Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 20

Thu, 05 Feb 2015

• 1. Re: How Binding is Minhag? (Micha Berger)
• 2. The Sunrise of Sparkling Vultures (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: Learning Tanach At Night ()
• 4. Re: yidmu vs. yidemu (Avi Goldstein)
• 5. Re: Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak (Isaac Balbin)
• 6. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Toby Katz)
• 7. Re: Prohibition on disparaging non-Jews (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak (Kenneth Miller)
• 9. Re: Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Public Service Announcement: He's Not Talking About `Eruv Tavshilin ()
• 11. How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Prof. Levine)
• 14. Re: How Did Rashi Make a Living? (Micha Berger)

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 07:26:30PM -- 0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://www.torahmusings.com/2015/02/binding-minhag/

: "Rabbi, the issue of minhagei avot (custom of one's fathers) really
: bothers me, and I don't know what to do.
...
: But in many matters I'm afraid to act according to the custom of my
: fathers, since in Israel, the accepted minhag goes according to the
: renewed custom of the Prushim, disciples of the Gaon of Vilna (Gra).
...

Tangent: Actually I noticed that it's really only those minhagim of
the Perushim that coincide with those of Chabad and/or Sephara -- the
other two large communities of the yishuv hayashan.

...
: However, no other community follows these customs except the
: Ashkenazi-German community. No one objects to the Moroccans or
: Algerians for keeping their nusachim, as well as all the Hassidim
: who retain their unique customs.

RJR asked in a comment chain at TR something that might be fruitful
to discuss here:
> When did minhag avot come to outweigh minhag hamakom?

My suggestion:

Well, as the sho'el mentions, this minhag hamaqom is not total. "No one
objects to the Moroccans or Algerians for keeping their nusachim [sic],
as well as all the Hassidim who retain their unique customs."

I think the teshuvah is saying that a local "minhag" that only people
who inherited from within a particular range of minhag avos -- those who
inherited a version of Nusach Ashkenaz, in this case -- ought to switch
isn't a real minhag hamaqom in comparison to the original.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org        greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org   in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)

Last week, I sent in a post about the proper times for Shacharis, and in
that context, I referred to vultures five times. Offlist, a friend brought
that to my attention - very politely, by the way - and that's when I began
writing this missive. Alas, I should have posted it sooner, because today,
another friend also brought it to my attention - and again, very politely.
Rather than risking a note from someone less polite, I think I should post
this sooner rather than later.

I'm referring, of course, to the word "netz", which I included in my post where I should have used the word "hanetz".

I could offer the excuse that the pedants mistakenly think that I'm trying
to talk Lashon Hakodesh, whereas I'm actually apeaking Yeshivish (see its
Wiki article), in which "Shabbosim" and "davening" are legitimate words.
And so too, I might claim that "netz" is a real word meaning "sunrise" in
Yeshivish.

But I'm not going to make excuses. What I *will* do is to offer a possible
reason why this error is so common, and to seek the chevreh's help in
combating it. But first, by way of comparison, I'd like to share another
error which I committed for many years and overcame only recently.

Did you notice above, when I wrote "see its Wiki article"? There are many
native English-speakers who are uncertain when to include an apostrophe in
"its", and when to omit it. After all, "it's" is a legitimate usage
sometimes, and the context *is* one of possessiveness, since the referred
article is Wiki's.

However, despite the possessiveness, the apostrophe must be *omitted* in
that example. But why? People who are comfortable with terms like "relative
pronoun", "possessive determiner", and "relative case" can explain it, but
probably not in a manner that *I* would remember easily.

But then someone explained it to me: No one puts an apostrophe in the word
"his". Most people even know to omit it from the word "hers". "Its" is the
same way. Even without knowing the technical name for this part of speech,
simply remember that if your sentence would "sound right" with "his" or
"hers", then you would use "its" without the apostrophe.

Anyway, back to "hanetz". Both of my correspondents agree that it is
derived from the hiphil of nun-tzadi-tzadi. "Nitzotzos" is a common enough
word that translating is not a big problem: "Hanetz hachama" is the sun's
throwing of sparks - its sparkling. The problem, to me at least, is that
the heh is an intrinsic part of the word's form, and not merely a definite
article. Is there a simple way to remember this, to insure that I don't
drop it and start talking about vultures?

