Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 065

Monday, November 25 2002

• Re: When science and mesorah collide
• Re: the ikkar of astrology
• RE: the ikkar of astrology
• Re: the ikkar of astrology
• RE: When science and mesorah collide
• RE: Corporeality of G-d
• Re: When science and mesorah collide
• RE: the ikkar of astrology
• RE: When science and mesorah collide
• RE: Corporeality of G-d
• RE: When science and mesorah collide
• dibre Torah be-loshan Bnei Adam
• corpeality
• RE: Rambam's shitta
• Re: RE: the ikkar of astrology
• Re: Corporeality of G-d

At 04:20 PM 11/24/02 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:53:09PM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
>: While Raavad probably agrees with Rambam about the fact I don't see
>: where he or Rambam state that it is based on Mesorah. The fact that
>: it is not an ikkar according to Raavad is based on the fact that
>: Chazal in fact do not claim it to be true....

>You're right, I got carried away. I'm arguing against contradicting
>mesorah to make the philosophy or science work. Not about voicing
>an opinion where mesorah is silent or speaks with multiple voices.

No, he was wrong, see my post on the topic.

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

At 08:11 PM 11/24/02 +0200, Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
>> So, did the Rambam create Judaism?

>No! The Borei created Judaism. Judaism, HE based on people who have
>a sechel plus Divine Revelation. Therefore, an ikkar is the "correct"
>pshat in maaseh breishis. This pshat is determined by a blend of sechel
>with Mesorah. Moreh points out that this "correctness" is not 100% logic
>nor 100% muchrach mesorah. This position is similar to the intro of the
>Ramban on the Rif that HALACHA is also an art and not an exact science
>and all proofs are not meant as 100% convincing even though they are 100%
>halachically binding.

V'asher al kein?

An ikkar cannot be a correct "pshat."

Can I say a correct "pshat" in Mattan Torah and then consign all those who 
do not accept it to eternal damnation - as halacha pesuka!

Pretty arrogant, no?

The Rambam did that, huh? That's what you hold?!

Kinda illogical...

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

> Can I say a correct "pshat" in Mattan Torah and then consign
> all those who
> do not accept it to eternal damnation - as halacha pesuka!

But the Ikkarim are NOT "Torah M'Sinai", and as has been discussed here before,
not everyone agrees on what they are or how many there are.

>
> Pretty arrogant, no?
>
> The Rambam did that, huh? That's what you hold?!

No -- the RamBam was confident about his ability to determine what the Ikkarim
were.

Just like Mishneh Torah was his codifying of Halacha.

>
> Kinda illogical...

Logic has had no place in this thread until now... why start now?

Akiva

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 08:19:51AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: But the Ikkarim are NOT "Torah M'Sinai", and as has been discussed
: here before, not everyone agrees on what they are or how many there are.

I think you're confusing halakhah lemosheh miSinai, a specific
category of de'Oraisos, with de'Oraisa in general. Hilchos hav'arah
beshabbos are subject to many machloqesin, even the parts that were
given in Sinai.

Nor does everyone accept the Rambam's assertion that halakhos leMosheh
miSinai are never subject to machloqes.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

>
> But "sevara" doesn't include physical evidence.

but can sevara trump physical evidence? If so, when?

> Not every statement made by ba'alei mesorah is necessarily TSBP.

Agreed. The trick is how to differentiate.

> It's unnecessary. The Torah is there to teach one lehisheleich lefanav
> velehiyos tamim. For that, one needs to speak in terms of human
> experience, not in terms of theoretical accuracy.

Why not -- in Halacha we *are* concerned with theoretical accuracy.

Also. not being accurate leads to drawing the wrong conclusions -- as is
obvious seeing all the *bad* science the frum world believes today.

> I gave mine: I hold points that all shitos agree is TSBP I hold in
> greater trust than how we understand evidence.

I take it you mean "All shitos, *at any time*" -- since you allow R'
Yitzchaq mei'Akko to establish a new shita of dating the universe.

