Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 132

Tue, 21 Nov 2017

1. Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
2. T'hay (Akiva Miller)
3. Re: T'hay (Simon Montagu)
4. Re: How Much Salt for Kashering? (Jay F. Shachter)
5. Re: T'hay (Lisa Liel)
6. Re: Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child (Micha Berger)
7. Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum (Micha Berger)
8. Re: Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One Child (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
9. Re: How Much Salt for Kashering? (Micha Berger)
10. Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy (Micha Berger)
11. Re: Torah precheit (Arie Folger)
12. Re: Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy (Harry Maryles)

Message: 1
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 08:25:21 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One

Our actions are pretty much prompted by Life's circumstances, we are mostly
provoked to react. We do [many/most] things to counter a perceived
imbalance, an injustice. Perhaps, with this in mind, we can better
understand Yitzchak, Rivkah and Eisav as they are portrayed in this week's
Sedra.

Isaac favoured Eisav, because he was "Tzayid BeFiv", Rivkah favoured YaAkov
[25:28]

We are told why Yitzchak favours Eisav but not why Rivkah favours YaAkov.

Yitzchak favours Eisav because Eisav is a "Tzayid BeFiv" lit. hunted with
his mouth. Rashi explains this as either [or both] - he deceived his father
like a hunter lying in ambush or stalking prey and catching it at a
vulnerable moment, i.e. feeding Yitchak fake news to present himself as
exceedingly Gd fearing; or, he fed Yitzchak tasty food, "Make me the tasty
food I enjoy ... so that I might bless you before I die." [27:4]

But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious
dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet
and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier]

Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought
his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even
by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his
father's love.

Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even
reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt
and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged
in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement
that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav. In
other words, "It's not the food I want, for that I could ask your mother or
you could grab an animal from our flock - it would be much quicker. No, I
want you to be of service to me. Knowing that you have hunted to provide
for me makes me happy and I enjoy the food more."

Eisav knew that his mother was capable of and willing to provide her
husband with all the tasty food he could stomach. He got the message that
it was not food that Yitzchak wanted. Yitzchak was reaching out to Eisav,
knowing how desperately Eisav sought his approval. Eisav learned how to
cook in order to express his love. He even deceived Yitchak, painting
himself as the Gd fearing son in order to win his father's approval.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171119/e22d7798/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Akiva Miller
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 22:23:18 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] T'hay


There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this
word Hebrew or Aramaic?

From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something
very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct?

If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is
still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same
thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead?
This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly
be true if t'hay is Aramaic.

The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a
surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are
obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word
in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for
example), but this is generally done because there is no native word
with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't
imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases:

Hamapil: "us'hay mitasi shleima l'fanecha"

Birkas Hamazon, near the end: "zechus shet'hay l'mishmeres shalom"

Birkas Hamazon on Shabbos: "shelo t'hay tzara"

Birkas Hachodesh: "chayim shet'hay banu ahavas torah"

Avinu Malkenu: "t'hay hashaah hazos"

Yizkor: "bis'char zeh t'hay nafsho"

Yom Kippur Musaf, the Kohen Gadol's tefila: "shet'hay hashana hazos"

Kel Malay Rachamim: "b'gan eden t'hay menuchaso"

(I have omitted parts of the siddur that are taken from the Mishna
(such as Bameh Madlikin and Pitum Haketores) because it is the nature
of the Mishna to mix Hebrew and Aramaic, so use of the word "t'hay"
isn't a glaring exception the way it is in the rest of the siddur.
Also, I note that my examples were all taken from Nusach Ashkenaz;
other nuschaos may have more or fewer instances of this word.)

Thank you,
Akiva Miller

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Simon Montagu
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:38:38 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] T'hay


On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

> There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this
> word Hebrew or Aramaic?
>

Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi.


>
> From context and sound, I have always presumed that it means something
> very similar to "yihyeh". Is that correct?
>
> If they are indeed similar in meaning, then I imgine that they is
> still some slight shade of difference. If they meant the exact same
> thing, wouldn't authors use the more common word (yihyeh) instead?
> This would be the case even if t'hay is Hebrew, and it would certainly
> be true if t'hay is Aramaic.
>
> The reason I'm asking these questions is because I have found a
> surprising number of paragraphs in my siddur, where all the words are
> obviously Hebrew, except for this one word. Including a foreign word
> in a text is not unheard of (there's a Latin word in Nachem, for
> example), but this is generally done because there is no native word
> with the precise meaning that the author is aiming for. And I can't
> imagine why "yihyeh" doesn't work in these cases:


(At any rate it would be "tihyeh" in the cases you quote, which are all in
the feminine)

In my siddur (Singer's) all the examples you give are "tehi" with a yud,
which is Biblical Hebrew, as in "Tehi ala benotenu" in last week's parasha
(Bereshit 26:28).

