Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 13

Thu, 18 Oct 2007

• 1. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: mitzvat aseh (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: tower of bavel (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: When was the Bris Bein Habesarim? (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Tower of Bavel (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Hebrews/Israelites/Bnei Yisroel - Jews (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: RSRH and tum'ah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 9. Re: Religion and Falsifiability (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. : Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah - Zohar on Netilas Yadyaim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 11. Re: May Kohanim visit the Rebbe's Ohel by means of a "box"? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: Minhag Yisroel Mor on Rav Shachter and Masorah (Richard Wolpoe)

Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
>  [...]

> And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to 
> visit the Rebb's Ohel?

Why on earth not?   What issur are they doing?

>    1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?

What halacha are they changing?

>    2. Is it a valid Chiddush?

What is the chiddush?

>    3. Is this a Reform C"V

Ch"v, how can you even suggest such a thing?

>    4. iss it normative as per Talmud but not OK since it was never done
>       before?***
Who says it was never done?  I don't know and nor do you.

>    5. Is it an evolution of facts on the gorund?  IOW just as there USED
>       to be a reshus harrabim in the Time of the Gmara but there aren't
>       any more [as per many poskim]  therefore we have different norms
>       re:  Hotza'ah?  

Huh?

What I do know is that this is a practise done for more than half a
century, by thousands of yere'im ush'leimim, by the psak and consent of
hundreds of rabbonim and ge'onei olam, including the LR, and that it
appears to be in full compliance with the Shulchan Aruch and every
other source of halacha.  It seems to me that before one asks whether
they may do this one would need to find *some* source against it,
*some* reason why it might be assur, rather than a mere "I've never
heard of it".  ISTM that the answer to "lo ra'inu" is "now you have
seen it, and are richer for the experience".

As for the quote from RHS, I'm not sure of its relevance here, since
no halacha seems to be changing.  I don't see why RHS would have any
problem with this practise, had he been asked.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                      	                          - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:05 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
> : visit
> : the Rebb's Ohel?
> :    1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?
> 
> First, L isn't the first to do it.
> 
> Second, it's ridiculous to project such a blatantly Brisker model of
> halakhah onto L. Of course it won't jibe. Why would you expect it to?

Actually, B and L are close enough in practise and attitude that it
is reasonable to ask such a question from one on the other.  But in
this case I don't see why B would have a problem with it.

Both B and L probably had eruvin, and people carried their keys in
their pockets.  When Bers and Lers moved to the big cities, where they
didn't like the eruvin that they found there, at some point they started
wearing key-belts.  Was that a "chiddush" just because they hadn't done
it before?  Does RHS not wear a key-belt because his elter-elter-zaide
lived in an eruv which was kosher lechol-hade'ot and didn't need one?
I don't see it.  And I don't see the difference between the key-belt
and the ohel-box.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Again if one kills an animal to eat it must be done by schechita. It is similar
to tzizit and not to yishuv EY.
Almost all mitzvot aseh kiyumit are similar to tzizit that they need
to be done once
the action is done - the kiyumit is on the action one doesnt have to
eat meat or wear
a cloth with 4 corners. Once that is done the mitzvah is obligatory.

I have thought about korbanot nedavah and they possibly fit in.

Eli Turkel

On 10/18/07, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/17/07, Eli Turkel <eliturkel@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .
> >
> > Does anyone know of other mtzvot Aseh which are completely voluntary?
> >
> > kol tuv
> >
> > --
> > Eli Turkel
> >
>
> Shechitas Hullin [yo udont' have to eat meat].
> KorBan Nedavos
> There are probably a lot of them
>
>
> --
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
> Please Visit:
> http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/


-- 
Eli Turkel

Ilana Sober wrote:

> This means that Peleg lived from 101 years post flood until 340 years
> post flood.
> Therefore, the Midrash posits that Migdal Bavel occurred at the very
> end of Peleg's life. One of these days I should look it up and figure
> out why. But the pshat of chumash doesn't give any indication when in
> his life it happened - it could have been a few hundred years earlier.