> In all those cases, BTW, one is using scientific arguments to disprove
> a non-scientific event. The mabul, the haflagah, and yetzi'as
> Mitzrayim
> are all clearly nissim. Is it fair for us to expect their aftereffects
> to match those of natural events?

In the case of the Mabul, yes. The "meta-cause" was supernatural -- but the
actual cause (rainfall) IS natural. If it had happened *without* rainfall --
THAT would have been a miracle.

Likewise Yetzias Mitzraim -- the makkos were "supernatural" -- but the act
of 6,000,000 humans walking from mitzraim to E.Y. was a physical act.


> Astrology is different in kind, as it is a claim about the norm, not
> an exception. As is heliocentrism. Here we actually have a possibility
> of using science.
>
> Why can't we live with the questions rather than creating a "Torah of
> the gaps".

we can -- but then we have to accept *both* answers -- like your example of
gravity theory.

> I'm coining this term in parallel to the "God of the gaps",
> a philosophical position which ascribes anything not understood (gaps
> in our understanding) to Divine intervention. The problem is that as
> science advances, religion retreats.

It doesn't have to. this only happens when you view their domain as
antagonistic, both trying to explain the *same* thing.

> And they are built on emunas chachamim. If we allow non-Torah argument
> trump the ba'alei mesorah at whim, we are also risking real damage to
> shemiras hamitzvos.

Not at whim. Since it's clear that chazal got much of their science from the
non-Jews (as evident by your observation that Torah astronomy trails
Ptolmeic astronomy), it should be "fair game" to challenge that science
based on current science, just like we do with medicine.

Akiva

> This whole conversation borders on the surreal. How can the Rambam.,
> l'shitaschem, make up an ikkar and then consign those who do
> not accept
> his ikkar to "ein lahem chelek l'Olam ha'Bo?!"

Easily. He held X to be an Ikkar -- therefore those who don't accept it are
outside the pale.

The real question is "Did the Rambam make up the Ikkarim", or "what did the
Rambab base his Ikkarim on".

Which, IIRC, was discussed at length not too long ago.

Akiva

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 10:23:56AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote:
: > But "sevara" doesn't include physical evidence.

: but can sevara trump physical evidence? If so, when?

I don't know what you're asking. If you found evidence that seem to
imply both A and not-A, wouldn't you reject it?

Or do you mean sevarah applied to the postulates and axioms of Torah?
Those I was lumping in together with mesorah itself.

:> Not every statement made by ba'alei mesorah is necessarily TSBP.

: Agreed. The trick is how to differentiate.

Also agreed.

:> It's unnecessary. The Torah is there to teach one lehisheleich lefanav
:> velehiyos tamim. For that, one needs to speak in terms of human
:> experience, not in terms of theoretical accuracy.

: Why not -- in Halacha we *are* concerned with theoretical accuracy.

Are we? Review the beitzei kinim discussion, or my whole ta'am and
taste theory. In halakhah we're only concerned with what makes a
roshem on the individual, what brings him to temimus and deveiqus.
If a bug is beneath the size a human could experience it, we ignore
uts existance.

: Also. not being accurate leads to drawing the wrong conclusions -- as is
: obvious seeing all the *bad* science the frum world believes today.

Which is why I'm not talking about being inaacurate -- I'm talking about
accurately describe the world as people experience it.

:> I gave mine: I hold points that all shitos agree is TSBP I hold in
:> greater trust than how we understand evidence.

: I take it you mean "All shitos, *at any time*" -- since you allow R'
: Yitzchaq mei'Akko to establish a new shita of dating the universe.

Yes, but because he's mechadeish given Torah data points. His dating has
to do with a mesorah found in the Zohar (who got it from someone before
him), pesuqim and gematrios. That's the power of chiddush, that one can
build on the original words given at Sinai to find new implications.

: In the case of the Mabul, yes. The "meta-cause" was supernatural -- but the
: actual cause (rainfall) IS natural. If it had happened *without* rainfall --
: THAT would have been a miracle.

Was it? Then why didn't the zayis get swept away? According to the pasuq,
either the water stood keneid nozalim around EY, or the water miraculously
left domeim and tzomei'ach untouched.

