Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 139

Thu, 01 Aug 2013

• 1. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: non kosher phone (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Geocentrism (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: non kosher phone (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Lisa Liel)
• 9. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: Are there limits on what must be returned (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Geocentrism (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 13. Re: Geocentrism (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Open Orthodoxy, again (Lisa Liel)

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 05:14:13AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> This story demonstrates EXACTLY why Rav Lichtenstein says that people  
> simply shouldn't go there (meaning reading Biblical Criticism).
>
> Is that our only recourse?

Part of the problem is also that we tend today toward scientism, a belief
that scientific proofs are the most convincing, and that which can be
proven scientifically exists more objectively, is more real. Of course,
if you start out epistomologically favoring theories that minimize
Hashem's Hand in history, that will shape your resulting conclusion.
If you decide in advance that the only justification you'll take seriously

And then, ironically, most people don't know enough of the topic to
actually accept the science on its own merit, and for the man in the
street it's not so much scientism as reliabilism (deeming a source
reliable). And you never hear about the details, that the final theory
as it exists today could have one verse by three or more authors, that
the original J vs E word usage thing doesn't always work, etc... All that
"cleanly comes apart" stuff isn't true once you get beyond oversimplified
tutorials.

Nor is any literary analysis really scientific or ever possibly freed from
subjective bias. This is liberal arts, after all!

(But then, I agree with the Kuzari that philosophy can't ever produce
one single unequivacle answer that antoher philosopher couldn't prove
otherwise. IMHO [not necessarily the Rihal's] this is because it too can
not be freed from such biases, since philosophical arguments start with
which postulates find self-evident.)

RYBS notes in the Lonely Man of Faith the effect of the spectacular
success of scientific and technological progress on that loneliness:

    Let me spell out this passional experience of contemporary man
    of faith. He looks upon himself as a stranger in modern society
    which is technically minded, self-centered, and self-loving,
    almost in a sickly narcissistic fashion, scoring honor upon honor,
    piling up victory upon victory, reaching for the distant galaxies,
    and seeing in the here-and-now sensible world the only manifestation
    of being. What can a man of faith like myself, living by a doctrine
    which has no technical potential, by a law which cannot be tested in
    the laboratory, steadfast in his loyalty to an eschatological vision
    whose fulfillment cannot be predicted with any degree of probability,
    let alone certainty, even by the most complex, advanced mathematical
    calculations -- what can such a man say to a functional utilitarian
    society which is saeculum-oriented and whose practical reasons of
    the mind have long ago supplanted the sensitive reasons of the heart?

            -- Tradition Magazine v7n2, The Lonely Man of Faith, pg 8

I think the alternative is to work toward an inspiring avodas Hashem and
limud Torah. The more one sees for themselves the redemptive properties
of halakhah, the more confidence you have in the original revalation
of laws, process and culture that gave you that din. And the more
evidence it would take to convince them that the Torah wasn't written
didactically in order to serve a the seed for an Eitz Chaim, notes for
a body of knowledge far larger than the text and a process of analysis,
mode of thought and culture.

We need to develop more self-confidence in our own non-empirical
experiences, so that they too carry conviction.

 --

There is another kind of option, R' Mordechai Breuer's. In this approach,
you accept their proposed evidence, but offer a different explanatory
theory.

RMB argues that the multiple voices are real, because Hashem is speaking
to people who are full of dialectics and ambivalence, and do see things
from multiple angles. And this is the only way to address the full human
condition. But there is only one text and one author. And he has a whole
system of parshanut based on this.

Then there's a variant laid out by RGStudent (Oct 2001) in
<http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_torah.html . The Torah could have been
redacted by the RBSO when He dicated it to Moshe. After all, according
to R' Yochanan the Torah was given scroll by scroll over the course of 40
years. We usually think of that as incremental, one parashah and then the
next, but maybe the pieces were woven togather. Did Adam, Noach and the
Avos leave behind texts? And then there are the books the Torah itself may
be telling us it's quoting (Sefer Toledos Adam, Sefer Milkhamos Hashem,
Sefer haBeris), Moshe wrote a separate Sefer Bil'am, etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When one truly looks at everyone's good side,
mi...@aishdas.org        others come to love him very naturally, and
http://www.aishdas.org   he does not need even a speck of flattery.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabbi AY Kook

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 02:58:15PM -0400, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Rav Karelitz has paskened that there is no mitzvah (not allowed?) to return
: a lost non-kosher phone

What if, because you didn't return it, you never learn that this owner
follows the same posqim as you but was given a personal heter?
(E.g. http://www.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=45298 )
After all, it's not that smartphones themselves are assur (they post-date
"mah shetiqnu chakhamim) but that they, plus a given person, poses
challenges that are being described as assur to take on.

