Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 145

Wed, 22 Oct 2014

• 1. Mindfulness (Sholom Simon)
• 2. Re: re'ach (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Ushpizin for non-owners? ()
• 4. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Mindfulness ()
• 6. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. Re: Mindfulness (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Mindfulness (Ben Waxman)
• 9. Re: Hoshana Rabba (Ezra Chwat)
• 10. Re: re'ach (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Re: Blowing The Shofar At The End Of Tefillath N`ilah (Zev Sero)
• 12. The Sons of Noach (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Demons In the Talmud (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Demons In the Talmud (Micha Berger)
• 15. Halachah keBasrai? (Micha Berger)

Wow -- I missed this, or else I would have jumped in sooner.

>In the past (Nov 2007) Micha talked about Mindfulness as a component 
>of Hislamdus, but rejected the "in-the-present" goal; here he seems 
>to reject the whole thing. But being in the moment, acknowledging 
>the now and where you are now, are a vital part of figuring out 
>where to go next. A vector has to have an origin point. Or, to put 
>it like R' Dessler, you have to acknowledge your bechirah-point 
>before you can habituate yourself to a state where you can move that 
>point onward.

Don't you have to "be in the now" to have kavannah?  How can you 
daven without "being in the now"?  Mindfulness, it seems to me, is 
the exact antidote to "ritual by rote".  Anyone can make a brocho 
without thinking about what one is doing, or say "ashar yatzar" as 
one is rushing back to one's office.  But stopping the rest of your 
mind and thinking about it -- mindfulness -- is exactly the 
corrective, no?  (Or am I missing something big-time?)

-- Sholom

On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 14:29 Micha Berger wrote:
>On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 10:23:33PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

>>> Actually, it says arvei nachal. One has to prove that the phrase refers
>>> to a taxonomical species.

>> It should be obvious that it is naming a species, just like the other
>> three, but if proof were needed it is easily found: every source,
>> without exception, agrees that there is no requirement whatsoever that
>> the aravos actually grow on a nachal. Everyone explains this by saying
>> that "arvei nachal" is a species name, not a description.
>
> Except that "species" as you are using the word wasn't a formalized
> concept yet. All they had to go by was description. It looked like
> and grew in the same areas as aravos. Why wouldn't they assume it's
> a related plant?

Species was surely a formal concept from the earliest days of language.
How could people ever make sense of the world without it?  And we do
find interfertility used in halacha as a determinant of species, e.g.
in the rule that kosher and treife species can't interbreed.  It seems
the obvious way to classify organisms, and surely it can't be recent.

And no, eucalyptus do *not* look like willows, which is why nobody has
ever mistaken them for willows.



>>> We make hagafen on concord grapes (a cultivar of the fox grape, Vitis
>>> lubrusca), despite their being a different species than old world grapes
>>> (Vitis vinifera)
>
>> It's not at all clear that v. vinifera and v. labrusca are separate
>> species. They are completely interfertile, so who says they should be
>> considered separate species? In any case, concord grapes are about 1/3
>> v vinifera.
>
>We discussed this at length before Pesach 2009, when I semi-jokingly
>questioned the use of concord wine (or grape juice) for dalet kosos.
>
>I believe you are mistaken in the facts, that if you directly cross
>new- and old-world you get mules.

Where did you get that idea?  It's obviously false, if only from the fact
that concord grapes *did* arise; if all old-world/new-world crosses are
infertile then how could one *ever* get a plant with ancestry from both?
Concord may not have been a direct cross, but it is a cross, which means
its ancestors were also crosses, and obviously fertile.  But there are
in fact *many* such crosses, and I see no reason to doubt WP's claim that
they are all completely fertile.