I began perusing my dictionary, looking for similar words which might serve
as a convenient mnemonic. There are lots of words like hashkafa, hitlabesh,
and hemshech, but when you can see the three root letters so clearly, it's
easy to see that the heh is giving it its form, and is not merely a prefix.
But the root is too easily obscured in a three-lettered word like "hanetz",
where it's a guessing game whether some consonant or some vowel (="mater
lectionis") fell out, or whether the root might possibly be heh-nun-tzadi.
And rather than play that guessing game, Occam's Razor paskens clearly:
"The heh sure sounds like a definite article. Yeah, it's definitely an
article."

I soon noticed a distinctive feature of "haneitz": It does not merely begin with a heh; it begins with heh-kamatz.

Almost no other regular Hebrew words begin with heh-kamatz, but I did find
a few: hagun (proper), haduk (tight), hadur (glorious)	Those all seem to
be adjectives. And now I wonder: Is "hanetz" an adjective? When referring
to sunrise, it seems to be a noun. My first correspondent wrote that
"hanetz" is indeed a noun, and he compared it to hevdel (distinction),
heref (blink), and hesev (like heseiba) - but he was unsure why those are
heh-segol and "hanetz" is heh-kamatz.

Anyway, I think that the effort I put into this post might suffice to
insure that I use this word properly in the future. But for everyone else,
can anyone suggest a similar word, or some other mnemonic aid?

Thank you all

Akiva Miller


PS: Now that I finally understand when to use "its" and "it's", can anyone help me with "which" and "that"?



.
____________________________________________________________
How Old Men Tighten Skin
63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54d2d0563fabf5056492fst01vuc

 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>


>>Is this entirely "Practical  Qabbalah"? It seems to me that not doing
things for others kele'acheir yad is  an etiquette issue, regardless of any
qabbalistic overlays.

Possibly  related:
In most of the world it is accepted to shake hands bedavqa with  the
right hand.<<

Micha  Berger            
mi...@aishdas.org         





>>>>>
In this case the etiquette developed for a practical reason.  Shaking  
hands is supposed to show that both people have their hands open and are not  
carrying weapons -- "I come in peace."  Since most people are right-handed,  
you want to show that you have no weapon in your right hand.  (Ehud ben  
Geira was able to get the jump on King Eglon because Ehud was in that  small 
minority -- a left-handed swordsman.)
 
Many times the threads wander far from the original subject line, but here  
I have inadvertently yet happily stumbled right back INTO the subject line 
-- it  is 10 PM and I have brought up some parenthetical piece of learning 
from  Tanach!
 
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150204/f6e5d491/attachment-0001.htm>

I am wrong regarding what I wrote below. The shoresh is d-m-m.

> Regarding the discussion of yid'mu in the Shirah, Michael Kopinsky asked:
>> Why does a dagesh in the daled double the mem in the shoresh? Should
>> that turn it to d-d-m?

> I think the dagesh is not in place of two dalets, but in place of a nun
> followed by a dalet.
> Other examples of this are "yikkom," which could also be written "yinkom,"
> "yittnu," which technically would be "yintenu," and "yittor," from
> "yintor."

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:27:35 -0500
From: Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 01:11:06PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
>: I understood that RMF published his teshuvot explicitly so one could read
>: them and then decide if he agrees. He writes that one should NOT follow his
>: psak simply because he says so without understanding the reasons
...
> Similarly, a for the topic in the subject line (in case this isn't
> intentional topic drift): "Listening to a Rav HaMuvhak". The teshuvah
> certainly wasn't written as a replacement for someone not competent
> in this area, or not sufficiently competent to rule about very heavy
> topics (eg ishus) listening to their rav muvhaq.

I recall recently hearing Rav Hershel Schachter bemoaning the "small time
Rabbis" (my words) which he often calls the young modern Rabbis paskening
on issues that they have no Shimush let alone deep knowledge and can't be
compared to Gedolay HaPoskim in terms of their understanding of particular
Inyanim. He stressed that to preserve Mesorah, it was critical to ask
a seasoned Posek. He said only a seasoned Posek could Pasken against
Gedolay HaPoskim on matters of great importance (e.g. Ishus, Gerushin etc)

The subject line of this thread is misleading, since there is no
prohibition on disparaging non-Jews. There is a prohibition of ona'as
devarim, gratuitously hurting someone's feelings, with one example being
not to say something to a ger that disparages the ethnic group or nation
that he comes from.

See this week's parsha Rashi on Shmos 19:5.
"If you keep the Torah then veheyisem lee segulah you will be to Me a
treasure ["chosen people"] above all nations because the whole world
is Mine."

Rashi: Don't say that G-d only has one people [the way some people
imagine that each nation belongs to its particular god]. Actually the
whole world and all the people in the world belong to Him. And yet,
in Hashem's eyes, "veheim be'einai ulefanai lechlum" -- "they are all
like nothing in My eyes and before Me"!