But more generally... Is there an issue of lifnei iveir when the other
party holds something is mutar, but can't do it without your help?
Lifnei iveir poses some interesting paradoxes for eilu va'eilu. Can
someone who only holds lehalakhah that one may only consume literal
chalav yisrael provide for other Jews chalav hacompanies? Can a Sepharadi
sell me non-bet Yosef meat?

And if he can sell me that beef, why can't someone return me my cell
phone?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 05:06:49PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> There is some historical background here which the two of you are  
> ignoring.  A central insight of science is that the world runs through  
> law....
> It's been years since I looked at the LR's letter on this subject, but  
> at the time I did I remember classifying him with Rabbi Dessler and the  
> Kalam.  So I think it plausible that RZS agrees with that opinion.  But  
> I am less certain of RMB's opinion.

First, I am definitely asserting that nature has laws. General Relativity
is as much a law as Newtonian gravitation.

It happens to say that we can pick different frames of reference
and describe the same reality in very different terms. So there is a
heliocentric frame, a geocentric frame, a frame or reference that is
much like the heliocentric one but moves 312 kph northward in relation
to it, etc... They're all "true". More than that, I also cited examples
of how both geocentric and baryocentric (which is nearly heliocentric,
offset to the center of mass of the system) frames of references are
used in practice, depending on what you want to compute.

But it all obeys equations, it's all law.

It's also unclear to me that REED as generally described is what he meant.
I took him as being more Kantian. Law is part of the phenomenological
universe, the world as it fits into human perception and the cateogries
of the human mind. Not some abstract unknowable the world as it is. Thus
natural law is as real as anything else in the physical universe.

The steps he takes that Kant doesn't is the notion that someone could
lift themselves spiritually to the point of progressively having a
different set of categories. (MmE's meivi la'or, RACarmell, notes the
Kantian connection in a number of footnotes.) And this is how he accepts
the Maharal's concept of miracles in MmE I pp 304-312.

But that's too "out there" for much of the readership. So instead you hear
more of his essay about how every event is from HQBH, taken naively and
in contradiction to the above. But he doesn't mean that nature is an
illusion, he means that natural law describes Kantian phenomena. Or, the
two essays contradict. (E.g. one is philosphy, one is mussar; his position
shifted over time, etc...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org                Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org               The Torah is complex.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                                - R' Binyamin Hecht

On 31/07/2013 4:37 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Then there's a variant laid out by RGStudent (Oct 2001) in
> <http://www.aishdas.org/toratemet/en_torah.html  . The Torah could have been
> redacted by the RBSO when He dicated it to Moshe. After all, according
> to R' Yochanan the Torah was given scroll by scroll over the course of 40
> years. We usually think of that as incremental, one parashah and then the
> next, but maybe the pieces were woven togather. Did Adam, Noach and the
> Avos leave behind texts? And then there are the books the Torah itself may
> be telling us it's quoting (Sefer Toledos Adam, Sefer Milkhamos Hashem,
> Sefer haBeris), Moshe wrote a separate Sefer Bil'am, etc...

This is exactly what the Malbim says about Devarim.  That Hashem took Moshe's
words, redacted them, and dictated His version to Moshe to write down.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:09:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> This is exactly what the Malbim says about Devarim.  That Hashem took Moshe's
> words, redacted them, and dictated His version to Moshe to write down.

And the Abarbanel. I don't see the major chiddush, though. Nearly all
of the seifer is a collection of speaches (and a poem) said by Moshe
anyway.

Saying that part of Bereishis was redacted from something Avraham wrote,
or that the collection of scrolls dictated to Moshe in the midbar were
then redacted together in Arvos Mo'av...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On 31/07/2013 4:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> But more generally... Is there an issue of lifnei iveir when the other
> party holds something is mutar, but can't do it without your help?
> Lifnei iveir poses some interesting paradoxes for eilu va'eilu. Can
> someone who only holds lehalakhah that one may only consume literal
> chalav yisrael provide for other Jews chalav hacompanies? Can a Sepharadi
> sell me non-bet Yosef meat?