> However, that whole detour was
> made unnecessary by what R Yitzchaq Grossman posted on 21-Mar-2009
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n059.shtml#10>:
>> I am aware that that is the exact definition of modern biology for species
>> differentiation, but what is your source that that is the definition of
>> 'min' in the context of Kilayim? On the contrary, the criteria that I see
>> all seem to refer to similarity of appearance (of leaves and / or fruit)
>> or taste, and there's even the phrase "ein holchin be'kelayim elah ahar
>> maris ha'ayin" (see commentaries of Rash, Rambam and Tosfos Yom Tov to
>> Kelayim 1:4-5 and Hazon Ish Kelayim Ch. 3).
>
>So, if kelayim only follow appearance, it is fair to ask about 4 minim.

Kil'ayim is a funny mitzvah.  It seems to be all about appearance rather
than substance.  In most mitzvos, we have an actual wrong, and then we
have mar'is ho`ayin, which is giving the appearance of the underlying
wrong.  With kil'ayim there seems to be no underlying wrong; it's all
about appearance!  If it looks mixed then it's assur, if it doesn't
look mixed then it isn't.  Reality doesn't seem to matter.  So with
kil'ayim *any* similarity between species, whether in the fruit or the
leaves or anything else, may be enough to allow them to be mixed, and
the psakim in the mishna end up seeming somewhat arbitrary.  So I wouldn't
reason from that to any other field, especially when the Torah names a
species.


>>> And yet they're similar enough in appearance and in growing conditions for
>>> Modern Hebrew speakers to call eucalyptus trees "aravos".

>> To the best of my knowledge, no, they don't. AFAIK in modern Hebrew they
>> have no other name than "eqaliptus". Naomi Shemer AH did not write of
>> "horshat ha`aravot"!

>Did you see the ArtScroll footnote that raised the question in RSN's mind
>to begin with?

I have not seen it; have you?   Does it claim that there exist or have ever
existed any Modern Hebrew speakers who call or called these trees `aravot?
I would like to know where you got the idea that this is so, or that
"Hebrew speakers who first encountered them [gave] them the same name".

From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


I'd like to ask how other people in  that sort of situation handle 
Ushpizin. I've always perceived it as being  associated with the baal habayis of the 
sukkah. Who but the owner (and spouse)  can invite guests, right? ...
So this year, where I was always a guest  borrowing someone else's sukkah, 
I simply skipped the ushpizin entirely. 

Akiva Miller
 

>>>>
 
Although you might think "ein oreiach machnis oreiach" might apply to  
inviting the Ushpizin into someone else's sukkah, it does not.  Since  everyone 
wants them to come visit, no one will object to a guest inviting  them.  
Besides, they come whether you invite them or not.  You're just  being warm and 
welcoming to them.
 
Whether the Ushpizin actually, literally, come to every single sukka  is a 
question I will ask Eliyahu Hanavi when he comes to my house next Pesach  
seder night.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141020/722aca8d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 20 October 2014, Kenneth Miller <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> Regarding Shofar, I pointed out:
>
>> Rama 588:5 and Mishneh Berurah 588:14 say that on Shabbos it is a
>> kli shemelachto l'issur.
>
> R' Zev Sero asked:
>
>> But what is that issur?
>
> The main function of a shofar is Hashma'as Kol.

And what kind of issur is that?  It's not a melacha, and it's not a shevus.
It's "chochma ve'eina melacha", or "uvdin dechol", i.e. barely an issur,
and it takes hardly anything to override it.


> It can also be used as a container, to move liquids from here to there
> [...]
> According to Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, however, no one would actually
> use a shofar for such a purpose nowadays, and so we would lose the heter
> to move it L'tzorech Gufo Umekomo.

