Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 45

Thu, 19 Mar 2015

• 1. Re: Science, Halachah, and Baking Matzos (cont.) (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Question on the Megilla (Michael Poppers)
• 3. Re: archaeology and the exodus ()
• 4. Eating before davening (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Re: Eating before davening (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Re: Eating before davening (Zev Sero)
• 7. Muktze / Hachana during bein hashmashos (Sholom Simon)
• 8. Re: Pshat in Ayin Tachas Ayin (Herbert Basser)
• 9. Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Science, Halachah, and Baking Matzos (cont.) (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. Re: am haaretz (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Re: Muktze / Hachana during bein hashmashos (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Micha Berger)

On 2015-03-15 7:09 pm, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
>> The gemara already implies a distinction between leaven and leaven 
>> in
>> ways that have to do with halachic definition, not science, when it
>> comes to the type of grain. We hold that a rice dough undergoes 
>> sircha
>> and does not become chameitz. Even though it goes through the same
>> biochemistry as the 5 minim would have....

> Does rice undergo the same process, despite the lack of gluten? I 
> thought
> gluten was necessary, otherwise the bubbles just burst and the gas
> escapes and the dough stays flat.

I was just referring to what yeast does to starches, actually.

But, chameitz needn't involve dough. Beer is chameitz deOraisa. So the
"microscopic felting" effect of gluten in a dough or batter is arguably
not relevant, getting me back to the idea that chameitz is a 
halachically
defined subset of leavened food whose limits need not be along 
empirical
distinctions.

Another case of a problem with science and hil' Pesach shows up in
yesterday's AhS yomi -- OC 466:5 says that zei'as habatim isn't
machmetzes. Scientifically speaking, the condensation one finds on the
walls is distilled water (the condensation itself) mixed with whatever
dirt you have on your walls. (Who are we kidding... it's Pesach or
"erev" Pesach. What dirt? <grin>)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

In Avodah V33n44, RSM responded to RAM:
> What was Esther's problem? Why didn't she just approach the king in one
of those other places? It's not like she's even talking to him about
matters of state when she first approaches him -- she's just inviting him
to cocktails! <
In response, I'll double-down on RZS's answer as quoted by RAM.  As can be
inferred from 4 <http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3304.htm>:11, Esther is
not one of those "*avdei hamelech*" who _silently_ go about their tasks --
any "*ish*" or "*ishah*" who dares _speak_ without first being _spoken to_
had better first receive explicit royal permission.

All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150316/18df9fc2/attachment-0001.htm>

 

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

>>But the article raises a  different issue. Let's say there were 2mm Jews
entering Kenaan. Hashem tells  us we won't drive out the Kenaanim too
quickly as then we would be overrun by  animals. Could 2mm people not keep
the wild from overly encroaching on the  area held by the (chronological)
end of seifer Shofetim?<<

Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         





>>>>>>
 
I don't know about "overly" encroaching but see
 
Wiki article, "Wildlife of Israel"
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_of_Israel

 
--quote--
 
Various animal species have become extinct due to unchecked hunting under  
Ottoman rule and to a lesser extent under British Mandate rule, due to a  
non-enforcement of hunting laws. By the beginning of the 20th century, the 
White  Oryx, the Syrian Brown Bear, the Asiatic Lions, the Asiatic Cheetah, and 
the  Nile Crocodile became extinct in the region. Modern hunting laws 
prohibit  all hunting of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, except those 
considered  pests and specific animals in hunting seasons. However the packs 
of feral dogs  that are taking over the countryside are an increasing threat 
to wildlife and  domesticated animals.
 
--end quote--
 
 
 
See also: The Lion in Judaism | Jewish Virtual Library
 
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/lion_term.html
 
--quote--
 
 From the Bible it is clear that lions did not permanently inhabit  
populated areas; their haunts were the mountains of Lebanon (Song 4:8), Bashan  
(Deut. 33:22), the thickets of the Jordan (Jer. 49:19), and the desert regions  
of the Negev (Isa. 30:6). From there they invaded populated areas, 
penetrating  deeply and regularly, in particular at times of drought when wild 
animals, their  usual prey, had decreased in number. Lions also multiplied when 
the country lay  destroyed and derelict. In the neighborhood of Ere? Israel 
long- and short-maned  lions were to be found. There are evidences that there 
were lions in the country  in mishnaic and talmudic and even in crusader 
times (in the Negev). The last  lions in the Middle East were destroyed in the 
19th century.
 
