Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 180

Sun, 03 Oct 2010

• 1. Re: Truth and the Rambam (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Leshono Habo beYerushalayim (SBA Gmail)
• 3. Re: lulav waving (D&E-H Bannett)
• 4. Re: lulav waving (Micha Berger)
• 5. Truth and the Rambam (David Riceman)
• 6. two hands (M Cohen)
• 7. Re: Leshono Habo beYerushalayim (Poppers, Michael)
• 8. Re: Leshono Habo beYerushalayim (Micha Berger)
• 9. When was the Zohar Written? (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: When was the Zohar Written? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Season's Greetings (Poppers, Michael)
• 12. Re: Season's Greetings (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Mezuzos for Nachriim (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Sukka must be kosher for sleeping? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: two hands (Akiva Blum)
• 16. chol hamoed (Eli Turkel)
• 17. Some Thoughts of RSRH on Noach (Prof. Levine)

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:37:43AM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: (1) The Rambam, in explaining talmudic texts and poskening therefrom,
: originally practiced in principle a "legal-process approach"
: of uncritically following the Geonim's decisions and explanations
: of talmudic passages...

Not "uncritically". However, just as a contemporary teshuvah would cite
the Shach or the Taz, assuming their opinion of what was said before is
more authoritative than our own, so too the Rif does so WRT the geonim.

The Rif actually argues with the geonim regularly. I'm currently exploring
the reality of the idea (from a paper RRW sent me) that the Rif was the
first to shift from studying who said what in the gemara to focusing
more on the general flow of the sugya.

The Rambam's approach in the Yad would be the same as a teshuvah that
ignores the early acharonim, feeling that this reliance on earlier
rabbanim to understand those even earlier introduces too many errors.

: (2) However, between writing the Payrush HaMishnayos and writing the
: Mishneh Torah, in his unique Aristotelian-influenced pursuit to reach
: a one-and-only-one truth about things, he developed a new principle
: of independent analysis of the talmudic texts, to determine their
: one-and-only original intent, and at times found himself at odds with
: what the Geonim said.

: I seriously question this. The Rambam did not say he formerly held in
: principle to ignore original intent in favor of some legal process. I
: only see that he regretted a former lack of sufficiently testing the
: Geonim's interpretations against the text to which they were applied.

: Rashi, too, many times differs with his predecessors' interpretations,
....

Which is how your overstatement created a strawman. Rashi tried to fit
his precedecessors, and saw the text through their eyes. It was when
that was impossible that he differed.

...
: However, I cannot find anywhere in these iggeros the Rambam attributing 
: to others uncritical reading of the Gemora through the eyes of the 
: Geonim....

Here's some of what I quoted at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n171.shtml#06>:
    That which is codified in the chibbur [i.e. the Yad -mb] is
    undoubtedly correct, and so we wrote as well in the Perush HaMishnah,
    and that which is in your hands [an early version of the Peirush
    haMishnayos -mb] is the first version which I released without proper
    diligence. And I was influenced in this by the Sefer HaMitzvos of
    Rav Chefetz, z"l, and the mistake was in his [analysis], and I just
    followed after him without verifying. And when I further evaluated
    and analyzed the statements [of Chazal], it became clear that the
    truth was what we recorded in the chibbur and we corrected the Perush
    HaMishnah accordingly. The same happened in so many places that the
    first version of the Perush HaMishnah was subsequently modified, tens
    of times. Each case we had originally followed the opinion of some
    Gaon, z"l, and afterwards the area of error became clear. (pg 647)

Does this not say that the Rambam lost faith in relying on the geonim
to interpret the rishonim over just going to the books himself? His
own reason and definition of mitake trumps the value of the earlier
source.

: I have a wonderful resource, the sefer "HaMachlokess BaHalacha" (Inst. 
: Of Jewish Law, Boston U. School of Law and The Israeli Diaspora Inst.), 
: which on pages 294 ff. quotes Rishonim in addition to the Rambam who 
: maintain that those qualified with sufficient learning and stature were 
: not bound by the commentaries or pesak of the Geonim when the source 
: texts do not bear them out...

WHich fits my analogy of the Igeros Moshe citing the Bach.

I'm arguing that the Rambam gave up on trying to even work out the shitas
hageonim and rejecting it -- he simply went to "Rav Ashi veRavina sof
hora'ah" as he saw it.

: I therefore question the entire endeavor of distributing Rishonim into 
: pigeon-holes of more or less obsequience to the Geonim...