Again, only if we didn't have an actual use for it.  On Rosh Hashana we
have a use for it, so it isn't muktzeh.  And if not for gezeras Rabba
we would blow it even on Shabbos, so it wouldn't be muktzeh then either.
The same applies to a lulav; it isn't muktzeh on Sukkos, and if not for
sfeika deyoma it wouldn't be muktzeh on the first day even on Shabbos.
Thus it makes no sense to say that if HR were to fall on Shabbos, the
reason we couldn't take the aravos would be because of muktzeh.  On the
contrary, they'd be muktzeh only because we couldn't take them, which
must be for some other reason.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

 
From: Jonathan Baker via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
1) I went to the Yavneh Vaad (still going  strong - a shul is a good
place for an AishDas Vaad, whether run with  cooperative reading, or by a
Rosh Vaad) over Chol Hamoed. In one of the  meditative chapters which the
eVaad skipped, he deals directly with  mindfulness, self-conscious eating,
drinking and excretion, as well as the  usual breathing. 
 
jon baker         |   blog:  http://thanbook.blogspot.com
tha...@gmail.com  | web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker

 
 
 
>>>>>>
Mussar is cool, analytical and rational, while chassidus is warm and  
humane.  With mussar you focus on yourself -- it is almost narcissistic --  
constantly taking your own temperature.  With chassidus you focus on other  
people -- what can I do for yenem?  Unless you have a certain cool,  Litvish 
temperament, "mindfulness, self-conscious eating, drinking and  excretion" will 
seem boring and sterile.  
 
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20141020/def2be85/attachment-0001.htm>

Regarding Shofar, I pointed out:

> Rama 588:5 and Mishneh Berurah 588:14 say that on Shabbos it is a
> kli shemelachto l'issur.
> ...
> The main function of a shofar is Hashma'as Kol.

R' Zev Sero asked:

> And what kind of issur is that?  It's not a melacha, and it's not
> a shevus. It's "chochma ve'eina melacha", or "uvdin dechol", i.e.
> barely an issur, and it takes hardly anything to override it.

Okay, let's all take a deep breath and step back for a moment... Now, let's
clarify our positions here. The only thing I'm asserting is that on Shabbos
(and hence on Yom Kippur), a shofar is classified as a kli shemelachto
l'issur (according to Rama and MB) and therefore may not be handled except
for gufo, or for m'komo, or in some manner in which muktzeh may be handled
(such as min hatzad, etc.)

R' Zev, are you agreeing with me or not? When you write that "it's barely
an issur", aren't you agreeing that it *IS* an issur? When you write that
"it takes hardly anything to override it", aren't you agreeing that it
*does* take *something* to override it?

I hope that your response will be something along the lines of "Blowing the
shofar at neilah is important enough to override the muktzah status", and
not that you are denying that the muktzeh status exists.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/544638b0f165838b0641ast04vuc

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 7:17pm EDT, R Sholom Simon wrote:
:> In the past (Nov 2007) Micha talked about Mindfulness as a
:> component of Hislamdus, but rejected the "in-the-present" goal;
:> here he seems to reject the whole thing. But being in the moment,
:> acknowledging the now and where you are now, are a vital part of
:> figuring out where to go next. A vector has to have an origin
:> point...

: Don't you have to "be in the now" to have kavannah?  How can you
: daven without "being in the now"?  Mindfulness, it seems to me, is
: the exact antidote to "ritual by rote"...

OTOH, if someone is in the moment with the exception of looking to
the future, their baqashos would be kind of meaningless.

My rejection of Mindfulness in the spring was just a more strongly
worded version of my insistance that Judaism doesn't demand Mindfulness,
but Mindfulness 2.0 -- being in the moment while being aware that this
moment is the seed to the next one.

:                  (Or am I missing something big-time?)

Actually, I think I was. When I spoke of "Mindfulness", I wrote:
> Mindfulness comes from the lexicon of English-speaking Buddhists.

Jon replied off-list, in the predecessor to his recent reply, informing
me that "Mindfulness" is a term used by Western Hindu's as well, for
the term "sati". Sati pretty much is my "Mindfulness 2.0", meaning that
the term I was objecting to does at times refer to the idea I was trying
to replace it with.

Let me repeat my objections to Buddhist Mindfulness, since I like how
it came out in my off-list reply to Jon.

Eizeh hu chakham? Haro'eh es hanolad.