Lich'ora not.  The issue usually comes up the other way around.   Can an
Ashkenazi sell non-glatt meat to a Sefardi, or can a Sefardi sell kitniyot
and matza ashira to an Ashkenazi.   Bet Shammai, who held that their own
children were perfectly kosher, and that was Bet Hillel were wrong to call
them mamzerim, nevertheless did not trick Bet Hillel into marrying them.
They respected BH's opinion, and informed them when a proposed shidduch was
assur according to BH's shita.   And BH *trusted* them to so inform them.
But what you're asking is the opposite: what if a BH family had a child that
they held was a mamzer, but they knew that BS would consider the child kosher.
Could they in good conscience propose the shidduch (with full disclosure)?

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 31/07/2013 6:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:09:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> This is exactly what the Malbim says about Devarim.  That Hashem took Moshe's
>> words, redacted them, and dictated His version to Moshe to write down.
>
> And the Abarbanel. I don't see the major chiddush, though. Nearly all
> of the seifer is a collection of speaches (and a poem) said by Moshe
> anyway.

The chidush is how it becomes Hashem's words: the words themselves were
originally Moshe's, but what we have is not a transcript of his original
words, it's an edited work in which the choice of which words to use and
which to cut, and in what order to arrange them, was Hashem's.   And, at
least in the Malbim's version, it was Hashem's redacted speech that Moshe
delivered that Rosh Chodesh Shevat.  The original material from which it
was crafted was 11 speeches Moshe had delivered over the course of the
39 years since Chorev.


> Saying that part of Bereishis was redacted from something Avraham wrote,
> or that the collection of scrolls dictated to Moshe in the midbar were
> then redacted together in Arvos Mo'av...

Is not in principle any different.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 7/31/2013 5:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 05:09:40PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>    
>> This is exactly what the Malbim says about Devarim.  That Hashem took Moshe's
>> words, redacted them, and dictated His version to Moshe to write down.
>>      
> And the Abarbanel. I don't see the major chiddush, though. Nearly all
> of the seifer is a collection of speaches (and a poem) said by Moshe
> anyway.
>
> Saying that part of Bereishis was redacted from something Avraham wrote,
> or that the collection of scrolls dictated to Moshe in the midbar were
> then redacted together in Arvos Mo'av...
>    
There's nothing at all wrong with that.  There was research a few 
decades ago about how the "eleh toldot" statements in Genesis were 
similar to colophons, and actually made more sense when seen as ending a 
previous account, rather than introducing a new one.  Is it reasonable 
to say that this part of the Torah was redacted by God, at least in 
part, out of works we already had?  Sure.  Just like God can do a 
miracle through natural means.  But that has nothing to do with Open 
Orthodoxy and the recent brouhaha with Farber's kefirah.

Lisa

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 06:40:06PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> And the Abarbanel. I don't see the major chiddush, though..
>> of the seifer is a collection of speaches (and a poem) said by Moshe
>> anyway.

>> Saying that part of Bereishis was redacted from something Avraham wrote...

> There's nothing at all wrong with that...

I didn't mean there was anything wrong. Just that it was a bigger
chiddush. There aren't that many pesuqim that aren't attributed to
Moshe within the text. Around 12 pesuqim until you get past the final
berakhos. So no matter how you slice it, Moshe had to have more of a
hand in these verses than the other 4 chumashim.

It also explains why "Deteronomic History": Devarim, Yehoshua, Shofetim,
Shemuel and Melakhim, sounds like it was the product of one school. Moshe
did teach Yehoshua, who taught... What they call "Deut" we call the
people who make up the beginning of Avos.

But the whole point was to give options that were kosher (not wrong)
alternatives to bible criticism.

BTW, about the subject line, the IRF distanced themselves from all this
http://www.internationalrabbinicfellowship.org
/news/irf-confirms-commitment-torah-min-hashamayim
I have misgivings about the wording (you need to agree that " the
principle of Torah Min Hashamyim within the parameters outlined by
classical Rishonim, Aharonim and contemporary Orthodox rabbinic scholars"
definitively excudes Farberism, and about Zev Farber still having his
job and soapbox. But at this point it's premature to talk about this as
though it's "Open O"'s problem.

