Avodah Mailing List

Volume 09 : Number 049

Friday, June 21 2002

• DOmeh or doMEH?
• Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: DOmeh or doMEH?
• Tur organization
• Age of Majority for nonJews
• Kitzur maskanot Bnei Banim
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Age of Majority for nonJews
• Re: Age of Majority for nonJews
• Two He'oros
• Re: DOmeh or doMEH?
• Re: Kavana in Shma
• Re: Two He'oros
• What We DO NOT say about the RADBAZ ZY"A
• RE: What We DO NOT say about the RADBAZ ZY"A
• RE: What We DO NOT say about the X
• Re: What We DO NOT say about the RADBAZ ZY"A
• the need to wear a tallis when being oleh letorah
• Maaser Sheni in Yerushalayim
• Re: The OU and Israeli produce
• RE: OU and Israeli produce
• Re: OU and Israeli produce
• OU and Israeli produce

jay grossman asks:
I was wondering if the correct way to say it is "V'ein DOmeh L'cha"
or V'ein doMEH L'chah". The siddur Rinat Yisroel has doMEH; all other
siddurim I checked have DOmeh.

In Shir Hashirim 2:9 it's doMEH.
kol tuv
yosef stern

One of the things I've been working on is at least having proper 
kavana for the first pasuk of Shma. I have come up with the following 

ideas that I should be thinking about:

1. Kavana to be mekabel ol malchus Shamayim and to be yotzei the 
mitzva of kabolas ol malchus Shamayim. 

2. Kavana to be yotzei the mitzva of saying Kriyas Shma of 
Shachris/Arvis.

3. That Hashem is Melech over Shamayim va'Aretz and in every 
direction. 

4. That Hashem Elokeinu should become Hashem Echad (i.e. accepted 
also by all the nations) BBY"A. 

Two others I've kind of adopted from kavonos you're supposed to have 
when you put on tefillin, but which seem relevant:

5. Yichud Shmo (goes with Hashem Echad, but should also be included 
in kabolas ol malchus Shamayim).

6. Yetzias Mitzrayim (one of the many things for which we are 
indebted to Hashem). 

Anyone disagree? Anyone think I'm missing anything else? 

<sigh> Now I have to start working on the rest of it.... 

-- Carl

On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 06:55:51PM +0300, Carl M . Sherer wrote:
: One of the things I've been working on is at least having proper 
: kavana for the first pasuk of Shma. I have come up with the following 
: ideas that I should be thinking about:

See appendix B (kavanos for the first paragraph of Shema) and the
footnotes in Ashirah Lashem <http://www.aishdas.org/siddur.shtml>.

: 1. Kavana to be mekabel ol malchus Shamayim and to be yotzei the 
: mitzva of kabolas ol malchus Shamayim. 
....
: 3. That Hashem is Melech over Shamayim va'Aretz and in every 
: direction. 

An important distinction. As the CC writes, one shouldn't be so busy
thinking of Hashem (aleph) as Melech over the aretz and 8 raqi'os
(ches) and the four ruchos (dalet) that one forgets to make Him Melech
over oneself!

: Anyone disagree? Anyone think I'm missing anything else?

What about the words "Shema Yisra'el", and importance of being (1)
yisra'el, and (2) part of a larger whole. ("Ulefi shehotzi es atzmo min
hakelal, kafar be'iqar.")

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
micha@aishdas.org            heart, with your entire soul, with all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org       Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (413) 403-9905          It is two who look in the same direction.

"Carl M . Sherer" wrote:
> 5. Yichud Shmo (goes with Hashem Echad, but should also be included
> in kabolas ol malchus Shamayim).

I hope you mean by this what the Rambam considers the primary mitzva of
KS - knowing that there is one God, neither more nor fewer.  OTOH, the
Rambam uses the term l'yachado, rather than l'yached shmo for this, so
you may mean something else,  in which case you've left out the "ikkar
shehakol talui bo".