Judaism's idea of being in the moment is starkly different than
Mindfulness as used in Buddhism. And the Buddhist origin is relevant;
being in the moment to the exclusion of what that moment is birthing is
part of Guatama's 3rd noble truth of non-striving. (Particularly the
element of eliminating tanha (ratzon), eliminating avijja (ignorance)
is far from problematic for me.)

I therefore see Mindfulness -- or the Buddhist and the variants thereof I
was exposed to teaching non-O Jews -- to stand in contrast to the whole
life-as-process, growth orientation, that Mussar tries to cultivate.

On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:19pm EDT, Rn Toby Katz wrote:
: Mussar is cool, analytical and rational, while chassidus is warm and  
: humane.  With mussar you focus on yourself -- it is almost narcissistic --  
: constantly taking your own temperature...

I vehemently object to both charicterizations:

1- Hispa'alus is all about getting emotionally worked up. A central
message of mussar is about how middos respond to experience, imagery,
song, meditation, shouting.... far more than they are changed by abstract
thought. If people really made decisions based on cool analytics, there
would be a LOT fewer sins.

R' Yisrael Salanter was the first writer, or perhaps the first western
one, to talk about how to address and manipulate nonconscious thought
("der dunkl").

2- A derekh that focusses on my relationship to the Borei is more,
not less, prone to spiritual narcicism than one founded by someone
whose last concern was that the bachur left to keep him company
might be scared by being left in the room with his own dead body.

Most Chassidic hero tales involve their rebbes' divine inspiration.
Mussar parallels are almost exclusively amazing acts of chessed. I
say that not to make a point about the protagonists of the stories,
but what the members of those movements thought about and valued.

Neither movtement fits charicatures, though.

I once blogged noting the evolution of the list as we go from Ben
Franklin's 13 Virtues to R' Mendel Satanover's 13 example middos in
Cheshbon haNefesh to the list of 13 middos attributed to RYS by the
Torah Temimah (and quoted by R' Dov Katz).
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/lists-of-middos

Temperance and Moderation fall off the list, Cheshbon haNefesh instead has
savlanus and nichusah (as in speaking benachas, not parental pride) instead.
The list attributed to RYS replaces savlanus to kavod (others' not one's
own).

I wrote in the post:
> When I was discussing Mussar with a friend once, he noticed my focus on
> Middos work. He asked if this perception wasn't a product of our times,
> where Chassidus, Mussar, or lehavdil New Age and Self-Help work are all
> seen in very personal, Me-Centered, terms. What about the Mussar of R'
> Yisrael, he asked, of dropping everything to help care for people during
> the cholera epidemic; of missing Kol Nidrei to care for a child left
> with an older sister who didn't know what to do for her; of washing his
> hands with as little water as possible, so that Rav Yisrael's "hamotzi"
> wouldn't be at the expense of the person who had to draw and carry the
> water; or who said the most important stringency in matzah baking is not
> to overwork the widows who were employed at the bakery; etc, etc, etc????

> My answer was that yes, Mussar is about building relationships, but
> the only part of that bridge to others that we can actually work on is
> the stanchion on our shore. Thus, we work on middos, but Rav Yisrael
> defined the perfection of those middos in terms of what best aids us
> to best share Hashem's Good with others.

Middos work avoids being narcissistic because the ideal configuration
of middos one is working toward is defined by ehrlachkeit.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Feeling grateful  to or appreciative of  someone
mi...@aishdas.org        or something in your life actually attracts more
http://www.aishdas.org   of the things that you appreciate and value into
Fax: (270) 514-1507      your life.         - Christiane Northrup, M.D.

This, to me, seems to be (at the very least) a huge oversimplification.  
The S'fat Emet for example talks a great deal about bitul (to Am 
Yisrael, to HaShem). He talks about understanding and seeing God as the 
source of life. He rarely talks about "what can I do for someone else"? 
Maybe when one does true bitul it leads to "doing something for someone 
else". But to call that the focus?