See Rashi Ber 10:25


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Marty Bluke wrote:
> This means that Lech Lecha had to be 5 years
> after the Bris Bein Habesarim. Tosafos in Shabbos 10b makes this
> calculation and says this is what happened. Avraham came to EY when he
> was 70

Or earlier.  He may have lived there for a long time.  After all, his
family had set out for Cenaan many years earlier; most of the family
stopped in Charan, but apparently after a while Avram continued the
original trip, lived in Cenaan for an unspecified period, and then went
back to live with his family.  At the time of Lech Lecha he had only
recently returned home ("where the heart is") and suddenly Hashem tells
him to leave again.  That's a test.  And maybe that's why He specified
"beit avicha".

This would also add to the understanding of why He didn't specify where
Avram was to go.  Had He told him to go back to Cenaan, it wouldn't
have seemed like such a hardship, since he'd already lived there for a
while and knew the country, had contacts, etc.  So not specifying made
it more of a test.


> and went through the Bris Bein Habesarim, and then he returned
> to Charan for 5 years until Hashem told him Lech Lecha.

Yes, the break appears to be at Shishi.   Which is probably why whoever
divided the sidrot into aliyot put a break there.  But it's in the middle
of a parsha, which means Hashem didn't even put a paragraph break to
indicate that we're going back in time 6 years.  That does seem strange.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

The Gemara in Shabbos 10b says that at the time of Lot's escape, S'dom was
52 years old and Tzoar was 51. Rashi there states the following:
"Sdom preceded (Tzoar) by one year), as it explains that Sdom was 52,
because you must say that the builders of the tower were in Shinar, and
there was no population in the world except in that Bik'ah, as it writes
"And the entire Land was one language.... and it was when they travelled
from the east... and from there they dispersed to other places when they
were scattered and they built themselves cities; and from the time they were
dispersed until Sdom was destroyed it is but 52 years, for at the end of the
days of Peleg is when the dispersion happened, as it says in Seder Olam...
calculate the years of Peleg and it comes out that the year he died in was
Avraham's 48th year, and when Sdom was destroyed that was the 99th year of
Avraham..."

(Hope this adds something)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/d5f2dd7b/attachment.htm 

On Thu, October 18, 2007 7:55 am, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' MB:
:> The name Shneiur originated from Signor. However, Rav Aharon Kotler
:> named his son for the fact that he was born Friday evening, when
:> "shenei or" should be lit. So, while the names is from "Signor", my
:> nephew in Lakewood was still named for the derashah of "two lights".

: Ayin Yam Shel Shlomo, Gittin, 4:26, and Ayin Sheim Hagedolim,
: Maareches Gedolim, Shin, Kuntres Acharon.

Assuming I owned a Sheim Gedolim.

In any case, I would insist that they are derashos. IOW, folk
etymologies that added depth to and longevity to the name. Just moving
my point up in the centuries without changing its substance.

Here's the story, as I read it:

Signor Salamon De Acosta (surname might be misremembered) of Genoa,
who had letters of introduction written for him to the business
community in Ashkenaz. By the time he arrived, people unused to
reading such things in Hebrew lettering turned the sin into a shin,
and the n-sheva nach-yud into nun-teirei-malei. And thus, the first
"Shneiur Zalman".

Juanita became Yenta at about the same time. And Esperanza ->
Shprintza. And here's the really weird: Yentle is from Gentile (with
the long /E/, meaning "gentle", not "nachri" -- although the fact that
nachriim called themselves "gentile" is no coincidence...)

Source: Dr Avshalom Carr, on Israeli radio, heard by someone on an
electronic forum and posted around 15 years back. (Don't remember
where.)

One of the Baalei Tosafos's father was named Shneiur. Temura 18a
"afilu" -- R' Yitzchaq bar Shneiur.


And I think I've taken the topic well into Areivim territory, but not
sure enough to actually redirect this email.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

On 10/18/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:58 pm, Michael Poppers wrote:
> :
> But along the way I relate "bayom hazeh yakhapeir aleikhem" and
> "letaheir eskhem" -- kaparah/kapores/covering the process that is the
> product of our living in bodies and taharah/purity from the effects of
> that taavah on our bekhirah chafshi.
>
> But halakhic taharah is that which can create that mental state. Not
> the mental state itself. It's possible to get mussar-tum'ah without
> being halachically tamei, and it's possible to unknowingly touch a
> meis and thereby be halakhah-tum'ah without any mussar-tum'ah. It
> would seem that the halakhos of tum'ah either define a related
> metaphysical state that isn't this cognitive one (mussar-tum'ah), or
> are "merely" aimed at reducing the probability of the cognitive
> acting-like-the-animal-I-am state by requiring and prohibiting certain
> situations.
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha


Tangentially:
Years ago I saw something line the following on a web-based  parsha list.