David Riceman

The grammarians tell us that when a word is connected to the following
word and that following word has its accent on the first syllable, or
is a short, one syllable word, that the first word is n'soga la'achor ,
i.e., its accent changes from mil'ra' to mil'eil.

The Torah has been passed down to us with nikkud, m'tagim, makkafim
and t'amim. So, even without the aid of the grammarians, we know how
to pronounce words in the Torah accordance with these symbols.

As there is no Domeh l'kha or domeh lakh in the Torah, let's take as an
example, the occurrences of natan lakh and l'kha in the Chumash.

NAtan-lakh appears 2 times
NAtan-l'kha occurs 3 times
NAtan l'kha appears once (without makkaf)

NOten-l'kha occurs once (mukkefet)
noTEN lakh (without makkaf) appear 13 times.  
noTEN l'kha appears 13 times. It is questionable whether these 13 should
be included in the survey. In determining ta'amim, it is sometimes found
that a letter with sh'va na' is considered a syllable. If so, le-kha is
not a one syllable word but is mil'ra' and does not cause n'siga la'achor.

So, does the Chumash give us a clear and definite rule? Does the makkaf
increase the connectivity? Is the past tense rule, if it exists, different
from the rule for present tense?

We have also not questioned the effect of the word that appears before
ntn and whether it is connected or separated from the ntn word. We might
also question whether the word before ntn or the word after ntn is the
more closely joined to ntn.

Now, back to the question of doMEH or DOmeh l'kha before ein kEiloheinu
and also to umi domeh lakh in shmoneh 'esrei.

The Siddur does not have t'amim and therefore, unlike the Tanakh, no
fixed masoret passed down with few errors for over one thousand years
from the days of Aharon ben Asher. In the Siddur, neither the nusach
of the text nor the amounts of connection or separation, nor the use of
makkafim has been fixed. Therefore: Ish, hayashar b'einav ya'aseh.

Baer-Avodat Yisrael and Goldschmidt have DOmeh. RZ"H had DOmeh which
doesn't necessarily make it wrong. R' Jay says that Rabbi Arty Scroll
has DOmeh and even that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I say DOmeh,
which doesn't make it right.

Most ancient siddurim, such as Sa'adia Gaon or R' Shlomo ben Natan have
neither nikkud nor m'tagim. Most of the discussion in the past is on the
dagesh or lack of dagesh in the lamed and the connection or separation
of umi or v'ein, and less on whether the n'siga achor applies.

I'll leave it for R'Seth, our resident linguist and siddur historian,
to tell us about the nuschaot of the siddurim of the Rokeach, R' Shabetai
Sofer, R' 'Azriel & R' Eliyahu, etc.

My opinion, for what it's worth is that, in the absence of an ancient
fixed nusach, each should follow his own custom and change only if that
custom doesn't make too much sense. Ish yashar b'einav.., eilu v'eilu...,
our Abba understands mispronunciations and even baby talk, the intention
and kavanna is what counts the most.

k"t,
David

Why is Hil. Nidah in Tur/SA Yoreh De`ah when, one would think, it more
properly belongs in Even ha-`Ezer?

It's one thing for the Mishnah to have Nidah in Tohorot (even the Gemara
thought Nidah the only worthwhile masekhet to comment upon as only it
has/d direct application to ppl today; and BTW, Meiri says some Geonim
placed Nidah at the end of Nashim; just as Berakhot was placed by some
in the beginning or end of Moed), but once you're changing the order
and reorganizing the classification of the Mishnah, why be restricted
to such a separation of category?

If you say that Nidah is a matter of Isur ve-Heter, and such is the
ordering principle in Yoreh Deah, how does one explain Hil Kibud Av
ve-Em; Talmud Torah, Tsedakah, Avelut, etc? Once you admit of exceptions
to the rule, why not place Nidah together with other rules relevant
to Ishut even if they don't have isur ve-heter issues? If you say the
first two thirds of YD is isur ve-heter issues and the last third only
"miscellaneous" ones, why does, say, Kilayim break into that -- it should
belong to the first two thirds? Why is Avelut placed last-- this seems
to follow exactly Rambam's ordering of Avelut to Sefer Shoftim, where
it seems out of place as well?

