Volume 41: Number 16
Tue, 28 Feb 2023
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 02:29:19 +1100
Subject: [Avodah] Md Sheker TirChak
Permit me to go back to the start of this discussion.
It seems the definition of MdShTirChak ? is using deception EVEN with the
intent to get to the truth.
If truth is the objective, and that objective is accomplished, why is it
Sheker?
It is Sheker because it may well not be the truth.
Even more, it is Sheker because it subverts the truth.
In the case of the Gemara, we are distressing the BaAl Din and weakening
his resolve to fight his case, we are causing him to lose confidence, not
by presenting the truth but by misleading him. That is subverting the truth.
It therefore seems that offering any opinion about the character of anyone
engaged in a dispute, where that opinion is likely to sway opinion and make
one party of the dispute feel weakened and less confident in pursuing their
position [or emboldened] is MdShTirChak.
And as I mentioned, the very fact that the boss or Rebbe or Rosh Y is
requesting this support is proof that it is a valuable tool to accomplish
his end. Indeed, it may well be rationalised ? this will be a WIN WIN, we
will prevent him lying under oath and I will get my money ? but it is
prohibited, it is an Issur DeOraysa. It is subverting the judicial process
of searching for truth. This interference is disrupting the process that
the Torah instructs, and that common sense compels us to recognise that
pursuing truth requires a level playing field.
The foundation of ChCh is making people feel bad, embarrassed or
uncomfortable even when there is no halachic consequence in a Din Torah or
a dispute.
MiShTirChak is this same stinging comment that impinges upon a Mishpat,
even if only a subtle degree.
It is, as I mentioned in my earlier post, akin to ensuring both litigants
appear before the BD as equals. This is important for both the Dayanim as
well as the litigants. I suppose it is encapsulated in the quaint story of
Reb Chaims wife who told him, I dont need you to help me in my complaint to
the Dayan against the servant who broke something or other; to which Reb
Chaim said, I am not going to help you I am going to help the servant,
There is no parallel whatsoever to offering advice on which car to buy, or
recommending an expert and honest car salesman, or which fridge to buy or
if a Rov provides a reliable Hashgacha. These were red herrings, useless,
frivolous distractions.
It certainly has nothing to do with Kala NaAh VeChassudah which is praising
someone and making them feel happy about something that they CAN NO LONGER
change. However, BEFORE he has made up his mind to marry her, you MUST NOT
sing KNVeChassudah but advise him if you believe it is a poor Shidduch
[unless you fear that later when he regrets his decision he will drag your
name into].
Reb Micha I must modify your words ? Reinforcing your boss's decision AFTER
he has dismissed someone and he can no longer get him back THAT is
KNVeChassudah, and you MUST say this EVEN THOUGH YOU believe it was a most
foolish decision.
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/20230227/2d221bfd/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Jay F. Shachter
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 18:42:59 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Keeping Well Away From Sheker
>
> ... So this may be more related to His report to Avraham about why
> Sarah laughed than a usual case of midevar sheqer.
>
Can people please stop misusing this example, once and for all? I am
sick of the way liars always trot this one out, whenever they want to
justify one of their lies. Here's what's wrong with it:
1. God didn't lie. Genesis 18:12 tells us that Sarah laughed
inwardly, to say "axarey blothiy haitha liy `edna, vadoniy zaqen".
Clearly the Torah is reporting Sarah's thoughts, not her words --
the only reasonable way to understand the verse is that, just as
her laughter was inner laughter, not expressed out loud, so too
were the words that accompanied it. And the first words given were
"axarey blothiy haitha liy `edna", before the "vadoniy zaqen". In
Genesis 18:13, God reports Sarah's thoughts to Avraham, reporting
that Sarah thought, "I've gotten old". The Torah tells us that
Sarah thought, "I'm all used up and worn out", and God paraphrased
that as "I've gotten old". That's not a lie! It's exactly what
she thought, and it's the first thing she thought. It's not a
direct quote, but you can't quote thoughts directly anyway. It is
a correct statement of what Sarah thought, and it is contemptible
of liars to be always trotting that one out, to justify their lies.