> Kapparah and Kopher are functions of COVERING. [last week's sidra
> v'chafarta -you shall insulate..] When I get a Kapparah for an aveira it is
> a form of PROTECTION or INSULATION from the damage of that aveira.  It's
> similar to being exposed to a poison and getting an antidote. While Teshuva
> effects an erasure of the avira completely.
>

Lemashal, if one puts on 50 lbs. and his cholesterol goes up, and then he
takes Lipitor, that is analogous to Kappara or PKopher. The symptoms of the
problem will be addressed. But when he lose the 50 lb.s he has affected
Teshuva. So Kapparah is important until all 50 lb.s are lost [toleh].
Summary

   1. Kapparah- short term palliative
   2. Teshuva - long term cure

Similarly with tum'ah.. One can insulate oneself from tum'ah and its
ill-effectts. or be metaheir oneslf completely





-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/beb8dada/attachment.html 

On 10/18/07, kennethgmiller@juno.com <kennethgmiller@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> A certain Rebbe (I forgot who) was asked how his emunah could be so
> strong. The man asked him, "Don't you ever have any questions?"
>
> The rebbe answered, "Of course I have questions! Everyone has questions!
> But I never ask them. I'm afraid that if I ask the questions, they'll invite
> me Upstairs to tell me the answers. I'm not in such a rush. Someday they'll
> tell me the answers. I can wait, thank you."
>
> Akiva Miller


But I was told
Mirshatarbed NISHt fu na kasah
We do NOT die from a question!



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/82b0a7ea/attachment.htm 

On 10/18/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> Not at all. Halakhah isn't that someone MUST wait. The gemara has no
> requirement, leaving the time between waking up and davening an open
> period in which washing is required. The Zohar gives a reason why it
> should be ASAP. Therefore, it's a hanhagah atop the gemara, not
> overturning it.
>
> Frankly, I don't get the gemara anyway. But this is tangential -- what
> about zerizim maqdimin or being prepared for the unexpected? Wouldn't
> they be enough to motivate washing as early as possible regardless of
> the tum'ah issue?
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha


The Gemara makes it normative to wake up first thing in the morning and say
a number of brachos BEFORE netilas Yadyaim. The very FIRISTt Bracha upon
awakening is EloKai Neshama.  This has been deferred until later bcause of
concerns of Tum'as Yadyayim  that are not in the Gmara.  And we sub Modeh
ani which is an inncocuous substitute.  So the  Halachah has defintely
morphed, Whether it was al pi zohar or al pi the Gmara in Shabbos about Bas
Tihah - either way a  "mystical" aspect  over-rode the straight read of the
Talmud.

Of course this seems to clash with the Gra's point about paskening like
straight reads in the Gmara. Certainly the Rambam followed this G'mara as
written and required ZERO netillas Yadyayim on YK andn IIRC  Tsiha b'av,
too.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/6911caf6/attachment.html 

On 10/18/07, Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>
> Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > Rav / Herschel Schachter states:  /
> >  [...]
>
> > And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
> > visit the Rebb's Ohel?
>
> Why on earth not?   What issur are they doing?
>
> >    1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?
>
> What halacha are they changing?
>
> >    2. Is it a valid Chiddush?
>
> What is the chiddush?
>
> >    3. Is this a Reform C"V
>
> Ch"v, how can you even suggest such a thing?
>
> >    4. iss it normative as per Talmud but not OK since it was never done
> >       before?***
> Who says it was never done?  I don't know and nor do you.
>
> >    5. Is it an evolution of facts on the gorund?  IOW just as there USED
> >       to be a reshus harrabim in the Time of the Gmara but there aren't
> >       any more [as per many poskim]  therefore we have different norms
> >       re:  Hotza'ah?
>
> Huh?
>
> What I do know is that this is a practise done for more than half a
> century, by thousands of yere'im ush'leimim, by the psak and consent of
> hundreds of rabbonim and ge'onei olam, including the LR, and that it
> appears to be in full compliance with the Shulchan Aruch and every
> other source of halacha.  It seems to me that before one asks whether
> they may do this one would need to find *some* source against it,
> *some* reason why it might be assur, rather than a mere "I've never
> heard of it".  ISTM that the answer to "lo ra'inu" is "now you have
> seen it, and are richer for the experience".
>
> As for the quote from RHS, I'm not sure of its relevance here, since
> no halacha seems to be changing.  I don't see why RHS would have any
> problem with this practise, had he been asked.
>
> --
> Zev Sero
>