Even the Mishneh Torah has Hil. Nidah in Isurei Bi'ah* (part of sefer
Kedushah) but this follows directly Sefer Nashim. Why does the Tur change
Rambam's organization and leave Nidah in the middle of ..."nowhere"? And
it's clear, at least to me, that Rambam (and the mishnah) is serving
as some form of organizing model for the Tur. [BTW, while we normally
consider YD vol 2 and EH vol 3 of the Tur/SA, it seems clear to me (so
much so that Im sure everyone else already knows this) that YD actually
should be vol 3: Ahavah and Zemanim of Rambam become OH in Tur; Nashim,
which follows Zemanim, becomes EH; Kedushah, Haflaah, Zeraim and Taharah
become YD; Nezikin, Kinyan, Mishpatim and Shoftim become HM. Avodah and
Korbanot with no contemporary relevance are left out. The only "problem"
with this is that the Tur, in organizing YD, has completely switched the
order of Sefer Kedushah of the MT: whereas Rambam has 1) Isurei Biah;
2) Ma'akhalot Asurot; 3) Shehitah -- the Tur has Yoreh Deah beginning
with Shehitah, then a few which would come under "maakhalot asurot"
and only then nidah??? Why the change?]

Once you switch, for whatever reason, the organizational principle of
your model -- in this case, I think, Rambam -- why be bound to the
classificatory details of what goes into each class? After all, the
Tur doesnt feel bound to Rambam's class details elsewhere: for example,
whereas Rambam has Hil Tefilin/Mezuzah/Sefer Torah, Tsitsit and Milah
[wouldnt Milah make more sense in Hil Aku"m or Teshuvah BTW?] nearly
all together in Ahavah, Tur breaks them up so that Tefilin and Tsistit
go to OH and Milah, ST and Mezuzah go to YD.

*[and way far away in Sefer Taharah, but that's to be expected. Both
the Gemara and Rambam distinguish between Tum'ah ve-Taharah and Isur
ve-Heter as major issues of halakhah.]

Yoru De`ah rabenu.

Gedolah Tikvatekh Tsiyon, ve-Shalom ve-tohelet yeshu`atekh 
lavo...Ha-mit'avim  le-yom yish`ekh ve-yasisu be-rov kevodekh...yagilu 
vanayikh be-kirbekh vi-yedidayikh elayikh nilvu.

YD

the Maharsha mentions in connection with the Gemara in today's Daf Yomi
that Avraham Avinu was incarcerated for 10 years, that this was because
since he was makir es Bor'o at 3 years old, they wanted to wait until
he was old enough to try as an adult, 13 years old.

Are there sources for 13 being the age of majority for nonJews, and/or
before Matan Torah?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' YH Henkin has made his Kitzur maskanot Bnei Banim, a 16 pg Hebrew
summary of the conclusions reached in all three volumes of Resp. Bnei
Banim, siman by siman, available on line.

See <http://www.aishdas.org/articles/PiskeiBneiBanim.pdf>.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

On 19 Jun 2002 at 10:48, David Riceman wrote:
> "Carl M . Sherer" wrote:
>> 5. Yichud Shmo (goes with Hashem Echad, but should also be included
>> in kabolas ol malchus Shamayim).
> 
> I hope you mean by this what the Rambam considers the primary mitzva of
> KS - knowing that there is one God, neither more nor fewer.  OTOH, the
> Rambam uses the term l'yachado, rather than l'yached shmo for this, so
> you may mean something else,  in which case you've left out the "ikkar
> shehakol talui bo".

I meant the first one. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 6/19/02 9:04:32am EDT, cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> Two others I've kind of adopted from kavonos you're supposed to have 
> when you put on tefillin, but which seem relevant:

> 5. ...
> 6. Yetzias Mitzrayim (one of the many things for which we are 
> indebted to Hashem). 

See Kitzur S"A 17:4.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On 20 Jun 2002 at 10:17, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> See Kitzur S"A 17:4.