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

RYN (cited by RGD):
>>    Rabbi: No need to return lost smartphone
>>
>> *Halachic ruling issued by Rabbi Karelitz says because advanced cellular phone is 'not kosher,' there is no obligation to give it back to its owner*
>>
>>
It regularly happens in the gemara that some student sees a guy doing 
something wrong, complains to his rebbe, and the rebbe says "hanach 
leih, k'rabbeih sevirah leih."  In this case does RK think that his 
opinion is the only legitimate one, or (which I suspect is more likely) 
is he talking about the case of a community in which the rov accept him 
as posek, or in which the owner of this particular cellphone accepts him 
as posek?

David Riceman

On 31/07/2013 6:44 PM, David Riceman wrote:

> It regularly happens in the gemara that some student sees a guy doing
> something wrong, complains to his rebbe, and the rebbe says "hanach
> leih, k'rabbeih sevirah leih."

I have only found one such case, on Pesachim 106b, and the person (R Yirmiyah
bar Abba) wasn't doing an issur, he was just making havdalah in a circumstance
where R Assi wouldn't have.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Avodah Listmates,

 

There have been some nice points on this topuic, and while an earlier post
of mine somehow fell into that "black hole| we call the Internet, I thought
it would be good to summarize the 5 items rather than just re-send it.

 

1)      RELATIVITY: The example given by Einstein was a train moving quickly
and a person dropping a ball, and the person on the train sees it as falling
straight down while the person outside, looking through the glass walls sees
it curving. However, this comparison falls apart for the geocentrist
because, like this example, we have two data collecting and reporting
satellites, one approaching the edge of the SOLAR system (not GEO-system),
and one that is nearly so, which, like the observer outside of the train,
can validate that the view of an earth-centered SOLAR system is not what is
going on in reality, even though it is a comfortable view for some
non-scientists.

 

2)      TIME: Since the earth is still, to the geocentrist, and slanted at
23.5 degrees, according to science, the Earth will have no seasons to speak
of (about every 6 hours it will change, which is the same as none at all) as
the sun whizzes around the Earth every 24 hours.

 

3)      SPACE: If you hold the Earth as the center, and have the moon,
Venus, Mercury, and the sun (pick whatever order suits you) whizzing around
the Earth, the distance of the Earth from Mars will increase by about 800%,
taking about 6 years to fly there from Earth, rather than the current REAL
time of less than a year. I have seen very complicated models trying to set
up the GEO system, but they all fail on keeping the current verified
measured distances (confirmed by external crafts hurtling through space -
the external observer with advanced measuring equipment).

 

4)      TRUE: I asked a week ago if someone could draw a picture of a GEO
System (versus a Solar System) where time and space will match externally
confirmed reality. If one can be made where the sun and all of the planets
are the same size and the same distances from one another with the same
orbiting speeds that have been externally verified, I am willing to accept
that there is a plausibility (within religion and philosophy) that the
GEO-System model has some sort of merit. Until then, I withhold that.

 

5)      FALSE: Some have said that just because something is unlikely, it
doesn't make it untrue. It is more correct to say that, with theories, they
express the greatest plausibility and possibility of truth until proven
wrong, and then, they are not true at all. There are many examples of failed
theories. With NON-theories, (such as Young-Earth-Creationism, Flat Earth,
and Geocentrism, to name a few), they are considered false unless there is
evidence to justify their consideration, and if they fail peer review, they
fail and are false, not simply "less true".

 

The difference between religion and science is that, with religion, you can
interpret something in unique ways, and while it may not be accurate, it
will have validity in its application. This is true in Midrash, for example,
and that is a good thing. 

 

In science, while there are areas where one speaks of plausibility, some
things are more or less plausible, but there is no such thing as more or
less true, just more or less plausible. For once it is disproven, it is
false, in science (and that process may take a long time), while in
religion, it remains. So it is incorrect to say that Geo-Centrism is "not AS
true as heliocentrism", but, rather, it a false concept of the universe that
we long discarded once we invented the telescope that can be used on this
world, as well as ones that hurtle among the vast reaches of our SOLAR
system.

 

I don't think that I can add anything else to the topic. I updated my blog
to reflect this. I leave the rest to you.