: Likewise Yetzias Mitzraim -- the makkos were "supernatural" -- but the act
: of 6,000,000 humans walking from mitzraim to E.Y. was a physical act.

And if you combine the medrashim, they didn't need the bathroom, their
clothing didn't wear out, they walked on clouds... The medrashim
address the point that they leave the desert untouched.

Evidence of a neis would tamper with bekhirah chafshi only slightly
less than the neis itself. But this is a new thread.

:> Why can't we live with the questions rather than creating a "Torah of
:> the gaps".

: we can -- but then we have to accept *both* answers -- like your example of
: gravity theory.

In hachi nami.

:> And they are built on emunas chachamim. If we allow non-Torah argument
:> trump the ba'alei mesorah at whim, we are also risking real damage to
:> shemiras hamitzvos.

: Not at whim. Since it's clear that chazal got much of their science from the
: non-Jews (as evident by your observation that Torah astronomy trails
: Ptolmeic astronomy), it should be "fair game" to challenge that science
: based on current science, just like we do with medicine.

Yet again agreed. So now let's return to mei mabul, there they had
no scientific info, and relied entirely on info from mesorah. Or the
hypothetical case of what could be believed had there been no mesorah
about Bereishis 1's non-literalness.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

> Can I say a correct "pshat" in Mattan Torah and then consign
> all those who
> do not accept it to eternal damnation - as halacha pesuka!

But the Ikkarim are NOT "Torah M'Sinai", and as has been discussed here before,
not everyone agrees on what they are or how many there are.

>
> Pretty arrogant, no?
>
> The Rambam did that, huh? That's what you hold?!

No -- the RamBam was confident about his ability to determine what the Ikkarim
were.

Just like Mishneh Torah was his codifying of Halacha.

>
> Kinda illogical...

Logic has had no place in this thread until now... why start now?

Akiva

> But "sevara" doesn't include physical evidence.

but can sevara trump physical evidence? If so, when?

> Not every statement made by ba'alei mesorah is necessarily TSBP.

Agreed. The trick is how to differentiate.

> It's unnecessary. The Torah is there to teach one lehisheleich lefanav
> velehiyos tamim. For that, one needs to speak in terms of human
> experience, not in terms of theoretical accuracy.

Why not -- in Halacha we *are* concerned with theoretical accuracy.

Also. not being accurate leads to drawing the wrong conclusions -- as is
obvious seeing all the *bad* science the frum world believes today.

> I gave mine: I hold points that all shitos agree is TSBP I hold in
> greater trust than how we understand evidence.

I take it you mean "All shitos, *at any time*" -- since you allow R'
Yitzchaq mei'Akko to establish a new shita of dating the universe.

> In all those cases, BTW, one is using scientific arguments to disprove
> a non-scientific event. The mabul, the haflagah, and yetzi'as
> Mitzrayim
> are all clearly nissim. Is it fair for us to expect their aftereffects
> to match those of natural events?

In the case of the Mabul, yes. The "meta-cause" was supernatural -- but the
actual cause (rainfall) IS natural. If it had happened *without* rainfall --
THAT would have been a miracle.

Likewise Yetzias Mitzraim -- the makkos were "supernatural" -- but the act
of 6,000,000 humans walking from mitzraim to E.Y. was a physical act.


> Astrology is different in kind, as it is a claim about the norm, not
> an exception. As is heliocentrism. Here we actually have a possibility
> of using science.
>
> Why can't we live with the questions rather than creating a "Torah of
> the gaps".

we can -- but then we have to accept *both* answers -- like your example of
gravity theory.

> I'm coining this term in parallel to the "God of the gaps",
> a philosophical position which ascribes anything not understood (gaps
> in our understanding) to Divine intervention. The problem is that as
> science advances, religion retreats.

It doesn't have to. this only happens when you view their domain as
antagonistic, both trying to explain the *same* thing.

> And they are built on emunas chachamim. If we allow non-Torah argument
> trump the ba'alei mesorah at whim, we are also risking real damage to
> shemiras hamitzvos.