What, Rashi disparaging goyim?! Didn't he know Gemara? Didn't he know
that disparaging goyim is quote-unquote "prohibited"?! Boy that Rashi
could have learned a thing or two by reading Avodah.....


[Email #2]

From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> In plain language, I'd think that "the" Ukrainians  would be referring to 
> every single Ukrainian. But surely this is not what you  meant, is it? ....

>> A giyores who was a guest at our table piped up, heatedly  denying
>> that the Ukrainians were anti-Semites at all.  Her parents  were
>> Ukrainians and they were very nice people!  End of discussion!  [--TK]

> Surely you're not calling that giyores a liar, are  you?

> Perhaps you mean that her parents, and the other Ukrainians she  knew, were 
> all despicable people who were very good at hiding their rottenness  from 
> her, so that she grew up under the mistaken impression that "they were very  
> nice people"?

You are only pretending to be confused, since you know /exactly/
what I mean, but I will humor you and pretend to answer the question
you pretended to ask. The Ukrainians were always vicious anti-Semites
and promulgated many harsh decrees and pogroms against the Jews even
before the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, when the Germans invaded the
Ukraine, the Ukrainians collaborated, voluntarily and eagerly, in rounding
up and killing the Jews. The Germans could not possibly have carried out
the mass slaughter of the Jews without the willing collaboration of the
Ukrainians, the Poles, the Romanians, and the Hungarians.

You just read that sentence. Are you going to pretend that you have
no idea what I meant by "the Germans" or "the Jews" or "the Poles, the
Romanians, the Hungarians"? Are you going to pretend that because some
Germans were good guys and because some Jews escaped death, therefore
the above paragraph conveys no meaning and cannot be understood by a
reasonably intelligent person?

As for my giyores friend's parents, she really did believe that because
the Ukrainians she knew, including her parents, were nice people -- that
that somehow "proved" the Ukrainians were not anti-Semitic as a rule. I'm
sure her parents were nice people. Does that prove what she thinks it
proves? What percentage of Ukrainians were killers, what percentage just
turned a blind eye to the killing, and what percentage actively saved
Jews, I do not know. But a very large percentage, probably a majority,
of Ukrainians were vicious, violent and evil. That is common knowledge,
and their war crimes have been abundantly documented. They were not better
than the Germans, though they were less thorough and less organized.

Lately there has developed a certain intellectual fashion of claiming
that generalizations can never be true, and that it is necessary to
qualify every sentence with hedge words like "usually" or "some" or
"many" and even with such hedge words, no one should ever disparage
or for that matter, ever praise, or ever make broad statements about,
any group in general. I have even known otherwise intelligent Jews who
jump in and vehemently deny the truth of statements like "Jews are not
violent" or "Jews are intelligent"! But the failure to recognize and
understand general rules or patterns does not make a person more logical
or more intelligent. On the contrary, it completely cripples him in his
everyday activities.

Segue to related point: The Torah says about the Jews, "rak am chacham
venavon hagoy hazeh" -- "this people is just a wise and understanding
nation" (Devarim 4:6). Now I ask you, how could the Torah have said
something like that?! I have a nephew who is profoundly retarded and
completely deaf. At the age of 18 he still has not managed to learn a
word of sign language. Did Hashem know there would be mentally retarded
Jews? Did He make generalizations anyway? Did He assume that generally
intelligent people would understand broad and sweeping generalities?
Yes, yes and yes.

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

On Wed, Feb 04, 2015 at 09:12:02PM -0500, Toby Katz via Avodah wrote:
: The subject line of this thread is misleading, since there is no
: prohibition on disparaging non-Jews. There is a prohibition of ona'as
: devarim, gratuitously hurting someone's feelings, with one example being
: not to say something to a ger that disparages the ethnic group or nation
: that he comes from.

It's not really an example -- insulting geirim is a second issur on top
of noa'as devarim.

Second, the gemara's example is what was said in front of Yisro about
Mitzriim. Not "the ethnic group or nation that he comes from". At most,
the nation that one of his former employers was the god-king of.

I think you're pointing out an abuse of the word "disparaging" in the
subject line, rather than offending. More than saying something on
topic to the discussion. I think the rest of us, non-English teachers,
were not caught up enough in the language to mistake the intent.

: See this week's parsha Rashi on Shmos 19:5.
...

Yes, Rashi is disparaging non-Jews, but since they aren't his audience,
he isn't offending.