Did you mean 17:3? 

Interesting. It implies that the kavana of the Shamayim va'Aretz and 
the four ruchos should davka be on the echad. Is that l'ikuva? 

-- Carl

In a message dated 06/19/2002 4:11:33pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Are there sources for 13 being the age of majority for nonJews, and/or
> before Matan Torah?
 
IIRC some hold 13 to be halacha moshe misinai but the psikta(?) quotes
that shimon and Levi were referred to as "ish" by killing of shchem and
they were 13 at the time.

KT
Joel

In a message dated 6/19/02 4:11:33pm EDT, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Are there sources for 13 being the age of majority for nonJews,

Yes, Miri and Shita Mkubetzes Ksubos 11a, see other MM in Encyclopedia 
Taalmudis Erech Ben Noach (Vol. 3 p. 362 footnote 462a).

> and/or before Matan Torah?

See Rashi Breishis 25:27, (also note Rashi Breishis 18:7 El Hanar, Yishmoel 
was then 13) this is no Stira to Rashi 25:30 which is when Esuv was 15.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

Interesting...

As I have noted in the past, and will be happy to repeat upon demand :-),
there is a fascinating interplay between "Edah" and "Kahal" in the Mei
Merivah - what I just noticed this year, actually this morning, is that
the subsequent parasha of the nechashim uses the term "Am" exclusively!

BTW, anyone notice at the end of the last perek in BB that a *kortov*
is an eighth of an eighth, reminiscent of the Gemara that says a Talmid
Chochom may possess an eighth of an eighth of Ga'avah. Perhaps we don't
pasken like that Gemara's license for a TC to possess Ga'avah just like
one is not allowed to put even a *kortov* of honey in the ketores...

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 05:26:36AM -0700, jay grossman wrote:
: In the Shabbos morning brochoh of "Yotzer", we say "HaKol Yoduchah".
: I was wondering if the correct way to say it is "V'ein DOmeh L'cha"
: or V'ein doMEH L'chah". The siddur Rinat Yisroel has doMEH; all other
: siddurim I checked have DOmeh.

I was under the impression the stress would be on the cholam.

But I was also under the impression the word before it was a rhetorical
"umi".  The phrase is lifted from birekhas gevurah.

-mi

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 10:48:24AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
:> 5. Yichud Shmo (goes with Hashem Echad, but should also be included
:> in kabolas ol malchus Shamayim).

: I hope you mean by this what the Rambam considers the primary mitzva of
: KS...

Qeri'as Shema tzerikhah kavanah. Is that kavanah to be yotzei, or the
kavanah of yichud and/or malchus HQBH?

When we discuss whether matza requires kavanah, we speak of knowing
you're eating it for the mitzvah, not the message. But here, the ikkar
mitzvah is the message.

Is it possible that mitzvos einum tzerikhos kavanah refers to kavanah to
be yotzei and would include avodah shebaleiv? Then would we say that,
avodah shebaleiv requires a *different* kavanah -- the meaning of what
you're saying.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Life is complex.
micha@aishdas.org                    Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org                   The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                                    - R' Binyamin Hecht

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:

> BTW, anyone notice at the end of the last perek in BB that a *kortov*
> is an eighth of an eighth, reminiscent of the Gemara that says a Talmid
> Chochom may possess an eighth of an eighth of Ga'avah.

Compare Terumoth 11:8. R. Hirsch Isenberg once explained it as enough to
be observable (not like the Rambam ad. loc.) but not enough to be tasted
(64>60). So that a TC must be capable of displaying gaavah without
actually having it.

David Riceman

[Bounced from Areivim, from a discussion of Ethiopeian Jewry. -mi]

>and the Ethiopian Falasha community. Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef based his ruling
>on the Jewishness of the Ethiopian community on a ruling of the RADBAZ, a
>16th century Egyptian rabbi which was simply in error. The history of

>Translation: they're not Jewish. The RADBAZ assumed that because
>they were called  AHUDAI they, in fact, were Jews. What a mistake !