Not at whim. Since it's clear that chazal got much of their science from the
non-Jews (as evident by your observation that Torah astronomy trails
Ptolmeic astronomy), it should be "fair game" to challenge that science
based on current science, just like we do with medicine.

Akiva

> This whole conversation borders on the surreal. How can the Rambam.,
> l'shitaschem, make up an ikkar and then consign those who do
> not accept
> his ikkar to "ein lahem chelek l'Olam ha'Bo?!"

Easily. He held X to be an Ikkar -- therefore those who don't accept it are
outside the pale.

The real question is "Did the Rambam make up the Ikkarim", or "what did the
Rambab base his Ikkarim on".

Which, IIRC, was discussed at length not too long ago.

Akiva

> :> Meaning "how do you know?" The question isn't the given
> that it doesn't
> :> work, but how do you know which system to give credance to.
>
> : The one with the best evidence?
>
> Apples and oranges. How does one compare the means for
> establishing first
> principles used in talmud Torah with that used in science?

By putting them into two distinct and different domains of thought you make
it impossible to have a common working ground.

AIUI Stephen Jay Gould wrote about this -- anyone read his book on the
subject?

Akiva

To the best of my knowledge (yes limited) the Rambam's use of "dibre 
Torah be-loshan Bnei Adam" is quite different than Chazal. In the 
gemara it means that when a phrase is doubled (eg ish ish) it does 
not always imply a derasha but rather it is used in a stylistic 
manner as people speak
The Rambam uses it almost in the opposite sense - when a Pasuk speaks 
about the finger of G-d it is not to be understood literally but 
figuratively. He uses the phraseology of Chazal but in an entirely 
new context.

Micha writes
<The question is whether we can assume something is allegory without 
some mesorah that it's allegory.>

It seems clear to me that many places where Maharal allegorizes a 
Chazal it is not based on any mesorah. As a trivial example he 
explains "aliyah" to Israel and Jerusalem being the highest spot as 
being spiritual and not physical. In older generations many people 
literally believed that Jerusalem was the highest spot.
As I described before many rishonim believed the earth was flat and 
so learned gemaras literally. Later when it was discovered that the 
earth was round the acharonim were forced to explain the gemara 
allegorically, The reason so few rishonim discuss the dateline issue 
is because most of them didn't realize there was a problem.

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/25/2002

<The Raavad held it was a shibush, same as the Rambam. As R' Chaim 
Brisker said, he held "nebech a apikores iz nisha a apikores" while 
the Rambam held "nebech a apikores is oich a apikores.:

That is the sum total of the machlokes, there is no other pshat. R"L 
that the Raavad held that Chazal held that Hashem has a guf or demus 
ha'guf.>

I stated very explicitly that Raavad agreed with Rambam about the 
non-corpeality of G-d. My claim was that Raavad did not consider a 
person who believed that hashem had a guf as an apikorus precisely 
because it was not discussed in Chazal and the proof of the 
noncorpeality of G-d is based on logic. Hence, Raavad feels that a 
person who belives ina guf is a fool for not believing logic but he 
is not an apikorus! Hence, nothing I wrote disagrees with R. Chaim.

BTW Rambam also claims in the Moreh, based on logic, that the 
"galgalim" that carry the planets etc are all living creatures. In 
fact he even brings a pasuk and says that anyone trying to allegorize 
the pasuk is a fool.
Would anyone claim that everything in the Rambam is based on Mesorah 
and this is also mesorah?

<This whole conversation borders on the surreal.>

I agree to that

--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/25/2002

At 05:59 PM 11/21/02 -0500, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>Plato would stand in direct contradiction to the simple pshat of maaseh
>breshit, but the contradiction wouldn't be as fundamental to the concept
>that hashem can intervene in the world.
>Note that the rambam would have no problem rejecting the simple pshat of
>parshat breshit if Plato's shitta was logically convincing - regardless of
>the lack of mesora for it, and that it goes against many maamre hazal.  The
>issue of a lack of mesora is irrelevant in the rambam's discussion - merely
>the issue of whether it is logically compelling - and the proof for the
>Platonic position is just not compelling enough to justify abandoning simple
>pshat.