2. God does a lot of things that we're not allowed to do. God sends
earthquakes to Turkey that kill fifty thousand people. He
furnishes children with scarlet fever and ushers them into their
teens deaf, dumb, and blind for life. We all know about
Deuteronomy 28:9 and its interpretation in midrash halakha (which
is, parenthetically, not its pshat); but imitatio Dei does not mean
that we're allowed to pick anything that God does, and do likewise.
So please put that one to rest, once and for all.
>
> .... Midevar sheqer tirchaq has loopholes for ... milaiyhu (saying
> you don't know something you do, for anavah), bepuriah (because
> tashmish hamitah is private) and be'ushpiza (to protect a host from
> being inundated). (C.f. Yeavmos 63b, BM 23b-24a)
>
Where do you find this brought down as halakha? They are opinions in
the Talmud. I can find you an opinion in the Talmud that we're
supposed to light eight candles on the first night of Xannukka. I can
find you an opinion in the Talmud that no one nowadays is fit to
perform the mitzvah of tokhaxa. We don't pasqn according to those
opinions. Nor am I aware (and please correct me if I am mistaken)
of any place in our codes of law that permit us to lie about those
three things. What I am aware of is a halakha in Xoshen Mishpat
262:21 that says that someone who does lie about those three things
can be believed when he says that he owns an object that you found.
So what? That doesn't mean that you're allowed to lie about those
things, all it means is that so many people do lie about those things,
thinking that it's okay to do so, that you can't assume that someone
who does lie about those things is likely to lie about owning a lost
object. There's also a halakha that someone who habitually wears
sha`atnez is believed when he or she says that he or she slaughtered
an animal correctly. In fact, someone who habitually eats meat from
animals that were not correctly slaughtered, is believed when he or
she says that he or she slaughtered an animal correctly, you're just
obliged in that case to check the knife. Those halakhoth don't mean
that wearing sha`atnez and eating nveloth are permissible acts;
they're halakhoth about whether someone who performs those
impermissible acts is believed regarding some different matter.
>
> ... bepuriah (because tashmish hamitah is private)
>
This is peripheral to your main point, but since you brought it up, I
believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) that you have the wrong
case. The case is lying about having slept alone in a bed where a
seminal emission was found, because that's embarrassing. The case
does not involve tashmish hammitta, as you incorrectly stated. People
are not embarrassed when evidence is found that they engaged in lawful
marital relations between husband and wife, like a bloodstain from a
ruptured hymen, or if they forgot to put away their fur-lined handcuffs.
The emotion is tzni`uth, modesty, privacy. It's no one else's
business; it's a thing that only goyim and proste yidden are
comfortable talking about in public; but it's not a thing about which
we are embarrassed.
This is more than a pedantic distinction (even though we are Jews and
we love pedantic distinctions), because it has implications in
halakha. Every Rabbinic obligation and every Rabbinic prohibition is
waived in the face of embarrassment, but it is not waived in the face
of modesty. Of course, the level of embarrassment has to be high
enough to trigger the rule, and "high enough" is, of course, not
anywhere defined; nevertheless the rule, and the distinction, exist.
I don't have an example that illustrates the distinction, but I'm sure
I could contrive one.
And as long as we're on the subject (and you are the one who brought
it up, not I), everyone is always talking about harxaqoth from gilluy
`arayoth, and every week they come up with a new one, even though the
Torah never uses r-x-q when talking about about gilluy `arayoth. The
Torah says (Leviticus 18:6) "lo thiqrvu lgalloth `erva" -- don't do
it, and don't even come close to doing it -- but the Torah doesn't use
r-x-q to say that we have to actively run away from it, which is what
the Torah says about falsehood. Instead of living in a society where
everyone is concerned about harxaqoth from gilluy `arayoth, and
every week they come up with a new one, I wish I lived in a society
where people were concerned about harxaqoth from falsehood.
Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
6424 North Whipple Street
Chicago IL 60645-4111
(1-773)7613784 landline
(1-410)9964737 GoogleVoice
j...@m5.chicago.il.us
http://m5.chicago.il.us
When Martin Buber was a schoolboy, it must have been
no fun at all playing tag with him during recess.
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2023 22:45:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Keeping Well Away From Sheker
On Sun, Feb 26, 2023 at 06:42:59PM -0600, Jay F. Shachter via Avodah wrote:
>> ... So this may be more related to His report to Avraham about why
>> Sarah laughed than a usual case of midevar sheqer.
> Can people please stop misusing this example, once and for all? I am
> sick of the way liars always trot this one out, whenever they want to
> justify one of their lies. Here's what's wrong with it:
> 1. God didn't lie. Genesis 18:12 tells us that Sarah laughed
> inwardly, to say "axarey blothiy haitha liy `edna, vadoniy zaqen".
> Clearly the Torah is reporting Sarah's thoughts...
...
> 2. God does a lot of things that we're not allowed to do. God sends
> earthquakes to Turkey that kill fifty thousand people....
Yevamos 65b quotes R Ila'a besheim R Elazar beR' Shimon that it is
proper leshanos in a matter that would bring peace, quoting Bereishis
50:16-17, where the brothers make up a tzavah from Yaaqov tp Yoseif that
he never made.
Devei R Yishma'el prove this comclusiom from our pasuq.
The gemara itself says Hashem misrepresented the truth, albeit not
oitroght lie, for the sake of peace. And holds it up as an example for
us to follow.
(See also Y-mi Pe'ah 4b.)
> So please put that one to rest, once and for all.
>> .... Midevar sheqer tirchaq has loopholes for ... milaiyhu (saying
>> you don't know something you do, for anavah), bepuriah (because
>> tashmish hamitah is private) and be'ushpiza (to protect a host from
>> being inundated). (C.f. Yeavmos 63b, BM 23b-24a)
> Where do you find this brought down as halakha?
It is cited lehalakhah at CM 262:12.
Rav Ovadiah has a teshuvah about this in Yabia Omer. And Rav Moshe
writes about how the 13 middos put chessed before emes for a reason.
Unfortunately, my search abibities didn't help me find either. But
finding the gemara in the SA suffices to answer your question.
Again, we are not talking about outright lying, but telling half the
story, telling the truth in a way that eill likely be taken in a different
way, etc... Still, peace justifies these forms of dishonesty. Lehalakhah.
So, if your wife asks you if that dress makes her look fat, breathe easy.
You are not obligated to say "yes".
"Given the choice, when it came to interpersonal relations the sages
valued peace over truth, not least because truth can flourish in peace
while it is often the first casualty in war.
- R Lord Jonathan Sack zt"l <https://outorah.org/p/22794>
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
http://www.aishdas.org/asp of instincts.
Author: Widen Your Tent - Rav Yisrael Salanter
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:47:40 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Women Davening
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 11:31:30AM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> I agree with that when he comes out with a psak that matches the lenient
> position that the people are doing. But that is not the case here. His
> bottom line is to unequivocally makes women obligated in davening three
> times a day...
No, he says that's mistaber. And thus finds the MA's shitah surprising.
But it doesn't stop him from saying that the masses are indeed following
a dochaq peshat in Rashi and Tosafos, that he can defend, and that
according to the Rif and Rambam, are doing correctly. And thus that's
his masqanah, because he is giving accepted practice more weight than his
own legal arguments.
(Which I am sure would really bother RMR, given what he says in the
threads about pesaq and emes, but the AhS does that all the time.)
You started by asking how I ignored OC 106 and looked only at 89. But
you're insisting on a read of siman 106 that would have him contradicting
what he wrote in 109. When there is really no reason to.
Or, to put it another way, if you take what you called RYME's limud zekhus
in 106 as his masqanah, it explains why he gives that masqanah earlier in
hilkhos tefillah.