This isn't about more or less obsequience, if I felt the Rambam bought
into the system altogether. As I wrote, his approach to talmud Torah
doesn't reflect acknowledging a flow of interpretation since the original
author.

...
: For me to accept the extraordinary claim otherwise, you would have to 
: show me where a rishon says, "We don't care about the truth; we are only 
: interested in the formality of uncritically following the Geonim's 
: conclusions." ...

Same (inadvertant) strawman.

...
: When I called attention to the different takes in the "chatzi nezek
: tsruros" sugya Rambam and Rashi have on the relationship of the Gemora
: to the Mishnah, I said that whereas Rashi understands the Mishna in
: light of the Gemora, Rambam understands the Gemora in light of the
: Mishna. But I see no reason to deny the natural default assumption that
: both Rashi and the Rambam believed that their takes represented what
: the Gemora understands to be the genuine original intent of the Mishnah.
: Their methodologies differed in how we are to understand what the Gemora
: meant to say the Mishna's original intent was...

The Rambam gives more weight to the original than to later interpretation
not only when he is second-guessing geonim but also when comparing the
mishnah and the gemara.

This is a denial of the flow of interpretation, a continuity down
the genarations. I'm saying the Rambam's methodology is so radically
different, it doesn't really fit the generally accepted definition of
"halachic process"!

...
: The idea that in transmitting the mesorah, the legal status of objects,
: actions or thoughts should conform to a single original Intent predates
: Aristotle and goes back to Moshe Rabbeynu and beyond. The entire
: enterprise in the Gemora that pits one Mishnah or speaker against another
: and concludes either that the later speaker is in error or that one of
: the statements must be modified so that they conform, assumes that there
: is a single original idea that must be complied with.

What about the notion that eilu va'eilu reflects that fact that HQBH's
Original Intent (kavayakhol) is diffracted into a spectrum of opinions
by the time it reaches the human mind? Or the Constitutive approach to
law of the Ramban, Ritva and Ran, which leads to their understanding
of machloqes?

See Rashi (Kesuvos 57a, s.v. "ha QM"L"), Ritva (Eiruvin 13b "eilu
va'eilu") and every other rishon I know of (aside from the Rambam)
on plurality in machloqes.

The Rambam, OTOH, would assert that one tanna must have erred. Picture
him saying, as the above Rashi does, that
    ki peligi terei amora'ei bedin or be'issur veheteir,
    kol chad amar hakhi mistaveir taama,
    ein kan sheqer.
    Kol chad amar sevara didei...
    Ve'ika lemeimar "eilu ve'ulu DEC"H"
    zimnin deshayakh hai ta'ama vezimnin deshayakh hai taama.

Rashi's opinion works because he holds that halakhah is a legal process,
not a single truth to be mined out of the sources.

Which I'm saying is unlike the Rambam.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From: Micha Berger
At RET already noted besheim haGri"z miBrisk, "habenuyah" is a later
addition.
>>

Anyone have any idea who composed the first 3 words "LHB" - and when?

SBA (beYerushalayim)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100929/5873cb1c/attachment-0001.htm>

> how does minhag change in Ashk, Seph AND Teimanim in similar
> ways? Isn't it odd than no qehillah retained the old?

R' Micha I think you are underestimating the power of Kabbala, Zohar
and Ar"i in changing the older customs.

David 

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 02:35:26PM +0200, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> R' Micha I think you are underestimating the power of Kabbala, Zohar and 
> Ar"i in changing the older customs.

No, I just don't know it's role. You saw "how does" as a challenge;
I meant "how" literally -- asking why qabbalah (as it turns out to
be) switched it and what the meaning of three waves in a particular
sequence (or two) would be.

Your understanding of my question would apply if the Bal'adim too
switched, and the Darda'im didn't attempt to "fix" it. They would
have actively weeded out such qabbalistic alterations, no?

Parnasah tovah uqerovah la'ir! (Trying to invent a hoshanah rabba
greeting)
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

  RZL:

<<you would have to

show me where a rishon says, "We don't care about the truth; we are only
interested in the formality of uncritically following the Geonim's
conclusions.">>

You can find a moderate version of this ("l'hahmir v'lo lhakel") in the Ramban's introduction
to Milhamoth HaShem - - see the paragraph beginning "v'yesh asher anahnu" on p. 8 of
volume 1 of Rabbi Bitton's
edition of Sefer HaMaor (which for some inexplicable reason he calls "Sefer Ba'al HaMaor").

... not that I don't agree with your basic point ...