RYGB
> If I read this paragraph correctly, you are modeh to me that Plato's
> approach is not bona fide kefirah, so it is irrelevant to our discussion.
> You are, rather, attempting to steer us in the direction of another one of
> our perennial discussions, whether the Rambam allegorized pesukim. Well,
> to deal with that issue in short, as the first Pres. Bush said, that's
> a hypothetical - l'ma'aseh the Rambam never got to the stage where he
> had to allegorize, so we do not know if he would do so if push came to
> shov or not.

The issue that was raised before is your belief that the rambam would
always rely on mesora - and the clear statement of the section of the
moreh is that the specifics of mesora are irrelevant to whether to accept
Plato or not - it is merely whether or not Plato is logically convincing,
which the rambam does not find him to be. Aristotle is different,
because it fundamentally undermines the entire understanding of hashem
as being involved in this world.

In our previous discussions, you had extended the issue of relying on
hazal and mesora to all issues which in any way reflect on anything
relating even remotely to the interaction of hashem and the world.
The Platonic position does reflect a change to traditional understanding,
just not in as drastic a position as does the Aristotelian.

RYGB
> There is another issue here, which is the nature of the first perek in
> Bereishis.There are quite a few simuchin to say that there is no pashut
> pshat in those pesukim - see Reb Yeruchom (I know, he's a Ba'al Mussar,
> and they have gotten flak here lately, but nevertheless) in the Daas
> Torah on the account. Od Chazon la'Mo'ed.

With regard to allegorization - which actually started all this debate
- let me cite the Meiri (not the rambam, but ...) I am citing from a
secondary source( R Halbetal's book on the meirI) which is citing the
Meiri on pirke avot (p 47)
    I see it necessary to be lengthy and explain that our torah and books
    are divided into three parts. The first part is one that one should
    not believe only in the hidden and not in the revealed (nigle) at a
    ll, and they are called sodot hatora. As it is said allegorically in
    the generation of the split that wanted to build a torer and its head
    in the heavens. that the intent is not not thatey they could build
    a tower whose head will reach the heavens, but it is possible that
    it is said as an exaggeration.... and similarly all the verses that
    suggest that hashem has physicality and bodily parts, and similarly
    the simple understanding of haggadot (pshute haggadot) and stories of
    the impossible and those that are told without any side of miracle ...

    Anything taht contradicts reason (is impossible) that is not told
    as being a miracle must be understood allegorically... There is no
    requirement for a mesora that it is allegorical.

RYGB
> But the far more novel issue here is that I think I understand you
> (u'd'imcha) to hold that the Rambam created Judaism (speaking of
> Creation!) - that is, his 13 Ikkarim are not at all an extrapolation,
> let alone derivation, from Chazal - they are the conclusions of his
> (stress on lower case h) own reason, and are not necessarily "Chazalic"...

The rambam's ikkar was that Judaism conforms with reason. BtW, Note
that in the Mishne Tora hilchot tshuva (IIRC) creation is not listed as
an ikkar..

RYGB
> Did the Rambam make this ikkar, and, let us say, corporeality, up -
> meaning, was it a product of his own reason, affixed somehow onto Chazal?

the rambam is quite clear in many places that one does not look at the
source of truth - merely whether it is true. This is of course quite
against the role that you ascribe to mesora. Off hand, I can't bring
a specific cite where he says this explicitly - it is in the more, but
don't have one handy at work - I remember it is said explicitly in the
maamar al aggadot hazal by the son of the rambam. Given that one arrives
at the truth, and that hazal conveyed the truth, clearly their works
have to be understood in light of the truth. That is quite a different
statement that one learns the truth from hazal - it is the rambam's
position that hazal spoke much of the truth in riddles and concealed it,
and only one who is initiated in the truth can therefore understand what
hazal really meant - the question is how one achieves such initiation -
and he never says that his initiation came through mesora.

