Volume 35: Number 64
Fri, 19 May 2017
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 15:27:00 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Dropped tefillin
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:11:29PM -0400, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
: Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin?
MB 40:3 says that's the universal minhag.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Cantor Wolberg
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 17:49:26 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Dropped Tefillin
Saul Newman wrote:
Is it standard non-hassidic practice to still fast for dropped tefilin?
To the best of my knowledge, YES.
However, I also recall that one could give extra tzedaka in lieu of
fasting.
rw
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Cantor Wolberg
Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 22:26:19 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World"
This Torah portion sets forth the blessings that are seen in this world in response to our deeds.
It then continues with the Tochacha, words of admonition, "If you will not listen to Me and will not perform all of these commandments?"
Interestingly, there are seven series of seven punishments each. God warns
us throughout the portion that He will punish us in "seven ways for your
seven sins.
We are now counting seven days a week for seven weeks; the Torah has just
recently given the laws for Shemita ? seventh year the land lies fallow and
seven periods of seven years, we celebrate the Jubilee year.
What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven
represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the
diatonic scale, seven continents, etc.
We wind the T'fillin straps around our forearm seven times. We sit shiva
for seven days. At the wedding we chant 7 blessings (sheva b'rachos) and
the wedding is followed by seven days of celebration.
Even the Torah begins with seven -- the First verse has seven words also containing a total of twenty-eight letters which is seven times four.
Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion. When
we say "Baruch Hashem" we are praising God for something that is hopefully
whole and complete.
The acronym for Baruch Hashem (Beis, Hay) also equals 7.
Finally, the patriarchs and matriarchs total seven: Avraham, Yitzchok, Ya?akov, Sarah, Rivka, Rochel, Leah.
(Please don?t write me to say your phone number has seven digits or the
rainbow has 7 colors or that there are seven letters in the Roman numeral
system or that nitrogen has the atomic number of 7 or that there were
7 dwarfs with Snow White). :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170516/46b5eb88/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 12:31:05 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality,
See below concerning a frequently discussed issue:
Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why
there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters
of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the
masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as
all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak
halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would
contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today,
especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.]
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170518/e52dd42a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:35:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] no pesak halakha , in matters of morality,
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:31:05PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Great quote from R'YBS in the new "Halachic Morality" essay "That is why
: there was no pesak halakhah, no authoritative halakhic ruling, in matters
: of morality, and why no controversy on moral issues was resolved by the
: masorah in accordance with the rule of the majority, in the same manner as
: all disagreements pertaining to halakhic law were terminated. For pesak
: halakhah would imply standardization of practices, a thing which would
: contradict the very essence of morality. [Me - still being debated today,
: especially what are the boundaries of acceptable halachik morality.]
Not sure what this means. There are halakhos about triage. About how
much tzedaqah to give and how to prioritize them. There are a lot of
halakhos about morality.
I fail to see how this isn't circular. The open moral questions RYBS
is referring to are those too situational for every possible situation
to be addressed with its own pesaq. Ar the Ramban puts it on "ve'asisa
hayashar vehatov". If "morality" is being used in a sense to limit it
to those quetions that did not get halachic resolution, isn't he just
saying the interpersonal questions that didn't get a pesaq didn't get
a pesaq?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:30:28 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Bechukosai "Seven Wonders of the World"
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:26:19PM -0400, Cantor Wolberg via Avodah wrote:
: What is so special about the number seven? Kabbalah teaches that seven
: represents the physical world -- 7 days of the week, 7 notes to the
: diatonic scale, seven continents...
Although the diatonic scale and the division of the colors in the
spectrum to fit the numbers 7 are human inventions. They say more
about what 7 means to humans -- even without revalation -- than
anything inherent.
...
: Kabbalah also teaches that seven represents wholeness and completion...
As does the word. Without niqud, the letters /sb`/ could be read as
"seven" or "satiated". (Or swear... go figure that out.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:18:44 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] nidche
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: OTOH, the customs of Sefira have leeway. One can shave if Rosh
: Chodesh Iyar falls on Erev Shabbat. People don't say Tachanun on
: Pesach Sheni, a day which has absolutely no bearing on our lives
: today, certainly not in any practical manner.
A tighter comparison... The minhag as recorded in the SA clearly
ran into Lag baOmer -- and ending mourning with the usual miqtzas hayom
kekulo. Then the hilula deRashbi turned Lag baOmer into a holiday,
and this new holiday overrode the older minhagim of aveilus.
What's good for one new holiday ought to be good for another (YhA,
where this conversation began), no?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 10:46:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] nidche
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 07:53:26AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: More importantly, the entire custom seems to be malleable. Yehudei
: Ashkenaz shifted the entire time frame to better reflect the events
: of the Crusades (according to Professor Sperber).
It seems (but is not muchrach) from the AhS 394:1-3
<http://bit.ly/daTKRm>. As I wrote (in part) in 2010
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n095.shtml#07>. The AhS
distinguishes between a global minhag from the Geonic period not to
marry and a later minhag bemedinos ha'eilu. He attaches the minhag
of 1-33 (and including miqtzas yayom kekulo) to when the talmidei R'
Aqiva died (s' 4-5) and the minhag of the last days to "minhag shelanu"
(s' 5), localizing the last days to the descendent of those who fled
the Crusaders east.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:14:58 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away
On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 11:04:32AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: If ownership
: According to Halacha
: Is determined by believing one is in control
: And when that control
: Is lost
: There's YiUsh
: Then this Chamets
: Had no owner
: During Pesach
But if this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo
mida'as -- it would be open and shut.