 

Eliyahu Grossman

http://eweirdness.blogspot.co.il/

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130801/11f52b87/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 09:36:27AM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: 1)      RELATIVITY: The example given by Einstein was a train moving quickly
: and a person dropping a ball, and the person on the train sees it as falling
: straight down while the person outside, looking through the glass walls sees
: it curving. However, this comparison falls apart for the geocentrist
: because, like this example, we have two data collecting and reporting
: satellites, one approaching the edge of the SOLAR system (not GEO-system),
: and one that is nearly so, which, like the observer outside of the train,
: can validate that the view of an earth-centered SOLAR system is not what is
: going on in reality, even though it is a comfortable view for some
: non-scientists.

You're conflating Special and General Relativity. Since the solar system
involves acceleration and gravity (which according to GR is redundant --
gravity in one frame of reference is acceleration in another), it's under
GR, not SR.

And indeed, deapite what you write, scientists do use both bsrycentric
and geocentric frames of reference, and there are known ways to do the
translation between them.

E.g. (first Google hit)
http://www.researchgate.ne
t/publication/234395077_Orbit_determination_in_the_relativistic_geocentric_
reference_frame

    Orbit determination in the relativistic geocentric reference frame

    J. C. Ries, C. Huang, M. M. Watkins, B. D. Tapley
    Texas, University, Austin
    Journal of the Astronautical Sciences (impact factor: 0.29). 05/1991;
    39:173-181.

    ABSTRACT The results obtained using a solar system barycentric frame or a
    geocentric frame when including the general theory of relativity in
    orbit determination for near-earth satellites should be equivalent to
    some limiting accuracy. The purpose of this paper is to present the
    model for the effects of relativity when processing satellite laser
    range data in the geocentric frame and to demonstrate the equivalence of
    the results to those obtained using the barycentric model through the
    analysis of three years of laser tracking data taken for the LAGEOS
    satellite. It is shown that the simpler formulation in the geocentric
    frame is adequate for the purpose of satellite orbit determination. A
    correction to the conventional barycentric equations of motion is also
    shown to be required.

: 2)      TIME: Since the earth is still, to the geocentrist, and slanted at
: 23.5 degrees, according to science, the Earth will have no seasons...

But it whizzes around the earth daily at a 23.5 deg angle which wobbles
during the course of one year. That wobble is caused by a second order
epicycle of the sun, which if you held the sun still would look like
the going around the sun annywally.

: 3)      SPACE: If you hold the Earth as the center, and have the moon,
: Venus, Mercury, and the sun (pick whatever order suits you) whizzing around
: the Earth...

Also approximately once daily...

: the Earth, the distance of the Earth from Mars will increase by about 800%,
: taking about 6 years to fly there from Earth...

And again there is a second motion of Mars, which matches the sun's
(above) and a third order one around the sun.

: 4)      TRUE: I asked a week ago if someone could draw a picture of a GEO
: System (versus a Solar System) where time and space will match externally
: confirmed reality. If one can be made where the sun and all of the planets
: are the same size and the same distances from one another with the same
: orbiting speeds that have been externally verified...

And while I'm not up to it, I pointed to papers that did. But the
distances and time won't be exactly the same -- relativity includes
lorentz contractions of both.

See
http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc
/data/analysis/documentation/Cicerone/Cicerone_Pulsars/barycentric_correcti
on.html
for a discussion of this issue WRT the Fermi Gamma Telescope. The two
frames of reference have diverged +/- 500 sec (when at maximum) since
the mission started.

...
: 5)      FALSE: Some have said that just because something is unlikely, it
: doesn't make it untrue...

I missed anyone making that argument on this discussion.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On 7/31/2013 7:47 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>
> BTW, about the subject line, the IRF distanced themselves from all this
> http://www.internationalrabbinicfell
> owship.org/news/irf-confirms-commitment-torah-min-hashamayim
> I have misgivings about the wording (you need to agree that " the
> principle of Torah Min Hashamyim within the parameters outlined by
> classical Rishonim, Aharonim and contemporary Orthodox rabbinic scholars"
> definitively excudes Farberism,

See, that's the problem.  And it's the reason why they used vague 
language.  Because Farber has claimed that his position is consonant 
with that of Ibn Ezra (a Rishon).  So they're not excluding Farberism at 
all.  They're engaging in verbal slight of hand to ward off critics 
without actually lying.

> and about Zev Farber still having his
> job and soapbox. But at this point it's premature to talk about this as
> though it's "Open O"'s problem.
>    

I don't think so.  And anyone who didn't see this coming wasn't paying 
attention.

Lisa



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 139
***************************************

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.)