--end quote--

 

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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150316/74f9bc59/attachment-0001.htm>

I will begin by letting the chevrah know why I haven't posted in the past
week, namely, because yesterday (Sunday) morning, I got up from shiv'a for
my beloved mother a"h. Without her love of all things Jewish, I certainly
would not have become what I am today.

A question arose during shiv'a that I'd like to open for discussion. First,
I'll frame the situation for you: My mother was nifteres on Motzaei
Shabbos, after I had davened maariv and said havdala, so there was no
question of having to "make up" any of those tefilos. I was an onen all day
Sunday, and Monday morning as well. Just to remind those who might not
know, an onen is exempt from all positive mitzvos, including all davening,
until after the burial, which (in this case) was in the early afternoon on
Monday.

So, there I was, returning to the home where we were beginning shiv'a. The
time limit for Shacharis had passed according to all shitos, but there was
nothing to "make up", as I had been totally patur. Some of the morning
brachos can/must still be said, but that's about it. In my experience,
aveilim in this situation do NOT daven mincha at this point, neither with a
minyan nor on their own. They simply wait for the Mincha/Maariv minyan
later on.

Here's my question: What's the heter to eat?

I'm not talking about the fear that the aveil might forget to daven mincha;
that's an entirely different halacha. I'm talking about how the Mishneh
Brurah 89:21 cites Vayikra 19:26: "Don't eat on the blood = Don't eat
before you're prayed for your own blood."

There are many details to this halacha, such as how much praying is
required to allow eating, and how much eating might be allowed prior to
that prayer. And I invite the chevreh to quote whatever poskim they like on
that issue. But I think it is safe to say that most listmembers eat rather
little prior to shacharis, and most aveilim eat on that first afternoon in
a relatively unrestricted manner. What heter is the aveil relying on? Can I
use that heter for a decent breakfast when I wake up early, and the first
shacharis minyan is 2 or 3 hours after hanetz?

This is *not* an unusual situation. Afternoon funerals happen all the time,
and unless the death occurred that same day (which is common in E"Y, but
not so much in chu"l) none of the onenim have davened anything at all that
day.

Yoreh Deah 378 is about the Seudas Havraah, and is thirteen se'ifim long.
Maybe some of the nosei keilim discuss my question, but I didn't see it in
the Mechaber/Rama.

I thought of an answer that some might suggest, but I'd like to dispense
with it right away: The fact that the onen was totally allowed to eat in
the morning is irrelevant to his post-kevurah eating. This is not Taanis
Bechorim. One can eat after Taanis Bechorim, but that's because the fast
was broken, so continued abstinence is pointless. But that only applies to
a taanis where there isn't any issur achila. But where there *is* an issur
achila it doesn't help -- and eating before praying is certainly an issur
achila.

I usually get very upset when I hear someone say, "Oh, come on, [insert
questionable activity here] can't be assur. There *must* be a heter
somewhere." But I concede that I myself said it in this case. This
situation comes up often enough that if it were assur to eat (where
"eating" is defined in whatever way you like) between the end of aninus and
the next Shmoneh Esreh, then it would be mentioned somewhere in the seforim
on Hilchos Aveilus. But I haven't seen it. Where should I look?

Akiva Miller

footnote: I wasn't exaggerating when I asked about one who wakes up early,
"and the first shacharis minyan is 2 or 3 hours after hanetz". This can
easily happen in mid-June when hanetz is around 5:00-5:30, and the first
minyan on Shabbos or Sunday is around 8:00-8:30. The early riser will say a
few brachos, and rely on kulos to get by with a cup of coffee, while the
new aveil will have a l'chatchila sandwich (or several) having said the
same brachos (or more likely even fewer). Why is this?


____________________________________________________________
Man, 63, Avoids Wrinkles
63 Yr Old Man Shares Simple DIY Skin Tightening Method He Uses At Home
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/55079d32453501d321b49st03vuc

I wrote:

> One can eat after Taanis Bechorim, but that's because the fast
> was broken, so continued abstinence is pointless. But that only
> applies to a taanis where there isn't any issur achila. But where
> there *is* an issur achila it doesn't help -- and eating before
> praying is certainly an issur achila.

I may have been mistaken on that. Perhaps eating before praying is *not* an issur achilah.

Let's compare this to two other cases:

1) An onen *does* eat food without saying a bracha rishonah. But the source
for bracha rishona is that "it is assur for a person to get hana'ah from
this world without a bracha." (Brachos 35a, near bottom)

2) The practice, as I understand it, is that if the onen chooses to eat
bread, he must wash netilas yadayim without the birkas hamitzvah, and that
this is because there's an issur against eating bread with unwashed hands.