Once one understands the proper way of learning hazal, of course one
understands what they meant- but the question is how does one get to
that way of learning hazal - and the rambam never cites mesora as the
basis for his shitta. The issue of "authorial intent" of hazal is quite
irrelevant to the rambam and is quite a modern issue - but almost everyone
who did not have the rambam's independent method of arriving at the truth,
but looked solely at mesora ended up with different conclusions....

RYGB:
...
> The Rambam calls the acceptance of the validity of astrology stupid, but
> not, IIRC, a transgression (11:16).

> However, the Rambam says that "Lo Te'onenu" includes any publication of
> the statements of astrologer (11:9), i.e., horoscopes, etc.

> If the Rambam's pshat in the Gemara is wrong, then this halacha has no
> basis except for the Rambam's own sevara - which is usually preceded by a
> "Yeira'eh Li."

The issue of lo teonenu reflecting astrology is one pshat in the gmara -
for which there may have been a mesora - I wasn't arguing about the psak
- there are other pshatim in the gmara as well, which other rishonim
take, but the halachic issue is minor, and I never argued that the psak
is wrong.

...
RYGB:
>              ... We perceive the Rishonim as Baalei Mesorah. The
> difference between Rambam and said C rabbi is that the Rambam does not
> assert that it was suppressed. He asserts it as pshat in Chazal. If
> I understand your current position correctly, you now agree that he
> asserted that, but with no basis in any mesorah, as, in your opinion,
> there is no such Chazal, and his pshat in the Gemara is not correct. This
> is reiterated in your last paragraph (deleted).

> So, did the Rambam create Judaism?

The rambam's understanding of hazal includes his understanding of truth
based on reason. He did not create, nor did he impose, nor did he
falsify-- all quite modern, critical historical notions - and the fact
that you seem to view this as a dichotomy between the rambam creating
versus transmitting a mesora suggests a very modern, nontraditional
mindset - he was bringing out what he thought the underlying message of
hazal. The way of understanding hazal, was not, however, based on mesora
- a tradition of understanding hazal - a notion which the rambam rejects
as binding and has no basis outside of being a core belief of some.

Meir Shinnar

Akiva Atwood <atwood@netvision.net.il> writes on Mon, 25 Nov 2002 08:19:51 
+0200: 
>> Can I say a correct "pshat" in Mattan Torah and then consign all those who 
>> do not accept it to eternal damnation - as halacha pesuka! 

> But the Ikkarim are NOT "Torah M'Sinai", and as has been discussed
> here before, not everyone agrees on what they are or how many there are. 

We have switched gears - we are not talking about the Hakdama to Chelek
(although I would argue my position on that body of thought as well,
but let us leave that for now); we are talking Mishneh Torah. The Rambam
is paskening who is a min, apikores, etc. We have one place where the
Raavad disputes him, as R' Chaim says, and holds that the individual
who holds Hashem has a guf is a nebech apikores.

But othe than that, the Raavad seems to agree. As does everyone else,
on the Rambam's categories of min, etc.

If not me'Sinai, I have no clue whow anyone can categorically state who
is a Ben OH.

YGB 

"Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" wrote:
> The Raavad held it was a shibush, same as the Rambam. As R' Chaim Brisker
> said, he held "nebech a apikores iz nisha a apikores" while the Rambam
> held "nebech a apikores is oich a apikores.:

> That is the sum total of the machlokes, there is no other pshat. R"L that
> the Raavad held that Chazal held that Hashem has a guf or demus ha'guf.

Well, yes and no. The machloketh is about consequences of beliefs The
Rambam held that if you believe something whose consequences are heretical
then, even if you don't realize the consequences, you are a heretic.
The Raavad held not.

Someone who believed in the doctrine of the trinity as a result of seeing
the pasuk kadosh kadosh kadosh (to take the Rambam's famous example)
is a heretic even according to the Raavad, even though he fits Rabbi B's
description of nebech a apikores (shouldn't that be spelled apikoires?).

David Riceman

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


[ 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         ]