(Aside from my general but admittedly very subjective impression from
some 9 years of learning AhS Yomi that it doesn't fit his general style
to find limudei zekhus rather than either asking the tzibbur to change
or assuming we or the generations of rabbanim who watched us "must hold"
something else.)
> A) There is a Torah positive mitzvah not dependent upon time - so women are
> of course obligated.
> B) there are, as there usually are with Torah mitzvot, loads of Rabbinic
> mitzvot surrounding the Torah mitzvot.
> C) Maybe those Rabbinic mitzvot mentioned in B) don't apply to women?
Which are shehazman gerama, and therefore women aren't obligated in
the rabbinic additions.
> (i) How about kashrut such as meat and milk: the Torah only prohibits
> cooking meat with milk, eating cooked meat with milk, and benefit from
> cooked meat with milk - and does not apply this to chicken...
Nothing about an asei or a zeman, so not a parallel.
> (ii) How about Shabbat - where women are obligated in the Torah positive
> mitzvot of Shabbat because of shomur v' zochur. Rav Moshe Feinstein did
> some fancy footwork to enable women at home to be able to eat while waiting
> for their husband to get home from kiddush. But all of that is unnecessary.
> Kiddush, at least on Shabbat morning, is d'rabbanan...
But would still be part of the general rule about Shabbos, being a blend
of asei and lav, being different. Even for "zakhor", which is asei only.
Just as per women being mechuyavos in the deOraisos that are mitzvos
asei shehazman gerama, they would be mechuyavos in the deRabbanans.
> (iii) How about Pesach...
Ditto.
Which is how the AhS concludes what he writes when opening his discussion
of the chiyuv: women are mechuyavos to daven, but not the zeman gerama
addition of a specific liturgy because those are at secific times of day.
Nothing to do with deOraisa vs. derabbanan add-ons.
Side note: One can disagree with the Magein Avraham. (RYME does more
often than not.) But if you think his statement leads to ridiculous
conclusions, isn't it far more likely you didn't get the full depth of
his shita than he made a silly mistake?
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
http://www.aishdas.org/asp 'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
Author: Widen Your Tent 'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 16:17:21 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] the Sne and the Aish
On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 06:10:09PM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> I was looking at Shemot 3:2 the other day and thinking about the Sne, and it
> struck me that what Moshe Rabbanu saw in the Sne is described as "aish" and
> "bo'ar eish" despite it not being consumed. And it struck me that these are
> the same words used in the pasuk in Shemot 35:3 ie the same root in lo
> t'vairu aish. Now we usually think of aish as being fuel + oxygen -> carbon
> dioxide + water, ie the scientific definition of fire - and certainly that
> is mostly what they were kindling over the years, and what they were
> avoiding kindling on Shabbat in the midbar.
Not only "aish", but also the word "bi'ur", which names the melakhah.
Lemaaseh, though, the "seneh bo'er ba'iesh vehasneh enunu ukal" was an
illusion. That's what the pasuq says "vayar". But what actually happened
was that the mal'akh appeared "belabas-eish mitokh hasseneh". Notice the
fire was really smaller, within the bush, and just gave the appearance
of engulfing it.
RYBS notes (given in a motza"sh shiur to his congregants) that it was
Moshe looking again and realizing that the fire was metzamzeim that
Moshe's nevu'ah went up from being a message from a malach to "Vayiqra
eilav Elokim mitokh haseneh". When he realized Hashem wouldn't need the
flashier presentation Moshe became the anav mikol adam that merited his
being the av hanevi'im.
To get to why I brought all of this up... I'm not sure what the story
was with the bush not burning. Maybe the small fire that was within the
bush did burn it, but the bush was not consumed (ukal) because the fire
that seemed to totally engulf it wasn't real.
> Now at the time of the midbar and Chazal, we
> were not in a position to deliberately generate visible light photons in any
> other way than by classic fire - but now we are (inter alia LEDs)!
In any case, in terms of the melakhah.... It's a machloqes whether making
a gacheles shel mateches is bishul or havarah. Seems to me this issue --
is aish causing a glow in general or only if something is burning -- is the
root of that machloqes.