We do NOT say some 20th or 21st century historical researcher has proved 
the Radbaz wrong R"L.

Please rephrase.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

From: BACKON@vms.HUJI.AC.IL
...
>If the metziut was in error, we don't listen. The Radbaz erroneously thought
>the AHUDAI were Jewish. This is a problem in metziut not halacha.
...

Nope, these cases are NOT in point. Even concerning Rabbeinu Tam's
Motzo'ei Shabbos shitta, where there are metzi'us questions, we are
loathe to say"wrong", "mistake, kal va'chomer ben beno shel kal va'chomer
concerning history - which (and there is no more avid history buff than
me!) is NOT metzi'us.

In the Radbaz's responsum, IIRC there is no mere reliance on a word,
BTW...

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> We do NOT say some 20th or 21st century historical researcher
> has proved the R' X wrong R"L.

INteresting point -- when CAN we say this? WHY would it be wrong in
this case?

If it's OK to say that comments about the sun sinking into a pool of
mud were mistaken, or that kinim spontaneously generating is mistaken,
why can't we say it here?

After all, we aren't talking about something which is Torah M'Sinai
here -- or something with a basis in mesorah. We're talking about a psak
based on a historical/sociological metziut.

Akiva

There's a gemara in Yevamot 92a, "Horu bet din she'shak'a chama u'l'basof
zarcha chama, EIN ZO HORA'A ELA TA'UT" and this is how the Rambam rules
in Hilchot Shegagot 14:3 re: mistakes in metzi'ut.

The misclassifying of the Ethiopians AHUDAI as "Jews" was a mistake in
metzi'ut rather than halacha.

And even in points of halacha, if one knows that a bet din (Sanhedrin !!)
erred,one doesn't follow them (Horayot 2b: "Horu b'd she'chelev mutar.."
Indeed, the Yerushalmi there says that one who knows that b"d erred and
still follows their psak is NOT called a "talmid".  There wouldn't be a
Siman 25 in Choshen Mishpat ("dayan she'ta'a) either.

Josh

Someone this morning showed me a sefer Ishei Yisroel on Hilchos Tefila
which towards the end has a number of Q&A's and psokim from Rav Chaim
Kanievsky shlit'a.

One that caught my eye was re the need to wear a tallis when being
oleh letorah.

He brings that from the MB [14:11] it is seems that one should.

RCK's psak is that men who wear (short) jackets (and not long coats etc)
should put on a tallis.

In our main Shul here where we davven nussach Ashkenaz and have Oberlender
minhogim - a tallis is always insisted on (even if wearing a beckeshe..).
However in the outside minyonim where Nusach Sfard rules - there is no
such insistence (except Shabbos morning and YT).

We also follow a minhag that whoever has a tallis on for krias Hatorah -
even the gabai and baal koreh - does not remove it until after kedusha.

The MB also talks about having a tallis when being 'yored lifnei hateiva'.
However we do not do this except for shachris (all tefilos), shabbos,
YT and taanis for mincha.

SBA

The Mechaber (YD 231:135) explains that if one has tahor Masser Sheni in
Yerushalayim, he can neither redeem it, nor take it out of Yerushalayim.

Rav Kalman Kahana, in his appendix to the Kitzur S"A, writes (4:8) that
this applies only within the "ancient borders", rather than in the new
city. He also (there) offers the simple solution, that if one is in the
Old City and wishes to take Trumos and Massros, he should be metamay the
food whileit is still tevel, and when it becomes Maaser Sheni, he'll be
able to redeem it. Perhaps that's why he did not mention the Mechaber's
halacha against taking it out of the city, which also applies only to
Maaser Sheni which is tahor.

Later (in 6:2) Rav Kahana writes that a coin of Maaser Sheni cannot be
redeemed onto another coin while within the Old City. I am wondering
whether the prohibition of taking Maaser Sheni out of Yerushalayim also
applies to Maaser Sheni coins. Do we have anyone on the list who lives in
the Old City, or otherwise frequents it often enough to be familiar with
how today's poskim handle these situations?

