlin
* A Priest Returns to his Faith
* The CER Berlin Conference in Pictures
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140313/154a7918/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:36:25 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] To Drink or Not To Drink? - A Halachic Analysis of
With Purim just around the corner, everyone is anticipating the
annual Mitzvos HaYom. However, for many, it is the unique mitzvah to
get drunk that they are eagerly awaiting. Since Purim is described in
the Megillah as a day of Mishteh (referring to a wine feast) and the
Purim turnabout miracle occurred at such wine feasts, there is a rare
dispensation from the norm, and an apparent obligation to drink wine.
Hopefully, the wine will enable one to experience a sublime,
spiritual Purim. Yet, uninhibited drinking may also unfortunately
result in catastrophic consequences. If so, what exactly is the
Mitzvah of drinking on Purim? Is there truly a Mitzvah to get drunk on Purim?
Read the full article
"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1394742982
-c5d13fabce156dcf618cbb2703aec7aa-3704027?pa=21152736658>Insights
Into Halacha: To Drink or Not To Drink: A Halachic Analysis of
Getting Drunk on Purim".
I welcome your questions or comments by email. For all of the Mareh
Mekomos / sources, just ask.
"<https://go.madmimi.com/redirects/1394742982
-99e07d7ed5884c422f7c6d829554c600-3704027?pa=21152736658>Insights
Into Halacha" is a weekly series of contemporary Halacha articles for
Ohr Somayach. If you enjoyed the article, please share it with
friends and family. To sign up to receive weekly articles simply email me.
kol tuv, Good Shabbos and a Freilichen Purim!!
Y. Spitz
Yerushalayim
<mailto:ysp...@ohr.edu>ysp...@ohr.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140313/46a5e8b3/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 21:24:56 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [Avodah] WHY IS THE HOLIDAY CALLED PURIM? - R' DAVID FOHRMAN
RYL posted the first link on Avodah but I think many would enjoy seeing the
whole sequence.
Each video is about five or six minutes but you need all four to get to the
final point.
Based on his book *The Queen You Thought You Knew*
If you don't want to spend all that time, skip the first two and look at #3
and #4 --- where he really gets into the meaning of the word "Purim" in an
original way. I don't know if what he says is really "the" truth but it's
novel and very interesting.
[1] What's In A Name?
http://alephbeta.org/course/lecture/whats-in-a-name-1
[2] Does Esther Matter?
http://alephbeta.org/course/lecture/does-esther-matter
[3] You Have the Choice To Remain Silent
http://alephbeta.org/course/lecture/you-have-the-choice-to-remain-silent
[4] Pur. vs. Pur
http://alephbeta.org/course/lecture/pur-vs-pur
--Toby Katz
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140313/2af28bcd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 07:18:37 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] How is Purim Different from Chanukah
> The question is asked why it is that the Chanukah episode portrays our people resisting the
> enemy militarily, waging war for their independence, while on Purim they relied solely on
> a Divine miracle. The striking answer given is that on Chanukah G-d?s Torah was in danger
and the Jews took up arms in defense of their G-d given heritage, whereas on Purim the
Jewish people were threatened with extinction and it was G-d?s turn to intervene on behalf of His people.
>
>
> The more authentic explanation, however, is that the difference between the critical periods
> as reflected by the two festivals, is that while the Purim episode took place in the Galut, the
> Chanukah story occurred in the Holy Land. On its own soil the Jews have the courage and
> resolution to FIGHT back! In the Galut the Jews are helpless, depending upon the good graces
> of its neighbors for survival.
> Time and again Israel has had to take up arms against vicious enemies bent on its annihilation.
> Israel has triumphed and will continue to be victorious in the recognition that it has the
> right and obligation to keep what it has built with its own blood and sweat.
>
> A freilichin Purim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140314/f9cac4fe/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:43:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Esther in a hurry
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> The lots of Haman occurs in Nisan and falls on Purim in Adar 11 months
later.
>
> 1) Esther says that she has not be called to the king for 30 days.
> What is the rush why not wait a while longer after all there are 11
months to go
>
> 2) Esther suggests a fast for 3 days that includes Pesach. Again why not
set the
> fast for after Pesach since there is plenty of time until the following
Purim.[--RET]
Mordechai was the one in a hurry, not Esther. Esther didn't want to go to
the king, and gave her not having been called for 30 days as an excuse for
not going. Either (according to e.g. Rashi) this shows that the king is
getting tired of her, and if she shows her face uninvited she will be
killed
immediately and do no good, so why go? Or (according to Malbim) the king
will surely summon her soon, and then she'll be able to put in a good word
when he's in a receptive mood, so why risk her life now?
Mordechai is the
one who rejected her excuses and said there is no time to waste, we only
have 11 months, so we'd better start now. Go to the king immediately. So
Esther said in that case I need some ammunition; go fast for three days, to
get Hashem on our side, and then I'll risk my life. If you want to
postpone
the fast till after Pesach, fine, then I'll go after Pesach.