This was the case with the filament in the old-school incandescent bulb.
What the case of LEDs adds is the possibility of making light without
anything reaching yad soledes bo, so a lack of havarah doesn't leave you
with bishul. But I don't see how the old bulb was more about combustion
than an LED is.
(I have posted in the past that I think florescent bulbs are a bigger
problem than incandescents, since we not only have glowing electrodes
hidden the bulb, we use their heat to boil mercury into a vapor. But
that's a bishul issue, not havarah.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Every child comes with the message
http://www.aishdas.org/asp that God is not yet discouraged with
Author: Widen Your Tent humanity.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF - Rabindranath Tagore
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 23:05:00 -0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] the Sne and the Aish
I wrote:
> I was looking at Shemot 3:2 the other day and thinking about the Sne,
> and it struck me that what Moshe Rabbanu saw in the Sne is described
> as "aish" and "bo'ar eish" despite it not being consumed. And it
> struck me that these are the same words used in the pasuk in Shemot
> 35:3 ie the same root in lo t'vairu aish. Now we usually think of
> aish as being fuel + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water, ie the
> scientific definition of fire - and certainly that is mostly what they
> were kindling over the years, and what they were avoiding kindling on
Shabbat in the midbar.
And RMB replied:
<<Not only "aish", but also the word "bi'ur", which names the melakhah.>>
I thought that was part of the point I was making, sorry if it was not
clear.
<<Lemaaseh, though, the "seneh bo'er ba'iesh vehasneh enunu ukal" was an
illusion. That's what the pasuq says "vayar". But what actually happened was
that the mal'akh appeared "belabas-eish mitokh hasseneh". Notice the fire
was really smaller, within the bush, and just gave the appearance of
engulfing it.>>
What do you mean by "an illusion"? What is an illusion in this context? I
would understand the word illusion to mean it didn't really happen - like a
kind of mirage or dream. But isn't that an assumption? Why cannot we say
that in fact it is described exactly as it happened, no illusion? It was
just a physical form that Moshe and the people of his generation had never
seen, eish that does not ukal.
<<RYBS notes (given in a motza"sh shiur to his congregants) that it was
Moshe looking again and realizing that the fire was metzamzeim that Moshe's
nevu'ah went up from being a message from a malach to "Vayiqra eilav Elokim
mitokh haseneh". When he realized Hashem wouldn't need the flashier
presentation Moshe became the anav mikol adam that merited his being the av
hanevi'im.
To get to why I brought all of this up... I'm not sure what the story was
with the bush not burning. Maybe the small fire that was within the bush did
burn it, but the bush was not consumed (ukal) because the fire that seemed
to totally engulf it wasn't real.>>
If there was a small "fire" that did "burn" then the centre of the bush
would be reduced to ash, even if the rest of it was not. And what does
"real" mean. Why cannot a phenomenon that engulfs a bush not be real on its
own terms, even if it is not something known to the physics of its day?
> Now at the time of the midbar and Chazal,
> we were not in a position to deliberately generate visible light
> photons in any other way than by classic fire - but now we are (inter alia
LEDs)!
<<In any case, in terms of the melakhah.... It's a machloqes whether making
a gacheles shel mateches is bishul or havarah. Seems to me this issue -- is
aish causing a glow in general or only if something is burning -- is the
root of that machloqes.
This was the case with the filament in the old-school incandescent bulb.>>
Yes - but in the case of the filament, people took comfort from the fact
that just like a gacheles shel mateches, it was also very hot and would burn
other things. Ie while it itself would not be consumed, it would burn
anything around it were it not isolated, whereas LEDs don't even do that. I
agree fluorescents might be considered even more obviously a shabbat issur.
<<What the case of LEDs adds is the possibility of making light without
anything reaching yad soledes bo, so a lack of havarah doesn't leave you
with bishul. But I don't see how the old bulb was more about combustion than
an LED is.>>
Because people could say well it is probably havarah, and if it is not
havarah it is bishul, and something very similar is described in the Rambam
and other poskim as an issur d'orita.