: Rashi: Don't say that G-d only has one people [the way some people
: imagine that each nation belongs to its particular god]. Actually the
: whole world and all the people in the world belong to Him. And yet,
: in Hashem's eyes, "veheim be'einai ulefanai lechlum" -- "they are all
: like nothing in My eyes and before Me"!

Side-note: Well, comparted to the Infinite, we should all be negligable,
"bekhlum".

What makes Jews of non-kelum value is condional, not inherent. "Ve'atah
*im* shamoa' tishme'u beQoli, ushmartem es berisi..."

In the second email in this post (deleted) RnTK writes about
generalizations vs universal rules. I would suggest the same applies here
to Rashi's "veheim". A chasid umos ha'olam, is also "shomer es berisi", if
a different beris and while it lifts a person out of infintesimal value in
the "Eyes" of the infinite, is not enough to be "segulah mikol ha'amim".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

R' Isaac Balbin wrote:

> I recall recently hearing Rav Hershel Schachter ...
> He stressed that to preserve Mesorah, it was critical to ask a
> seasoned Posek. He said only a seasoned Posek could Pasken against
> Gedolay HaPoskim on matters of great importance (e.g. Ishus,
> Gerushin etc)

I'd be interested to hear more of his reasoning. Specifically:

1) *Why* should one ask only a seasoned posek?
2) Is there really a difference between matters of great or less importance?
3) What is the nature of that difference?

Lest I be accused of attacking Rav Schachter willy-nilly, chalilah, let me explain why I'm asking.

The examples of "matters of great importance" are given as Ishus and
Gerushin. What makes those matters of great importance? To me, the most
obvious answer is that these are matters where errors could affect the
mamzer status of generations yet to be born. In contrast, a question about
Lashon Hara or Hilchos Shabbos might be very serious, but the future
ramifications will not reach as far.

But if his reasoning is as RIB wrote - "to preserve Mesorah" - then perhaps
Ishus and Gerushin are not great examples. I'm really not sure exactly what
is meant by "preserving Mesorah", and I guess that's the question that I'm
really asking.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How Old Men Tighten Skin
63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method You Can Do From Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54d31602125bb16012767st02vuc

>
>
> :> What isn't a halachic approach in my opinion is a LOR who shops opinions
> :> from a range of important Rabonim and then decides for himself
>
> : I understood that RMF published his teshuvot explicitly so one could read
> : them and then decide if he agrees. He writes that one should NOT follow
> his
> : psak simply because he says so without understanding the reasons
>
> << The teshuvah
> certainly wasn't written as a replacement for someone not competent
> in this area, or not sufficiently competent to rule about very heavy
> topics (eg ishus) listening to their rav muvhaq. >>
>

RMF also said that he is willing to debate any of his teshuvot on condition
that the questionner knows what he is talking about. He won't defend a
teshuva
against a person who can't read a Shach or Taz or Magen Avraham.

In my personal expereince most LORs don't pasken questions in "ishut".
Certainly one can't write a get if he is not qualified.

OTOH it is the job of the LOR to pasken "shul" questions. He does this
by relying on his knowledge of both the poskim and the circumstances.
He should not be running to some gadol for every local controversy.


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150205/f7e476f1/attachment-0001.htm>

> 
> AhS OC 393:1-3 discusses what to do on a "three day yom tov" when
> someone forgot to make an eiruv (or a shituf mevo'os) before the
> start of Yom Tov.
> 
> He holds by the first opinion he gives (se'if 1, which we learn in
> s' 3 is that of Ra'avad, Rosh, and Ran and is implied in s' 2 to be
> shared by the Tur):
> 
> On the first day of YT, he should make an eiruv al tenai "if today
> is chol, this is the eiruv, and if today is holy, this is
> nothing". And on YT sheini, again with a tenai, "if today is holy, I
> made an eiruv yesterday, and if not, this shall be my
> eiruv". Neither time do you make a berakhah, it's not me'aqeiv and
> safeiq berakhos lehaqeil.
> 

In case other readers were as confused as I was: the conditional `eruv
discussed above is either an `eruv xatzeroth or an `eruv txummin.
When I first read the above, I was thinking of an `eruv tavshilin,
because that's the only kind of `eruv that most people often make
(even though the parenthesized reference to a shittuf mvo'oth should
have brought `eruv xatzeroth to mind).  Consequently I was exceedingly
puzzled, because in the case where you forget to make an `eruv
tavshilin before Wednesday night, you just make a single conditional
`eruv on the first day of Yom Tov; there is no need to do anything
whatsoever on the second day of Yom Tov.