David Riceman

> one of the yeshivas  had sent a fundraiser item a hoshana 'arm sleeve'
> to allow one  to be able to hold  the 4 minim with -two- hands while
> circling . it seems that the velt is not makpid on this  issue, as most
> people seem to have siddur in one hand  and  daled minim in -one- hand
> only....  I have tried to note in pictures of gdolim during hoshanas ,
> as to their grip technique.....

> I think most of the "velt" are simply not aware of the halacha, and it
> never occurs to them that there's a problem

most RW yeshivos are careful about this.
the baal baatish olam is lenient 
(ignorance + it's easier to have siddur in one hand and daled minim in one
hand)

Mordechai cohen

In Avodah V27n179#2, R'Micha asked:
> How do we teitch still asking HQBH in shevah berakhos that we should hear "bechutzos Y-m qol sason veqol simchah..."? <
As wonderful as it must be to be blessed by kohanim while in the Kosel
plaza together w/ thousands, could one compare to hearing the Sheim in the
precincts on YhK bizman sheBhM qayam w/out realizing what we're lacking? 
So too do I look forward to the time of true simchah when enjoying the
sights and sounds noted by R'Micha....

Chag Sameach/Gut Yuntef and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 12:42:08PM -0400, Poppers, Michael wrote:
: As wonderful as it must be to be blessed by kohanim while in the Kosel
: plaza together w/ thousands, could one compare to hearing the Sheim in the
: precincts on YhK bizman sheBhM qayam w/out realizing what we're lacking?
: So too do I look forward to the time of true simchah when enjoying the
: sights and sounds noted by R'Micha....

Is that the "qol sason veqol simchah" in question? I though the berakhah
continues with examples: qol chasan, veqol qalah, veqol mitzhalos chasanim
meichupasan une'arim mimishteih neginasan.

Which, BH are regularly heard bechutzos Yerushalayim today. Except during
omer and the Three Weeks.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             We are great, and our foibles are great,
mi...@aishdas.org        and therefore our troubles are great --
http://www.aishdas.org   but our consolations will also be great.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some 
interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually 
written.  His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah 
was first used to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf

and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30.

Have a good Yom Tov.

YL

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 04:24:28PM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some  
> interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written.  His 
> conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used to 
> designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres...

It doesn't rule out the Yavetz's position (in Mitpachas Soferim) that
the Zohar started with Rashbi but underwent accretion with time.

See
http://seforim.blogspot.com/2008/05/lag-ba-omer-and-upsherins-in-r
ecent.html
by R' Eliezer Brodt, which has a section on R' Tuvia Freund's Moadim
leSimchah's discussion of the Zohar.

http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/topic1.asp?whichpage=1&;topic_id=2087803
and
http://ishimshitos.blogspot.com/2008/05/reactions-to-yaave
tzs-mitpachat-seforim.html
(reduced to <http://bit.ly/aCoYHf>), a survey of responses.

In any case, if the book wasn't published and mass produced, of
course neologisms would creep in. Look at all the shinui girsa'os
in the Y-mi just because it was less frequently published and checked
than the Bavli.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

In Avodah V27n179#6, R'Micha wrote:
> Earlier I wrote on list that "Gemar chasimah tovah" apparently assumes
> like the author of Unesaneh Toqef, who for some reason doesn't make
> these distinctions -- beRH yeikaseivu uveYom Tzom Kippur yeichaseimun
> for everybody. Look at the next line, what's being discussed isn't myself
> or beinonim in particular, it's "kamah yaavrun vekamah yibarei'un", etc...

[snip of provenance, and agreed that the piyut is "old," e.g. First
Crusades-era. Abe Katz of Beurei Hatefila recently FWDed an article
(IIRC, the author's surname was Eidelberg) on the subject.]

> RMPoppers asked me off-list how the author could contradict a maamar
> chazal. Thinking out loud...
> If you look at the Rambam's (eg) definition of beinoni, no one would
> qualify. Who is EXACTLY balanced between mitzvos and aveiros?
> So clearly the category is broader than exact balance.

> It's possible the paytan took the far extreme -- that unless someone
> is MRAH or one of the poeple individually named in the mishnah in
> pereq Cheileq as lacking olam haba, they are beinonim WRT the time of
> chasimah.