The problem we have with LEDs is that there is nothing remotely similar
described in the poskim, because nothing like LEDs were known at the time.
While they most likely did heat a gacheles shel mateches in building the
mishkan (so truth is, whether or not it is bishul or havara is an academic
exercise, it is clearly assur), they most certainly did not use LEDs. RSZA
after debating the whole question of electricity ends up a) falling back on
minhag but b) strengthens this by noting that the vast majority of uses of
electricity was for the purpose of doing a melacha d'orisa - particularly
that of incandescent bulbs and similar. Today I would say that the vast
majority of our uses of electricity is to activate LEDs (not just lights but
screens/phones/computers etc). We barely have an incandescent or florescent
in the house. And as you say, you cannot say LEDs are bishul. If they are
not havara - you end up turning most of what we do not do on Shabbat
increasingly into mere minhag. Rav Weiss wants to solve with the makeh
b'patish. I understand the driving force here, but find it very difficult to
see this as makeh b'patish - partly because RZSA and others considered this
and rejected it, and partly because, as applied to electricity, the
mechanism is no different to that for flushing a toilet, and I cannot see
how one can assur the one as a melacha d'orita without the other (and the
world is noheg to flush toilets). And, it seems to me, we can live with
electricity as minhag, as RZSA did, if the ultimate product ie what it
generates, is understood to be an issur d'orisa. The reality of electricity
is that it is never an end in itself - we use electricity to enable the
production of light or heat or work or whatever - we don't actually have any
use for electrons flowing round circuits in and of themselves. LEDs in that
sense are much more fundamental, as they are the end product, they are what
we want to achieve. They are our light sources that have replaced candles
and oil lamps and fires.
But one cannot say that LEDs were used in the work to produce the mishkan.
What however it seemed to me we *might* be able to say is that given that
havarah and eish are the one melacha that is specifically mentioned in the
Torah (and yes we have gemarot that explain why there is a need for that),
but maybe one of the reasons for it being specifically chosen to be the one
and only is because there is an aspect of it that was not used to construct
the mishkan and could not be because it is so different to the technology
they had. But that of course HKBH had the tools to generate and produce
eish in a form similar to LEDs, and one way of showing that was in the
ma'ase of the Sne - with the specific use of the key words to make the link.
>-Micha
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Prof. L. Levine
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 14:01:45 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] The Reason for Mishloach Manos
From the OU Kosher Halacha Yomis
QUESTION: What is the reason for the mitzvah of giving Mishloach Manos on Purim?
ANSWER: This is the subject of a well-known dispute. Manos Halevi (Megillas
Esther 9:16-17<https://www.sefaria.org/Esther.9.16-17?lang=he-en&;utm_source=outorah.org&utm_medium=sefaria_linker>)
explains that the Purim story took place because Haman maligned the Jews,
saying that they engage in personal feuds and do not get along with one
another. This is alluded to in the verse ?yeshno am echad mefuzar umeforad
bein ha?amim?, there is one nation which is dispersed and scattered among
the nations, i.e., lacking unity. To demonstrate the falsehood of this
libelous charge, Mordechai and Esther instituted that Mishloach Manos
should be given to one?s friends and acquaintances, to foster camaraderie
and good will among the Jews. This demonstrates that we do not engage in
personal feuds; on the contrary, we engage in acts of friendship, by
gifting our food to others. Terumas HaDeshen (1:111), however, explains
that the purpose of giving one?s acquaintances Mishloach Manos is to ensure
that p
oor people enjoy a festive and lavish Seudas Purim. Although most people
are not poor and therefore do not need food given to them for their
Seudah, Chazal instituted that Misloach Manos be given to wealthy people
as well, so as not to embarrass the poor (Teshuvos Chasam Sofer OC
196<https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Orach_Chayim.196?lang=he-en&;utm_source=outorah.org&utm_medium=sefaria_linker>).
Professor Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230228/af6fc523/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/
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.)