The difference between yihyeh/yehi and tihyeh/tehi is that the first is
future and the second is jussive (though the future can be used in a
jussive sense).

I assume the form with alef is Rabbinic Hebrew. How it comes to be used in
the siddur, or in which nushaot exactly, I don't know.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171120/6ddf2207/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Jay F. Shachter
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:12:52 +0000 (WET)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering?



> 
> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed.
>

No, it does not.  This is true only if you are going to cook the meat
before eating it.


                        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"

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Lisa Liel
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:02:11 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] T'hay

I'm not sure.? We have "yehei ra'ava kadamach" in Brich Shmei d'Marei 
Alma, which is definitely Aramaic.? The yehei is the same as tehei.

I think what's happening here is that there's a certain amount of 
bleed-over between Hebrew and Aramaic.? In addition, there were 
different dialects of Aramaic in Eretz Yisrael and Bavel.? So while 
tehevei may be the correct Aramaic, tehei may be as well.

Lisa

On 11/20/2017 10:38 AM, Simon Montagu via Avodah wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Akiva Miller via Avodah 
> <avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
>
>     There is a word spelled tav-heh-aleph, pronounced "t'hay". Is this
>     word Hebrew or Aramaic?
>
>
> Hebrew. I believe the Aramaic equivalent would be tehevi.
>

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 13:24:50 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One


On Sun, Nov 19, 2017 at 08:25:21AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: But Eisav was not a better cook than Rivkah - "she made him a delicious
: dish just as he liked" [27:14] [unless she had him on a healthy food diet
: and Eisav was Yitzchak's secret steak supplier]

Or the hunter was usually the one who prepared the game, whereas Rivqa
tended to be cooking the animals they farmed.

...
: Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even
: reminded Eisav to take his hunting weapons when he instructs him to hunt
: and prepare food before he blesses him - Yitzchak wants Eisav to be engaged
: in the hunting and preparation of the food, because it is this engagement
: that is their link and best encapsulates his approval of his son Eisav...

Perhaps this is the whole point of the Torah's not saying why Rivqa
preferred Yaaqov. Yitzchaq's additional love of Esav was teluyah bedavar,
and that fact impacted Eisav's choices. Rivqa love Yaaqov, full stop,
not for some reason.


There is also an idea I heard from RYBS and often utilized in Gush
circles that had things turned out more positively, Eisav would
have been the physical arm of the same project as Yaaqv's Torah. Eisav's
children would have supported and protected Yaaqov's.

According to the Qedushas Levi's version of this idea, Yitzchaq knew
Eisav had failings, but felt that the person who was supposed to go out
into the real world was bound to be the tzadiq who "falls 7 times and
arises" (to quote Shelomo haMelekh).

What Yaaqov missed was the nevu'ah "ushnei le'umim mimei'ayikh
yipareidu". He thought that the ideal plan, Esav and Yaaqov together
without such pirud, was still how history was going to play out.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 14:11:25 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Hutrah and Dechuyah in Yibum


The topic of EhE 165 is whether yibum or chalitzah is the preferred
choice. The Rambam and Rif side with yibum (in cases when yibum is in
the almanah's best interest), as per the mishnah rishonah and possibly
repeated by the chakhamim in the gemara (Yevamos 39b). Whereas R' Tam, R'
Chananel & the Smag hold like Abba Shaul, that since it's too likely the
yavam has other things than reestablishing his brother's bayis in mind,
chalitzah is the better choice, bizman hazeh.

The AhS has an interesting take. First, in se'if 5, he rules out the
issue being mitzvos tzerikhos kavanah. If AS gave preference to chalitzah
because yibum requires kavanah, then it would be the Rambam and the
Rif -- the rishonim who more often hold mitzvos tzerichos kavanah --
who would be siding with him.

The AhS (se'if 6) proposes that the machloqes is huterah vs dechuyah.
If yibum is a matir for eishes ach, there is no problem doing the mitzvah
of yibum even if the yavam's interest is in his new wife solely for her
own qualities. However, if it is only docheh eishes ach, then any other
kavanah for performing yibum is desire for a sin, and thus should be
avoided by choosing chalitzah. And that this is the norm today.

I noticed that happens to parallel who holds piquach nefesh is matir
melekhes Shabbos vs who holds it is docheh it. There too Sepharadi
rishonim don't feel a need to minimize melakhah (huterah), whereas the
Ashk rishonim try to (because it's only dechuyah).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 09:35:03 +1100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Sedra Toldos - Balance, When Parents Favour One

I prefer not to be so speculative about the motivations,
Eisav had failings, but Yitzchak felt that the person who was supposed to
go out into the real world,
But what I proposed does not exclude that possibility. Although, giving the
blessings to someone with known failings seems unlikely. Depends I suppose
on how extensive those failings are or how well they were known to
Yitzchak.
Or it might just be that he was the Bechor, HKBH's choice. Should Yitzchak
challenge HKBH?