The line between positive and negative mitzvos is not as clear as I'd like
to think it is. I wonder if there really is *not* any prohibition against
eating before davening, but that there appears to be one because the
davening is so important. If so, having already eaten while he was an onen,
he can continue eating after the kevurah even without davening. (But if so,
this heter would not apply to someone who for some reason did *not* eat
yet.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

1. What was your heter for eating in the morning, without having davened?
Although you had no chiyuv to daven, how could you eat without praying for
it first?  And how could you eat without a brocha, when we're told that this
is like stealing?     The answer is that Hashem is provides food for all
out of His goodwill, without any expectation in return.  The issue of "lo
sochlu `al hadom" and "ve'osi hishlachto" only comes into play if you have
a chiyuv to daven; the arrogance consists of throwing this obligation over
in order to satisfy your own needs.  If there's no obligation there's no
arrogance in neglecting or postponing it.

Thus also, one who wakes up before `alos hashachar is allowed to eat,
although he has not yet davened that day.  Since there is no tefilah that
he *should* have davened, it's not arrogant to eat.  The only chiyuv he
has is to say a brocha.   And this also explains why Bnei Noach may eat
without saying birchos hanehenin, and it's not considered stealing; since
they were not commanded to say brochos, there is no stealing in accepting
Hashem's gifts.

Now when does the chiyuv of the three tefilos attach?  See Eshel Avraham
(on the side of the page, not the Pri Megadim in the back) OC 71:1, and
Pischei Teshuva YD 341:18.  The chiyuv of shacharis attaches in the morning,
nd that of maariv in the evening, but that of mincha does not attach until
the *end* of the afternoon.  One *can* daven mincha earlier, but doesn't
have to.   Thus, if someone became an onen at night, after the chiyuv of
maariv attached but before he davened, and the burial is in the morning,
then he must daven shacharis twice to make up for the maariv that he missed.
Similarly if he became an onen in the morning before shacharis, and
the kevurah is in the afternoon, he must daven two minchas.  But if
he became an onen in the afternoon and the kevurah is at night, he
only davens one maariv, because he never had a chiyuv to daven mincha.

On the same principle, since your chiyuv of mincha had not yet attached,
you were entitled to eat.


2. On a whole 'nother level, the whole issur on eating before davening is
a matter of arrogance -- "ve'osi hishlachato achar gavecho" -- and thus
the poskim discuss what may be drunk before davening in terms of whether
it seems arrogant.  Does sugar add arrogance, or is it just a flavouring.
What about milk?   It would seem to me that an avel is by nature incapable
of arrogance, especially immediately after the funeral, and thus for him
even a full meal would not involve "achar gavecho".

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

 

How far does Ain Shvusim b'Bein Hashmashos go these days? Are Muktze
& Hachana allowed during bein hashmashos? 

This is particularly
relevant for the second seder night. During bein hashmashos can one set
the table, etc., and do other non-melacha preparatory work? 

This must
come up every year, and my hazy recollection is that the answer to the
above is "yes", but I've never bothered to check sources. 

So, any
sources would be greatly appreciated. 

Thanks all, 

-- Sholom 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150318/0c5c80df/attachment-0001.htm>

There is no mesorah of any derash here-- there are a bunch of proposals-- 
from amoraim ending with rav ashi's gezera shava-- he is at the end of the
amoraim-- but much earlier we hear from the tanna  r. Eliezer (I believe)
who says ayin literally (mamash)-- the stamim or saboraim adjust this as
they sometimes do when trying to alleviate the extent of an argument
(metsamtsem et hamahloqet)--" can you really think he meant to take ayin
literally!  but he meant to say we assess the value of the offender's eye
(bed'mazik shaminin) in fixing a monetary amount."  No evidence is given to
support this notion and it is last resort  bavli rhetoric to avoid
embarrassment over a real point (like the tanna's insistence on  pshat). 
the message is If you want a drasha choose anything--- there is nothing to
support saying your drasha is right or wrong-- pshat is clear. OTOH the
final psak halacha is clear too. usually the value of a derasha is in
inverse proportion to the number of dearsho
 t proposed--- like eg safek pikuah nefesh.
To my mind weak drashot undermine the value of strong drashot but might satisfy the hamonei am. 