Huh?
Of course this impacts Halacha! if the box is a kosher workaround for Tum'ah
- Then Kohanim should be EXPECTED to vist kever Avos.  It's a  slam dunk
that if they did not avail of themslves of this heter that the yhave bee
nremiss all along in Minahg Yisrael to visit kever Avos on Yahrtzeit, Tisha
b'av ,  ellul etc.!

[there is a law - anything permitted becomes required over time...]

The fact that Kohanim have avoided cemeteriess for centurisd tells you
thateither

   1. We are not mechadesh a practice to get around a Halacha
   2. OR the fact taht no one availed themselves earlier proves NOTHING
   which is a direct contradiction to RHS thesis

It seems obvious you MSUT reject RHS thesis that Lo Ra'inu is a raya a
because frum Jews have taken up this wrokaround in the last few decades in
order to avail themselves of something NOT EXPOLCITLY forbidden by Halachah

RHS is saying if generations have NOT availed themselves it implies that
they SHOULD not avail themselves!


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/f796cec2/attachment.htm 

On 10/18/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:16 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : On 10/17/07, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com> wrote:
> :> Rav Herschel Schachter states:
> [<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2003/rsch_masorah.html> -mi]
> :> . A matter of *halacha* which has been accepted for centuries can
> :> not be overturned, unless one can demonstrate that there simply was
> :> an error involved from the very outset.
> : Given:
> :
> :    1. Rif Rambam paskened 2 matzos at the Seder as per simple read of
> : the    Talmud.
>
> More than that... They held that 3 matzos was soseir the whole concept
> of lekhem oni. How is it oni to have MORE than on other holidays?
>
> And so yes -- the Gra concluded that that every one else was wrong.
>
> This has huge implications WRT the Gra's beliefs in eilu va'eilu.
> Every pesaq he overturned, the Gra implicitly said that the one that
> drove the minhag wasn't even a "va'eilu".


It is far more ranging simply eilu v'eilu.  When Rabbi Eliezer argued
against the majority regarding kira it was in HIS generation.  What the GRA
in effect does can easily be contrued as zilusa debei Dina, The BY
considered both options and paskened like Minhag Yisrael.  The Gra HAD the
option to say the BY shouldn't have gone there becasue the Gmara says
otherwise.  Fine.  He can DISAGREE with BY. But by altering a p'sak founded
on universal minhag now you can posit that  EVERY p'sak can be called into
question!  If the GRA is greater than the BY; and he questions the BY, so
now every p'sak in Shulchan Aruch is suspect as flawed!   ein ledavar sof.
You might as wel las toos out all hibburim and do like the Rosh, pasken form
the G'mara directly.



On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:05 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : And now by extension may kohanim use an innovation such as a box to
> : visit
> : the Rebb's Ohel?
> :    1. Does that constitute a Shinuy of Halachah?
>
> First, L isn't the first to do it.


and who was/is?

Second, it's ridiculous to project such a blatantly Brisker model of
> halakhah onto L. Of course it won't jibe. Why would you expect it to?


I don't get this one. What's Brisk go to do with it?

On Wed, October 17, 2007 11:18 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> :> Nevertheless, we still assume that a centuries-old *halachic*
> :> position,
> :> accepted and observed universally by all of *Klal Yisroel*, does not
> :> lend
> :> itself to reversal. The tradition makes room for, and even
> :> encourages, *
> :> chiddush*, but not for *shinui* (see Nefesh Harav pg. 64). According
> :> to
> :> Rambam, the binding force of the Talmud is precisely due to the fact
> :> that it
> :> was universally accepted by all of *Klal Yisroel*.
>
> : #1  Arvis
> : OK one day Arivs is a reshus.  People do it.  Later it becomes a
> : Minhag Yisroel.
>
> :    1. At what time does it become normative
>
> When people do it.