I wrote -
Yitzchak understood, he encouraged Eisav to hunt and cook for him. He even
reminded Eisav ....
Eisav loved his father and he loved hunting [25:27]. He desperately sought
his father's approval. He pursued this as he best knew, by hunting and even
by lying. We might even say that he felt as though he was hunting for his
father's love.

Best,

M
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171121/72effed9/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:10:27 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] How Much Salt for Kashering?


On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 01:12:52PM +0000, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote:
:> Kosher meat must have all traces of blood removed.

Dam here means blood in the circulatory system. Not blood within tissue.
Problem with translations; there often isn't a 1:1. Particularly in
cases of terms of art, like "dam" in this context.

: No, it does not.  This is true only if you are going to cook the meat
: before eating it.

SA YD 27:2 does say you don't need salting. (See limitations in 3-4.)

But... this is because all the dam can be removed by removing the veins,
and simple rinsing. So, in the same sense that cooked meat needs melichah
to remove all traces of dam, so too does raw "[k]osher meat must have
all traces of [dam] removed."

Seems 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2017 16:37:22 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy

My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy
is a contradiction of terms.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/post-modern-orthodoxy>

-micha

Post-Modern Orthodoxy
micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017

Modern Orthodoxy is based on an integration of Orthodoxy with life
in the modern world. However, with R' JB Soloveitchik's passing, the
movement was left without a luminary who analyzes and discusses matters
of worldview. Consequently, Modern Orthodoxy's thought is that of the
mid 20th century, when Neo-Kantian and Existential answers addressed
the kinds of religious questions people on the street were confronting.

And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to
articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy.

This is why there was much discussion in some Modern Orthodox circles
with the publication of a selection of R' Shimon Gershon Rosenburg --
"Rav Shagar"`s -- essays in English. "Faith Shattered and Restored:
Judaism in the Postmodern Age", edited by Rabbi Dr. Zohar Maor, was
published by Maggid Books this past June.

Dr. Alan Brill, on his blog, carried numerous translations of R' Shagar
since, as well as analysis of his thought. In particular, see this post
of notes that Dr Brill compiled while teaching R' Shagar's thought,
"Rav Shagar: To be connected to Eyn -- Living in a Postmodern World".
<https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/rav-shagar-to-be-connected-to-eyn-living-in-a-postmodern-world>

Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical
man of faith, deconstructed".
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-paradoxical-man-of-faith-deconstructed>

And recently, R Gil Perl, an alumnus of Yeshivat Har Etzion ("Gush")
who became a student of Rav Shagar, wrote an essay about why R' Shagar's
thought spoke to him in a way that the teachings of R' Aharon Lichtenstein
of Gush couldn't in the long run. See "Postmodern Orthodoxy: Giving
Voice to a New Generation".
<http://PostmodernOrthodoxy:GivingVoicetoaNewGeneration>

To give you an idea of R Shagar's thought, he likens Deconstructionism
to Sheviras haKeilim -- the Qabbalistic idea that Creation involved the
breaking of vessels, and the post-modern's inability to consider an idea
to be objectively true. He builds a case for the condition of having
difficulty with belief and therefore believing in nothing and turns
it into a Ism of believing in Nothing. Identifying that lower-case-n
nothing with the Ayin, the capital-N Nothingness from which G-d made
Yeish, something (indeed, everything).

Me, I think it doesn't work.

Post-Modernism is a confusion of the subjectivity of my justification
for knowing something with the subjectivity of the known. Meaning, I
can know objective truths for entirely personal and subjective reasons.
I can be convinced of halakhah because of my personal experience of
the beauty of Shabbos. Not from my liking Shabbos; from that about the
Shabbos experience I find beautiful, likable, meaningful, and True. I
know that hilkhos Shabbos as we have them today really did objectively
speaking come from the Creator by way of my personal experience of
Shabbos. Objective truth, subjective justification.

In contrast, in Post-Modern thought, since I have no guarantee of
objectively proving anything to anyone else, the notion of objective
truth is entirely denied. There isn't "the truth" as much a "his truth"
or "her truth", narratives people and societies construct for themselves.

And this touches everything on the college campus from religious beliefs
to defending the Palestinian because we have our narrative and they
have theirs. (There is room for every narrative but those that exclude
other narratives.) In the real world outside those ivory towers, though,
you won't find too many people with Post-Modern notions of science,
declaring (eg) that math or physics are merely social constructs. But
certainly outside the realm of the scientifically provable Post-Modern
thinking has become part of the zeitgeist.