As I wrote offlist, we should consider ourselves beinonim but (and this
is the crux of the greeting issue IMHO) others tzaddiqim. Moreoever,
our greetings are subject to halachic considerations (the example I gave
was a qabbalah [w/ transmission errors solely mine] of, during a timespan
when tosefes Shabbos would be permissible, REMT's advice re saying
"a gut'n Shabbes" rather than "Gut Shabbes" unless one intended to be
m'qabeil Shabbos upon oneself), and a paytan's piyut is generally not (I
didn't "ask...off-list how the author could contradict a maamar chazal"
-- rather, I didn't think this particular paytan was contradicting the
particular ma'amar; that said, I 'hear' your thinking-aloud suggestion
:)). Thanks.

Chag Sameach/Gut Yuntef and all the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 04:57:16PM -0400, Poppers, Michael wrote:
: As I wrote offlist, we should consider ourselves beinonim but (and this
: is the crux of the greeting issue IMHO) others tzaddiqim...

But if only a tzadiq of biblical proportions has his fate nichtam
on RH, I'm not sure we should go that far.

To me, this isn't a greeting issue anymore, as the same issue applies
to Unesaneh Toqef, which was dated to the gaonic era, quite likely
Yannai haPaytan, early 7th cent Israel.

Contrary to RMP's assumption:
:                                                           Moreoever,
: our greetings are subject to halachic considerations ..., and a paytan's
: piyut is generally not...

I'm not sure I agree. The question you raised "Gut Shabbos" vs "A Gutten
Shabbos" subjects the greeting to halakhah -- not learn something out
of the greeting. There is no comparison between whether a greeting
must avoid a halachic problem, or whether a piyut implies a shitah
in aggadita that must be taken seriously.

OTOH, a piyut that retained currency for 13 cent met the approval of
numerous gedolim. And, as RRWrecently reminded me, piyutim make elaborate
references to midrashom and maamarei chazal -- often such that those
references are the only hints many of us have of these concepts.

My point of disagreement is that I think that things people put into
their machzorim are ideas rabbanim fell in love with and wanted the
masses to inculcate and be moved by. Why shouldn't they be open to
this kind of analysis?

(Pretty big words for someone who says "Machnisei rachamim" in third
person, "yachnisu", so as to avoid making baqashos of mal'akhim --
despite the normal form of the piyut, or of Shalom Aleikhem, clealry
implying it's okay.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 29/09/2010 1:10 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:21:08AM +1000, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Either way it's not possible that Rebbi sent the mezuzah to Artevan
>> to prevent eivah.  Artevan did not request a mezuzah, and was taken
>> aback when he received it...
>
> I think this response rules out someone who would assume the best of
> a friend.

How so?  He wasn't angry, just surprised; wouldn't you be?  If you
sent a friend an expensive jewel and they sent you back what looked
like a $20 trinket, with no note explaning it, and it wasn't an
inside joke that you already understood, wouldn't you make a startled
inquiry as to what he meant by sending it?

  
>>                                        who was to say that he'd bother
>> to ask Rebbi for an explanation, rather than immediately jumping to
>> the conclusion that he'd been disrespected, and even if he were sure
>> to ask, who was to say that he'd accept the answer?

> I saw the whole thing as an excercise to drill home the message: If you
> wish Divine Aid for the Parthians, cut the Jews some slack.

But, as I said, if there was a possibility of eivah, how could Rebbi
take the risk?  Surely the safe course would have been to send a
conventional gift in return for the one he'd received.  And it's not
as if Rebbi, with his fabled wealth, couldn't have afforded something
suitable.  This proves that eivah wasn't a consideration; he must have
had good grounds for expecting exactly the response he got, and that
his explanation would be accepted.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 29/09/2010 1:11 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 03:10:58AM +1000, Zev Sero wrote:
>> When it's raining, it's possible not only to force yourself to eat in
>> the sukkah anyway, but also to force yourself to *like* doing so, and
>> to be *happy* while doing so...
>
> How do you force yourself to like something and to be happy doing
> it?

It depends, of course, on how unpleasant it is in the first place; also
on how long one must go on liking it.  But one can often psych oneself
into enjoying otherwise unpleasant experiences for a short while; alcohol
helps, as do being with a group who are all doing it together, and an
inspiring speaker or leader.  Witness such phenomena as "polar bear"
swimming clubs, or the bizarre things frat boys are renowned for getting
up to.  How much more so is it possible for the mitzvah of eating in a
sukkah.  But to fall asleep physical comfort is usually necessary; also,
a psyched-up state of mind is itself a barrier to sleep.  And, of course,
sleeping takes a long time, during none of which one is being inspired
either by a speaker or by a group consciousness.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

-----Original Message-----
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: 28/09/10 07:15 PM

On 29/09/2010 12:45 AM, s newman wrote:
> one of the yeshivas  had sent a fundraiser item a hoshana 'arm sleeve'
> to allow one  to be able to hold  the 4 minim with -two- hands while
> circling . it seems that the velt is not makpid on this  issue, as most
> people seem to have siddur in one hand  and  daled minim in -one- hand
> only.