But we see fro mMatza that "PEOPLE DOING IT" is not in itself normative.
The Gmar asays Rehus. But people doing it they create a Hiyyuv. This is not
congruent with the G'mara. If Minhag  can  over-ride halachah then fine.
Then the GRA should have stuck with 3 matzos. Since he DID  NOT, then text
supercedes Minhag and  there is  NO hova, but reverts to the textual reshus.
You cannot have it both ways unless you posti no systme accept what the
posiek "FEELS LIKE' on any given issue.

To quote a brilliant Friend of mine:

Hineh Hahalach beyad haposeik -
> Birtzoso mechazek uvitrtzoso mochek!
>



:
>
> : #2 Birkas Kohanim
> : OK there are at least 3 positions on saying Birksa kohanim
> :    1. Every Day
> :    2. Every Yom Tov
> :    3. Every Yom Tov but NO on Shabbos
> ...
> : re: #3 - deapite it being a minhag in manycongregations, RYBS has
> : insisted that it is a minhag ta'us and MSUT be changed....
>
> And the Gra, keshitaso, insisted that #2 is also ta'us, and his
> talmidim brought that ruling to EY.


Waht dose that say about Minhag Ashkenaz is MA a Shinuy?  is restoring daily
bircahs kohaim shinuy?

The question is whether "not like the gemara" is sufficient to declare
> a minhag beta'us. The Gra was very textual. And contrary to RHS's
> theory of chiddush and shinnui, was willing to do some Machasheves
> Yisrael to make sure he had authoritative texts -- this was critical
> since he relied on them so heavily! (As opposed to RYBS, who insisted
> on using a "real Rambam" even when first given a Frankel one.)


They had Frankel Rambam's In the days of the Rav?

Others have higher thresholds, acknowledging non-textual traditions
> (or those of other, perhaps lost, texts) that date back to Chazal. Or,
> requiring an actual prohibition being violated rather than simply
> following something the gemara considered inferior.


I agree on this

The MB applies the Gra's reasoning, with the added feature of
> including the rishonim and early acharonim as authoritative texts. The
> AhS championed the higher threshold before ammending minhag (in their
> case, minhag Litta).


The Darchie Moshe [I have the citation somewhere] elimnated a minhag based
upon research and concensus  Later on he found a source for teh abolished
Minhag and He had harata and did Teshuva And  from then on hew was most
careful about  abolosihing questionable minhaggim.   I have rarely found a
minhag that has been questioned by GRA, RYBS, MB etc. that did not have SOME
justification, if you looked hard enough. See the wonderful book on this
called Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu who discusses BOTH sides of nearly every
major controversial Minhag re: the Holidays!



Which means that in RHS-speak, the AhS would say that the MB made
> shinuyim.


I would agree. I think based upon RHS criteria so did RMF at times.


> On Wed, October 17, 2007 10:41 pm, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : On 10/17/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> :> On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 09:42:41PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> :> Mah inyan shemittah eitzel har Sinai? We're talking about whether
> :> tum'ah is inherently bad, and you ask about the Gra's authority to
> :> pasqen differently than accepted norm....
>
> : You were showing how the advent Zohar overturned normative Talmudic
> : Halachah...
>
> Not at all. Halakhah isn't that someone MUST wait. The gemara has no
> requirement, leaving the time between waking up and davening an open
> period in which washing is required. The Zohar gives a reason why it
> should be ASAP. Therefore, it's a hanhagah atop the gemara, not
> overturning it.


It negates the Gemara's requirement of doing several Brachos before washing
including Elokai neshama immediately upon rising.  Despite  what you write,
the models are not really that compatible. And they are certainly operating
upon different premises

Frankly, I don't get the gemara anyway. But this is tangential -- what
> about zerizim maqdimin or being prepared for the unexpected? Wouldn't
> they be enough to motivate washing as early as possible regardless of
> the tum'ah issue?
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071018/622fd69c/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 13
**************************************

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..."