Zvi

I have seen 2 things from Rav Elchanan Wasserman that I find hard
to accept

1) Tosafot (and Rambam) on ketubot 30 in discussing what man can choose
(bidei adam o bidei shamayim) take it for granted that a person can
choose to commit suicide. REW disagrees (kovetz haarot biuerei agadot
7-4) claims that a person can commit suicide only if it is previously
decreed from Heaven.

What happened to free choice - sounds like determinism to me)

2) REW claims there is no such thing as a person (Jew?) who doesnt believe
in G-d. They are just using it as an excuse not to keep mitzvot. R Michael
Avraham strongly disagrres based on many conversations with people who
are atheists/agnostics and think of religion as the opium of the masses.
Think of Richard Dawkings and see the "all-star" atheists at

http://superscholar.org/features/influential-atheists

-- 
Eli Turkel

2) REW claims there is no such thing as a person (Jew?) who doesnt believe
in G-d. They are just using it as an excuse not to keep mitzvot. R Michael
Avraham strongly disagrres based on many conversations with people who
are atheists/agnostics and think of religion as the opium of the masses.
==================================
IIRC R'EW was "forced" into this position (or actually IIRC that it is
natural to believe in HKB"H from a very young age) in order to answer the
question of can one be held accountable at age 13  for not believing.  One
who disagrees with R'EW would have to have some explanation.  

KT
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.

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 03:40:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: 1) Tosafot (and Rambam) on ketubot 30 in discussing what man can choose
: (bidei adam o bidei shamayim) take it for granted that a person can
: choose to commit suicide. REW disagrees (kovetz haarot biuerei agadot
: 7-4) claims that a person can commit suicide only if it is previously
: decreed from Heaven.
: 
: What happened to free choice - sounds like determinism to me)

REED famously limits free will in a different way, saying it only involves
decisions that force themselves to consciousness. As he puts it, at
the battlefront between the yh"t and yh"r. And a person who would never
consider staling someone else's watch doesn't really exercise bechirah
when he doesn't do so. Just as for someone else, an equally heated battle
may be over being honest on one's income tax forms.

And the gemara appears to limit it a third way, at least the famous shitah
that says "hakol biydei Shamayim, chutz miyir'as Shamayim". Assuming it's
a different shitah than "...chutz mitzinin upachin", that "yir'as Shamayim"
is meant specifically rather than a stand in for bechirah about everything,
even the mundane.

So I don't think REW's position is avant garde in that way.

: 2) REW claims there is no such thing as a person (Jew?) who doesnt believe
: in G-d. They are just using it as an excuse not to keep mitzvot. R Michael
: Avraham strongly disagrres based on many conversations with people who
: are atheists/agnostics and think of religion as the opium of the masses.

I understand REW as saying that the default is emunah. A person with no
negi'os would conclude there is a Borei. Li nir'eh that's the point of R'
Aqiva's emotional-level version of the Argument by Design, when he forces
the heretic to compare his own belief that a garment proves the existence
of a weaver to his belief that the universe doesn't prove the existence
of its Creator. The appeal is not on a logical or philosophical level,
it's forcing the heretic to realize what his gut response should be.

The atheist may be equally right of at least many of us, if not all, being
maaminim not because it's the conclusion reached by an uninfluenced mind,
but because we hav negi'os -- social pressure, desperation to feel that
ancestors and one's own past actions have value, etc... -- toward belief.



(In <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/argument-by-design-ver40> I argue that
the more intellectually rigorous one tries to make a religious argument,
the less convincing it actually is.

   Ver 1.0:
   
     Medrash Temurah:

     "G-d created" (Gen. 1:1): A hereic came to Rabbi Aqiva and asked,
     ...

   Ver 2.0:

   The Rambam's version of the proof in Moreh Nevuchim II invokes the
   Aristotilian notions of form and substance...

   Ver 3.0:

   This is roughly the same argument as the Rambam's, brought up to date
   with 19th century thermodynamics...

   ver 3.5

   In the 20th century science accepted the notion of the Big Bang, and
   finally realized the universe has a finite age. The challenge shifted
   from proving the universe has a finite age to proving that the origin
   shows intent.