Akiva Miller

[Bounced from Areivim. -mi]

R' Akiva wrote, amongst other interesting tidbits: "I think aniyim would
occasionally go for it after I left, but the Eida said not to worry,
as long as I tried to be discreet."

I was wondering what the halachic thinking is behind this. We're talking
Trumah, Maaser Rishon and Trumas Maaser, eaten in tumah by a tomei
possibly non Cohen. Sounds pretty serious.

I checked it up in MIshnayos Trumos Perek 6 & 7 we learnt that (a
non-Cohen) who purposely eats Truma needs to pay back to a Cohen its
value and get 'killed by heaven'. If he was warned, he gets 39 lashes.

One who eats it accidentally simply pays back 125%, if he ever finds
out. Not as serious as I thought...

- Danny

> I was wondering what the halachic thinking is behind this.
> We're talking Trumah, Maaser Rishon and Trumas Maaser, eaten
> in tumah by a tomei possibly non Cohen. Sounds pretty serious.

A few possibilities:

1) All tenuva produce ALREADY has trumah/maaser taken -- possibly the
Eida holds you can rely on that in this case?

2) Since it usually doesn't happen we don't have to worry about the
rare exceptions.

Akiva

On 19 Jun 2002 at 20:45, Daniel M Wells wrote:
>>> I was wondering what the halachic thinking is behind this.
>>> We're talking Trumah, Maaser Rishon and Trumas Maaser, eaten
>>> in tumah by a tomei possibly non Cohen. Sounds pretty serious.
> 
>> A few possibilities:
> 
>> 1) All tenuva produce ALREADY has trumah/maaser taken -- possibly the
>> Eida holds you can rely on that in this case?
> 
> Take note of some of the following points:
> 
> 1. While all Tnuva warehouses take Trumos and Maaseros before releasing
> for sale to grocery stores, there are some warehouses, notably Tel Aviv,
> who remove the prerequisite Trumah Gedola and then toss it back into the
> container, since the halacha states that if seperated Trumah Gedola gets
> mixed up (and obviously by accident..) with the maasered produce and it is
> less than 1 in 200 then the whole produce is allowed.

Why wouldn't that fall under ain m'vatlin issur l'chatchila? 

What's worse, can you correct it by re-separating on your own? IIRC 
that's a machlokes tanaim....

-- Carl

>> I was wondering what the halachic thinking is behind this.
>> We're talking Trumah, Maaser Rishon and Trumas Maaser, eaten
>> in tumah by a tomei possibly non Cohen. Sounds pretty serious.

> A few possibilities:

> 1) All tenuva produce ALREADY has trumah/maaser taken -- possibly the
> Eida holds you can rely on that in this case?

Take note of some of the following points:

1. While all Tnuva warehouses take Trumos and Maaseros before releasing
for sale to grocery stores, there are some warehouses, notably Tel Aviv,
who remove the prerequisite Trumah Gedola and then toss it back into the
container, since the halacha states that if seperated Trumah Gedola gets
mixed up (and obviously by accident..) with the maasered produce and it is
less than 1 in 200 then the whole produce is allowed.

2. According to the CI, a person who does his own separation should be
aware that if the crates of fruit or vegetables are not from the same
picking then if for example some of the apples in his bag are from farmer
x and some from farmer y, then T&M has to be taken from each apple
individually.

3. There is a machlokes if T&M have to be taken on ChutzLeAretz vegetables
which are canned (ie the final process) here in Israel. The Eida does not
hold it is necessary, and so many of those who hold by that machmir
opinion, have to take T&M from each can. Shearis Yisrael (obviously) is
machmir and their Chutz LeAretz produce cans are maasered.

> 2) Since it usually doesn't happen we don't have to worry about the rare
> exceptions.

What percentage do you class is "rare". For the above reasons many of the
more motivated separate their own T&M (but usually without a Brocha).

And all this is just the tip of the iceberg....... Think about Shmitta,
Biur, and Neta Revai.

Daniel

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]