I think most of the "velt" are simply not aware of the halacha, and it
never occurs to them that there's a problem.
*********

I'm sorry but what is the problem with holding them in one hand, and specifically for hoshanos?

Akiva

moved from areivim:
The subject was a chesed group that gathered thousands of volunteers
(many visitors to Israel)
on chol hamoed to pick tons of fruits and vegetables for the poor.
RYL questioned whether this was allowed on chol hamoed and I thought
it was included under davar ha-aved since these volunteers are only available
on chol hamoed and otherwise the poor would lose all this food. A similar
halacha applies to communal needs

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


I wish to thank Prof Levine for getting me to review some laws of chol hamoed.
Since this is simchat Torah outside of EY I wont hear any remarks until
sunday and then I am without email for 2 weeks (is it possible?)

In siman 544 the SA says that one can do communal work on chol hamoed
such as fixing roads and cemeteries and mikvaot.
MB adds athat one can purposely leave these for chol hamoed when
people are not working
and so many people are available and if not done on chol hamoed it
wont be done later

If it requires experts then it can be done only if one benefits during
the holiday, if
it does not require expert skills it can be done even though the
benefit is after
the holiday

In 538:6  SA says that if one purposely left work for chol hamoed (ie
a kind that is not
permitted) the bet din punishes him by making it hefker. Ramah adds that
if this not feasible then the bet din can put the person in cherem or
give him lashes

MB adds that if it became hefker then after the holiday anyone can
acquire it and use it

-- 
Eli Turkel

The following are a couple of excerpts from RSRH's commentary on Parshas Noach.

71 And God said to Noach: Enter the ark, you and 
all your household, for I have seen you righteous before Me in this generation.

L'fanei, before Me. A person can appear righteous in the sight of other
people, and yet not righteous in the sight of God. And the reverse is
also true. What is more, the concepts that people attach to words are
not always accurate and true ? certainly not in a period of general
degeneracy. The words ?virtue,? ?justice,? and the like, remain ? in
every age ? in current use, but people distort the meaning of these
words and ascribe to them their own aims and opinions. There are
times when the Name of God, too, is on everyone?s lips, but is emptied
of all content through the fault of the generation. Scripture therefore
stresses: Tzidek  l'fanei? i.e., according to My standards.

2 Of every pure animal you shall take seven 
pairs, the male and its mate, and of animals that 
are not pure you shall take two each, the
male and its mate.

The prototype of mankind is not the savage. The first human being
and his children, and also the noble ones among the Noachides, were
still close to God. Adam, Hevel, Seth, Noach, Avraham, Yitzchak, Ya?akov
? none of them brought offerings to a false god. The mouths of the
accusers who impute primitive attitudes not only to us, but to all the
great men of old, should be shut. David and Yeshayahu and all the great
ones of Israel who brought offerings, or prayed for the restoration of
the offerings; who saw in the offerings God?s nearness to Israel and
God?s glorification in Israel ? none of them stood before a cruel and
bloodthirsty god who delights in the convulsions of a dying animal;
who, in his folly, accepts the death of a bull as atonement instead of a
man?s own death; who transfers onto an expiring animal all the fear,
pain, and agony of death that should rightfully be suffered by a man.

Rather, throughout the generations, an offering was zevach todah, an
expression of complete devotion. Through the blood that was spilled, we
were required and we vowed to devote our own blood to God?s holy
Will. The head and limbs, breast and body, fat and kidneys placed on
God?s altar dedicated our limbs and eyes, our hearts and bodies, all our
bodily desires ? even the lowest of them ? as 'lechem Isheh l'Shem, ?to sustain
the holy? on earth. One who brought an offering ? even a Noachide
who brought an offering ? was taught, and vowed, to offer himself to
God.

Hence, only those animals that are nearest to man?s nature and are
fit to be his representatives are suitable for offerings. Accordingly, only
those animals that were later permitted to Israel as food are fit to be
used as offerings ? and the same reason applies in both cases.
Hence, only those animals that are nearest to man?s nature and are
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20101003/1c128243/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 180
***************************************

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..."