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

At 07:46 PM 2/4/2015, R. Micha wrote:

 >In any case, not really who Prof Levine is looking for on a list of
 >baalei mesorah who had professions.

I was not looking for a  a list of  baalei mesorah who had
professions.  I was pointing out that RASHI was not a Torah only
person,  given that he was involved in secular pursuits.

I take the term "Torah only" at face value to mean that it refers to
a man who  is only involved in Torah study and nothing  else. The men
I named were  all involved in secular pursuits to some extent, and,
hence to my way of thinking, not Torah only men.

YL

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 05:27:39AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
: At 07:46 PM 2/4/2015, R. Micha wrote:
:> In any case, not really who Prof Levine is looking for on a list of
:> baalei mesorah who had professions.

: I was not looking for a  a list of  baalei mesorah who had
: professions.  I was pointing out that RASHI was not a Torah only
: person,  given that he was involved in secular pursuits.

And I countered that even if he did own a winery, we have all indication
that he was a full-time rosh yeshiva. It seems to have at most been an
investment, not a job.

: I take the term "Torah only" at face value to mean that it refers to
: a man who  is only involved in Torah study and nothing  else. The men
: I named were  all involved in secular pursuits to some extent, and,
: hence to my way of thinking, not Torah only men.

But that's unhelpful, to take someone else's words in the conversation and
decide what they ought to mean. I used "Torah only" in contrast to the
"Torah with" / "Torah and"" hashkafos of RSRH, YU or even the CI. Which
did not require taking my words as a synonym for promoting illiteracy
in la'az or basic math.

On TIDE's synthesis vs RYBS's dialectic ("with" vs "and"):
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/synthesis-and-dialectic
On the variety of "Torah plus" hashkafos (RSRH, YU, CI, the Gra, RAYKook, and
by mention and link, R' Hutner):
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/tide-variants-on-a-theme

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

At 05:50 AM 2/5/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
>But that's unhelpful, to take someone else's words in the conversation and
>decide what they ought to mean. I used "Torah only" in contrast to the
>"Torah with" / "Torah and"" hashkafos of RSRH, YU or even the CI. Which
>did not require taking my words as a synonym for promoting illiteracy
>in la'az or basic math.

As a mathematician I was trained to read very carefully.   I took 
"Torah only"  at what I considered to be face value,  namely, only Torah.

Given what you have written now,  the terminology "Torah only" is, 
IMO, misleading.  I guess you mean Torah  with some secular 
studies.  So, now the question is,  "What is the extent of the study 
of secular subjects?"  for you to put someone in the Torah only camp. 
Please give some guidelines.

Again,  Rav Shimon Schwab,  ZT"L,  did not finish high school, yet he 
acquired a broad secular knowledge on his own. I was told he read 
Scientific American from cover to cover every month.  Can you really 
put him in the Torah only category?

YL

On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 06:01:12AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: As a mathematician I was trained to read very carefully.   I took
: "Torah only"  at what I considered to be face value,  namely, only
: Torah.

We programmers also do literal for a living. But you can't confuse
technical jargon with more natural language.

: Given what you have written now,  the terminology "Torah only" is,
: IMO, misleading.  I guess you mean Torah  with some secular studies.

I mean someone who believes the ideal is only Torah, and secular studies,
western culture, parnasah, what have you, are concessions to reality.

So, it's not really finding a shiur of limudei chol to declare a line at
which "Torah only" begins, but really in a sense "Torah only". Torah only
is the belief that an ehrlicher balebas who is meduyaq bemitzvos qalos
kachamuros in all four Turim of the SA (the perfect balebas) is still
inferior to a kollelnik who isn't the world's greatest masmid, but is
trying -- the not-quite-perfect kollelnik who could have been closer to
to the ideal balebas.

I once had the severe misfortune to have a levayah for a 5 year old
(lo aleinu) to attend. One of the maspidim spoke about how the child
had the zekhus of being taken after he learned Torah tzivah lanu Moshe,
Qeri'as Shema, and the Alef Beis, but before having his ears and mind
sullied by the English alphabet.

A far cry from the Gra's idea that all knowledge is one, and therefore
you can't fully understand Torah without a broader education, or
Mensch-Israel, or Torah uMadda, or Torah va'Avodah (CI, not Bnei Akiva),
or...

This child would have grown up with a secular education, but if this
maspid reflects his community's and thus his parents' attitude, it would
have ben the minimum they feel necessary to manage in this world.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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



_______________________________________________
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.)