There are many different strands of Chassidut and it is impossible to 
group them all in one short sentence.

Ben

On 10/21/2014 5:19 AM, via Avodah wrote:
> With chassidus you focus on other people -- what can I do for yenem? 

As I see no one has answered this yet: 
 
10:52 AM 10/15/2014:
> As the sun rises on Hoshana Rabba, an annual question dawns (on me),
> when in Jewish history can we document the "yom hadin" nature of Hoshana
> Rabba being clearly identified ?
> Joel Rich

As would be expected, Zohar- Vayehi 120a. The date mentioned there is
"Yoma Batra'a D'Atzeret, D'hu Timana'a L'Hag", which sounds more like
Simhat Torah (in EY). Even so Ramban (on Nu. 14:9) when alluding to this
passage, uses the term "Leil HaHotem", which his Talmidim- Recanati and
R. Bahya there, both understand as Hoshanah Rabbah.

Recannati also cites the Rokeach and other primary sources, including
allusions in the Talmud.

The rest, I presume is AriZl and onwards.

Ezra Chwat

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> is there any doubt at all that the "'atalef" listed is the bat?
> But I don't see how this is relevant. Bats are 'ofos -- they fly!
> Just as cetaceans are dagim, because they swim.

I am not knowledgeable enough to take sides in this discussion, but I just
noticed a Rashi on this week's parsha which might be useful: If I'm reading
it correctly, on pasuk 7:14, he says that the category of "tzipor" (bird)
includes a chagav (grasshopper), because the pasuk uses the word "kanaf"
(wing), and grasshoppers do have wings.

(I would note that although grasshoppers do have wings, they do not use
them to fly; or at least, their power of flight is not nearly as strong as
that of birds. But that's okay, because the pasuk makes no reference to
"'of" (flying) -- only to "kanaf" (wings).)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/544709b93d7ee9b9691dst03vuc

On 21 October 2014, Kenneth Miller wrote:

> Okay, let's all take a deep breath and step back for a moment...
> Now, let's clarify our positions here. The only thing I'm asserting
> is that on Shabbos (and hence on Yom Kippur), a shofar is classified
> as a kli shemelachto l'issur (according to Rama and MB) and therefore
> may not be handled except for gufo, or for m'komo, or in some manner
> in which muktzeh may be handled (such as min hatzad, etc.)
>
> R' Zev, are you agreeing with me or not? When you write that "it's
> barely an issur", aren't you agreeing that it *IS* an issur? When
> you write that "it takes hardly anything to override it", aren't you
> agreeing that it *does* take *something* to override it?

It is an issur, but a very light one, that it doesn't take much to
override.

> I hope that your response will be something along the lines of
> "Blowing the shofar at neilah is important enough to override the
> muktzah status", and not that you are denying that the muktzeh
> status exists.

Not quite.  The minhag to blow the shofar at ne'ilah is important
enough to override the issur of using noise-making equipment on
Shabbos, and therefore there is no muktzeh status to override.
Once we are permitted to blow it, it's not melachto le'issur.
Or, if you prefer, it's still melachto le'issur, i.e. to blow at
other times, but carrying it for the post-ne'ilah blowing is
letzorech gufo.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

 From http://tinyurl.com/nmlrd79

To summarize: It is a distortion of Halacha to say that Christianity 
or Islam is fine for gentiles. The former remains a primitive form of 
idol-worship, the latter a pagan "monotheism" which actually is a 
blood-worship of jihad. Both religions are theological usurpers who 
either subscribe to "replacement theology," or in the case of Islam, 
a complete distortion of Jewish history and a rejection of the 
Masoretic text as a corrupted text. While it is true that Maimonides 
places these two religions into a historical context and sees the two 
religions as perhaps being a way to wean the world away from the more 
overt forms of false worship, they are clearly inappropriate means of 
worship for him that fail to meet the criteria of Noachide.