My problem with "Postmodern Orthodoxy" is that Post-Modernism (as
I just described it) is inherently incompatible with the notion of a
lower-case-o orthodoxy, including our case, capital-O Orthodox Judaism.
I often said on Facebook that one reason why more are going OTD in this
generation than in mine is that Post-Modernism has become part of the
common culture. It is impossible to maintain any orthodoxy, including O,
if one believes that there are no objective truths, or even that there
is nothing one could ever assert as objectively true.

There is a profound difference between believing there is an absolute
truth that I personally do not fully know or understand -- which R' Gil
Perl presented as R' Lichtenstein's position, and believing that all
truths are human conditioned. Between a personal nothing and an ideal
of Nothingness. And yet, R Shagar says just that. To repeat a quote of
Rav Shagar used in R Perl's article, "All truths may be the product of
human conditioning, but such conditioning constitutes the medium through
which the divine manifests in the world."

Rav Shagar's position strikes me as internally inconsistent. For
example, to This presupposes that there is a Divine which is manifest
in the world, and any claim that says otherwise would defy that Truth.
So, there is at least that one central Truth that is necessarily true,
regardless of human conditioning.

The entire notion of considering any of the Articles of Faith human
conditioned, true only from our perspective, enters the heretical.
Another example, R Shagar's Post-Modern Orthodox Jew will speak of
revelation "though he knows there are varying and conflicting revelations,
the contradictions do not paralyze him." If one does not believe the
revelation via Moshe and the revelation of the Torah are unique, are
they not koferim baTorah according to the Rambam? How many rabbanim would
allow you to use the wine of someone who believes that the only reason to
embrace the Torah's message is because it's "the faith of our fathers"
(as R' Shagar describes it) and not different in kind than the message
of the New Testament or the Qur'an?

There are two ways we can speak of the ideal human: we can describe life
on the mountain peak, the person who has perfect generosity, perfect
patience, perfect faith, a perfect relationship with G-d and other people,
etc... But we know that actualize perfection is unachievable for anyone
bug G-d. So, the true ideal human is one constantly working toward having
those perfect relationships, trying their best, constantly growing. But
they are two different things -- the ideal in the sense of the goal to
strive for, and the ideal of being a striver.

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Arie Folger
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 10:28:58 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah precheit


A little postscript to my statement, that regarding aliens we might one day
meet, that we cold not accept any competing revelation, only one that is of
a kind of Noachide revelation, subordinate to ours, well...

Let me admit that in stating that, I was displaying a human bias: I
unreasonably assumed that aliens would be a kind of otherworldly humans.
However, insofar as they are radically different species (which would be
likely), then I see no problem of them having their own revelation and
their own 'am hanivchar, *as* *long* *as* *their* *revelation* *doesn't*
*contradict* *ours*, i.e. we could not accept a revelation that claims that
'avoda zara is muttar, that murder is muttar or that assumes the existence
of several deities.

-- 
Arie Folger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171121/92bed274/attachment-0001.html>

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Harry Maryles
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:30:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd [Aspaqlaria]: Post-Modern Orthodoxy

I read Gil Perl's article and I don't understand why the idea of? RAL's not
knowing or being able to know but nonetheless believing doesn't speak to
him. I find all the talk about there being no objective truth to be
irrelevant. Truth goes beyond provable fact. It even goes beyond the
contradictions to belief by newly discovered scientific truths which by
definition are subject to change with new discoveries.
In the Lonely Man of Faith, RYBS explains that there are no cognitive
categories in which the total commitment of the man of faith could be
spelled out. The commitment is rooted not in one dimension, such as the
rational one, but in the whole personality of the man of faith. The whole
human being; the rational as well as the non-rational is committed to God.
Hence the magnitude of commitment is beyond the comprehension of the logos
and the ethos. The intellect does not chart the course of the man of faith.
It is a function not only of the logic of the mind. It is also a function
of the logic of the heart. An apriori awareness that becomes an axiom - a
conclusion that cannot rely on solely rational considerations.?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

On Monday, November 20, 2017, 7:25:20 PM CST, Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:

My most recent blog post, in which I argue that Post-Modern Orthodoxy
is a contradiction of terms.
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/post-modern-orthodoxy>

-micha

Post-Modern Orthodoxy
micha - Published Mon, Nov 20, 2017

And so, the argument is today, that there is a need for someone to
articulate a Post-Modern Orthodoxy.

Times of Israel had an interview with R/Dr Maor, "Israel's paradoxical
man of faith, deconstructed".
<http://www.timesofisrael.com/israels-paradoxical-man-of-faith-deconstructed>

Me, I think it doesn't work.

We need to learn to separate these notions. Ayin is part of the
ideology. A crisis of faith, those times of nothingness, is part of the
reach to internalize that ideology. The ideal life for most of us will
be struggling with the ideology; but once one makes that struggle part
of the ideology itself, I fear one crossed the line.
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171121/5db8d8ea/attachment.html>

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

_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)

< Previous

Next >