--
Zev Sero
>>>>>
Haman cast lots on Rosh Chodesh Nisan so it makes you wonder why the decree
becomes an emergency for Mordechai (and Esther) only two weeks later, on
erev Pesach or the first day of Pesach.
Apparently there were two letters sent to all the provincial governors, an
open letter that said "Be ready for military action on the 13th of Adar,
eleven months from now" and a secret, sealed letter marked, "Not to be
opened until the 13th of Adar" and that second letter said what the military
action was: kill all the Jews.
Mordechai only found out the contents of the second, sealed letter through
nevuah or ruach hakodesh. One can speculate that he received this Divine
message on erev Pesach. And precisely because it was given to him by
supernatural means, he inferred that he had to act on that information
immediately.
You could further speculate that the reason Hashgachically speaking for
such a Divine revelation to have been made on or just before Pesach was
precisely because it /was/ so out of the ordinary to fast on Pesach. It would
make a much greater impression on the Jews as to the seriousness of the decree
hanging over their heads, and the urgency of the need to daven and do
teshuva.
Some of the above is from R' David Fohrman's book, *The Queen You Thought
You Knew*, some is from *Turnabout: The Purim Story* -- a book by R' Mendel
Weinbach z'l based on the Malbim. And some is my own speculation.
PS It could be that the date of the fast is not mentioned in the Megillah
because it was only a one-time deal, to fast on Pesach -- never to be
repeated. The date on which we now fast is not the date on which they fasted
that year, obviously.
--Toby Katz
..
=============
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140313/16dc4ae6/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:46:17 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Esther in a hurry
On 13/03/2014 10:13 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> The lots of Haman occurs in Nisan and falls on Purim in Adar 11 months
later.
>
> 1) Esther says that she has not be called to the king for 30 days.
> What is the rush why not wait a while longer after all there are 11
months to go
>
> 2) Esther suggests a fast for 3 days that includes Pesach. Again why not
set the
> fast for after Pesach since there is plenty of time until the following
Purim.
Mordechai was the one in a hurry, not Esther >>
So lets rephrase the question - why was Mordechai in a rush with 11 months
to go
Why not wait unril after Pesach as a minimum.
Interestingly almost the entire megillat esther takes place within a week
or so.
BTW was the seudah Esther had with the king Gebrochs ? -)
Even the letter Mordechai sent to the Jews was only in Sivan.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140314/ab38ef0b/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 12:37:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] To Drink or Not To Drink? - A Halachic Analysis
There are plenty of ways to upteitch the gemara:
1- Rava's statement about the chiyuv is the opening of the sugya
(Mebillah 7b). The sugya concludes with the story of qam Rabah
veshachteih leRabbi Zeira. Not an endorsement of Rava.
2- Why does Rava say "michayav" rather than chayav, and "le'ivsumei",
a unique usage in shas rather than the more common shikur? Is Rava
really saying "thou shalt get drunk on Purim..."?
3- Knowing when to build on the good vs attacking evil is a subtle
thing most people can't get right when sober. So how drunk is
"ad dela yada bein 'barukh Mordechai' le-'arur Haman'"?
BUT...
We have 1,500 years of mesorah since shas. Rashi (ad loc "le'ivsumei")
says "lehishtakeir beyayin". The Rambam (Megillah 2:15) requires "veshoseh
yayin ad sheyishtaqeir veyirdeim besakhrus". The Tur (OC 695), the Beis
Yoseif and SA, all require shikrus. The Maharil (Minhagim, Purim #10)
follows Rashi, and says Mahari Segel says "ad delo yada" isn't all that
drunk, because the gematrios are equal. The Rama cites the Maharil as
saying drink until you sleep, which is what the MB endorses as "ra'ui
la'asos" (citing the Peri Megadim).
I am uncomfortable with the concept of forcing my own values into the
sources and whittling halakhah to fit. This year at least, more
uncomfortable with that than with the idea that we're obligated to get
drunk.
If you wish to argue that the situation changed, and there is a now
an unacceptible risk that earlier posqim couldn't have considered,
I would be on board. Or if you want to hold like the Rambam, the Rama,
R Chaim Brisker and the MB, kol hakavod. But we can't risk continuity
with the flow of mesorah even about something that (would otherwise)
seem so obvious to me as "it's bad to get drunk".
Recall that R' Elyashiv permits joining AA, and paricipating in its Xian
derived liturgy and traditions (not AZ, but derekh Emori) rather than
remain an alcoholoic! We really are in piquach nefesh-like territory --
iff we are someone who has or is even possibly prone to a problem.
So, this year my inclination on the subject isn't the "don't drink"
of my past. Rather, I would like to offer this litmus test:
If you wish to drink in celebration of Purim, drink, it's a
mitzvah!
If you celebrate Purim because it's a license to drink,
don't!
I would compare my opinion to Abba Sha'ul's statement about yibum.
Sometimes doing something for the wrong reason can be more
self-destructive than skipping the mitzvah.
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
------------------------------
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 32, Issue 40
**************************************
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.)