See the above URL for more. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20141022/c355a314/attachment.htm>

On 21 October 2014 08:41, CMB <matza...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If you cannot see the relevance of the Rambam's teshuva then you will have
> to take it up with R' Tzadok

1. Facts are facts.  A text either says something or it doesn't.
Everyone can read the Rambam's teshuvah itself, and see that it does
not allude in any way to the existence or non-existence of sheidim.
It sheds no light whatsoever on whether the Rambam believed in them,
and certainly doesn't support a positive claim that he didn't.  If
anyone claims it does, then they are plainly wrong, no matter who they
are, and I don't need to take anything up with them.

2. As it happens, R Tzadok doesn't mention sheidim either.  He does
mention ruach ra'ah, which the Rambam in the cited teshuvah does not,
but a ruach ra'ah is not a sheid.   Just because someone denies the
existence of giant squids and sea serpents doesn't mean he also
rejects platypuses and bunyips.

The bottom line is that we are discussing a positive claim that "the
Rambam denied that demonic beings exist", and as far as I know
evidence for this proposition is at least as scanty as that for their
existence.

> 1. in said responsum Rambam sets out the rule that the din of a
> katlanis is pushed aside to be mekayem a mitzva of Yibum -[seconded
> by Maharam Alshaker I cited]

Maharam Alashkar does not "second" the Rambam.  He was asked for
the Rambam's opinion, so he copied the entire teshuvah without comment.


> [which by the way the correct link is http://hebrew
> books.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=9282&;st=&pgnum=75, and not as
> you
> posted].

The piece begins at the bottom of page 74, not on page 75.



> of his shitta of not being choshesh at all for ruach ra'ah et al. - [which
> would most probably include demons]

Sheidim are not ruchos, and they're not all ra`im either.  The existence of
one does not affect the existence of the other.   (Nor, despite R Tzadok,
is either of them obviously connected to  the distinction the Rambam draws
between a woman who loses two babies from the same cause in the same
circumstances, and a woman who loses two husbands from different causes
over the course of a lifetime.)

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 05:59:39PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: The bottom line is that we are discussing a positive claim that "the
: Rambam denied that demonic beings exist", and as far as I know
: evidence for this proposition is at least as scanty as that for their
: existence.

What about the Gra in YD?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

AhS OC 301:37 posed a conundrum for me.

If somone carries twice, each time chatzi shiur, to a reshus harabim, they
are metztarfim. If a reshus hayachid separates the two locations, then
the person is patur (aval assur). But if it's a karmelis, RYME follows
the Rambam and says they're chayav -- a karmelis doesn't prevent tziruf.

In the closing explaination (parens, small print) the AhS explains that
the Rambam is following Rabba over Abayei veRava (on Shabbos 80a).
As explained by the Magid Mishnah, this is because "ein halakhah
ketalmidim bemaqom rabam".

Well, in a machloqes between rebbe in talmid/-im we would want to give
kavos and authority to the rebbe, so that initially made sense. BUT,
we have a kelal that halakhah kebasrai, and question it when the latter
poseiq couldn't have seen and assessed the earlier one. And presumably
that would always be assumed of talmidim -- that the talmid knew the
rebbe's sevarah, analyzed it, perhaps continued the rebbe's line of
reasoning, and found it more flawed than it seemed after only first
generation's analysis.

So, shouldn't be be ketalmidim bemaqom rabam?


Next, we start halakhah kebasrai with Abayei veRava because they were
the first to systematically teach all the shitos. Until then, one can
only assume the talmid knew the rebbe's sevara.

So here, AvR themselves should still be considered kebasrai, because it
is their own rebbe's sevara in question anyway!

(My theory is that HkB begins with AvR because they began the process that
Rav Ashi and Ravina completed. Until then, sevara wasn't organized, so
talmidim couldn't be sure to get those of other shitos. Possible check:
when does the kelal of HkB start among amora'ei EY?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef


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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


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


***************************************

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.)