   The entropy version of the argument can make the transition...

   ver 4.0

   However, using information theory we can raise questions about the
   existance of ordered items, from atoms to stars and solar systems to
   the evolution of life.... [Long exposition deleted]

   Which argument is most convincing? Version 4.0, based on math, many
   models of the cosmology, geology and biology of our origins, but very
   rigorous, or Rabbi Aqiva's simple appeal, using a comparison, to show
   how the point should be self-evident? The ver 1.0, being closest to
   reducing the claim to a postulate, carries for me the most appeal.Rabbi
   Aqiva gives us the tools for emunah. Building on that emunah, we can
   understand it in greater depth, subtlety and beauty using these more
   formal forms of the argument. But the formality hides the dependence on
   assumptions from which to reason, not replaces them.
)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Unlike the prior cases, mei peiros (the first part of siman 462)
> doesn't bother me on a scientific level. The halakhah is that if
> we only mix with mei peiros, the resulting dough can't become
> chameitz, but if a significant fraction of the liquid is water,
> it not only can become chameitz, we worry about it rising in
> less than 18 min.
>
> So, this doesn't bother me Even though all fruit juice contains
> H2O whether we add any to the dough or not.

About 30-40 years ago, I conducted an interesting experiment, and I suspect
the result would be similar today. At the time, I was learning hilchos
brachos, and was wondering about Pas Gamur as opposed to Pas Habaa
B'Kisnin. But it would be very simple to carry the conclusions over to
Hilchos Chametz.

Anyway, I went to a supermarket one day, and read the ingredients on every
single variety of bread, whether kosher or not, and over 95% listed water
as a main ingredient. Then I ran the same test in the cookies and cakes
section, and found that fewer than 5% listed water at all.

I suspect that when one talks about "science" in these contexts, it may be
a mistake to talk to a chemist. To a chemist, fruit juice is mostly water,
and that sort of thinking will not help you here. If you want to know why
flour and water produces something totally different than what flour and
fruit juice produces - ask a baker.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
TaxSlayer
Max your refund with TaxSlayer.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/550a28d9b3bc728d930c5st04vuc

R' Saul Newman:
> trying to analogize to today's time , looking at the prevalent
> factions then and who would be parallel to 'am haaretz' today.

R' Micha Berger:
> But when generalizing about millions of people, any one
> description is likely meaningless.

This is a topic that I've long been curious about, and I'm glad it has been
brought up here. I'll throw my own two cents in. To me, there are a couple
of things which make nowadays very different from back then:

1) We tend to see a spectrum of observance, with myriad hues and tints
along the way. Back then, it appears the halacha was much more binary:
you're either a chaver or an am haaretz, and there was no gray at all.

2) Not only that, but it seems that one's identity was common knowledge. If
I'm wrong, please point me to the sources. But if a chaver went out of
town, how did he prove his status? If I own a fruitstand, how do I insure
that the am haaretz customers don't tamei up my produce?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
TaxSlayer
Max your refund with TaxSlayer.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/550a1774d789f1774029bst04vuc

On 03/18/2015 08:59 AM, Sholom Simon via Avodah wrote:
> How far does Ain Shvusim b'Bein Hashmashos go these days?

I have never heard of such a rule.  AFAIK all shvusim *do* apply bein
hashmoshos, except for a mitzvah or something that is vitally necessary
for Shabbos.


> This is particularly relevant for the second seder night. During bein
> hashmashos can one set the table, etc., and do other non-melacha
> preparatory work?

AFAIK and have always heard and read, one may not.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

Yesterday I replied to RET:
:> 1) Tosafot (and Rambam) on ketubot 30 in discussing what man can choose
:> (bidei adam o bidei shamayim) take it for granted that a person can
:> choose to commit suicide. REW disagrees (kovetz haarot biuerei agadot
:> 7-4) claims that a person can commit suicide only if it is previously
:> decreed from Heaven.

:> What happened to free choice - sounds like determinism to me)

: REED famously limits free will in a different way, saying it only involves
: decisions that force themselves to consciousness.

I am adding now to address a new issue that came up off-list: assuming
guilt. If suicide isn't a decision, why would we blame the person who
commits it hand bury them outside the main cemetery?

In REED's explanation of limited bechirah, there aren't such problems. A
person who is blamed for a sin "decided" upon subconsciously does so
because he made himself into a kind of person whose yeitzer hatov wouldn't
even wake up when the issue arises. And if someone sins that way because
of nature or nurture (tinoq shenishba) who knows how they are judged?

But the truth is, REW's position dovetails with contemporary norms in
pesaq. Nowadays we usually assume insanity is involved in every suicide.
(Barring a Masadah situation, lo aleinu.) Which is why we no longer
bury suicides outside the main cemetery. Perhaps it's just hunting for
a tzad heter to help the aveilim through what is already a very hard
time for them. But lemasqana, we are assuming that nearly all, if not
all suicides did not involve free will.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
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.)