I think ba'alus (as opposed to ownership) is defined by having the
legal responsibility for something, and only as a consequence about
having control or a right to use it. Which would explain why qinyan,
a mechanism for eatablishing shelichus or shibud, is more thought of as
a means of establishing baalus. Because baalus is also primarily on the
hischayvus side.
And so, it has as a consequence actual legal right of control, rather
than depending on belief that one is in control. Which is why a ganav
needs yi'ush plus shinui. Yi'ush, loss of belief of having control,
is NOT enough to end ba'alus.
But that's ba'alus. We don't have ba'alus over chameitz on Pesach.
For example, an avaryan who dies on Pesach while violating bal yeira'eh
bal yeimatzeih (BYBY) does not leave that chameitz to his sons.
BYBY is a unique concept of ownership that differs from choshein mishpat,
and is not baalus.
...
: And Chamets can be Muttar
: Even if owned by a Y
: If it's abandoned
: For the duration of Pesach
...
: And it seems
: Even without Bittul.
...
The mishnah on Pesachim 31b says that if it's buried so deep a dog cannot
dig it up, it is a form of bi'ur. R' Chisda in the opening gemara says
it needs bitul.
But in any case, the question is whether this is destruction. The
gemara likens it to bi'ur. Not about a loss of ownership. Which would
create a whole different question, as Tosafos (Pesachim 4b "mideOraisa")
understand relinquishing ownership to be the very definition of bitul.
(The majority opinion -- Rashi "bibitul be'alma", Ritva, Ran, and the
Rambam 2:2 -- say it's a form of bi'ur.)
Rashi and the Ran say the need for bitul after a mapolah fell on one's
chameitz is derabbnan, a gezeira in case it gets unburied. But while
buried, it's kebi'ur.
The Samaq (#98) says the need for bitul is de'oraisa. And the MA holds
that the Semaq would require buried chameitz not was not batul to be
dug up and burnt on Pesach.
The Mekhilta (on Shemos 12:19, see #2 <http://j.mp/2rvDtNT>) says that
chameitz owned by a nakhri which is in a Jew's reshus or a Jew's chameitz
are excluded from BYBY by the pasuq's extra word "beveteikhem". "Af al
pi shehu birshuso".
The Mekhilta is making a split between reshus and BYBY. And it could be we
are discussing three different concepts of "ownership", with reshus
and baalu being different from each other as well.
There is also a whole sugya about buried issurei han'ah on Temurah 33b-34a
(starting at the mishnah) that I would need to understand better with
rishonim and posqim to really comment in full.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:24:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] candles and fire safety
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Michael Poppers via Avodah wrote:
: As RJR implies, I thought the key component of *neiros Shabbos* was
: enjoying their light (in contradistinction to *neiros Chanukah*)...
As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel
YT") but it's "neir Chanukah". Their kids wouldn't forget.
: everyone lit in a common room (and then stayed a bit to get
: enjoyment from the light) because lighting in one's room or in the hotel
: dining room would have represented a fire hazard....
Fire hazard is safeiq piquach nefesh, and ein danin es ha'efshar mishe'i
efshar.
However, wouldn't the alternative been lighting in the dinig hall, near
one's table? The point is to eat by neir shel YT, not to sleep by them!
And in this case (combining the above with what RJR wrote), shouldn't
they have provided incandescent lamps for each table? (Not that there
were small bulbs of other sorts when we were growing up.) Wouldn't it
be easier to justify making a berakhah on turning the light on than on
lighting in a third room or a table off to the side of the dining room
dozens of yards from where you are eating?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org 5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507 require one to be strict with another?
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 13:38:22 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] candles and fire safety
On 18/05/17 13:24, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> As every Granik and Brisker knows, it's "neir shel Shabbos" (or "shel
> YT") but it's "neir Chanukah"
In L's case, "neir shel shabbos kodesh", but "neir chanukah".
--
Zev Sero May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name be a brilliant year for us all
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Chana Luntz
Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 21:53:30 +0100
Subject: [Avodah] Explanation of the Tur?
A thought just struck me, and I wondered if this chimed with anybody.
The Rambam says (Hilchot Talmud Torah perek 1 halacha 13):
???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????
?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ?????.
Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her tiflut.
With regard to what are we speaking, with Torah she baal peh but Torah she
bichtav even though he should not teach her ab initio, if he taught her it
is not as though he taught her tiflut.
The Tur says the same except that he has Torah shebichtav and Torah sheba'al
peh around the other way (Tur Yoreh Deah Hilchot Talmud Torah siman 246):
???? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??"? ????? ????? ??? ?????
???"? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????
The Sages said all who teaches his daughter Torah it is as if he teaches her
tiflut. With regard to what are we speaking with Torah shebichtav but with
Torah shebaal peh he should not teach her ab initio, but if he taught her it
is not as though he taught her Tiflut
The Beis Yosef says it is a scribal error in the Tur, and should be the same
way as the Rambam, and that is how he has the statement in the Shulchan
Aruch, and the Taz agrees, pointing to Hakel.
The Prisha notes that the Beis Yosef says that it is a scribal error but
adds:
???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???
???? ???? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??"?
In any event there is to give a small reason for this version in the books
of the Tur, since with all of them it is written and published so, because
there is a greater loss when Torah shebichtav is brought out as words of
nonsense than with Torah shebal peh.
However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil
Siman 199, the Maharil writes:
?????? ????? ???"? ??????' ????? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?"? ???
????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ? - ??? ???? ?????
????? ???? ?????' ???? ???? ?? ??? ????' ?? ???????, ??? ??' ??"?? ?"?? ????
?? ???? ????? ?????, ??"? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????, ??????
?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??'? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ??? ????? ?????
...
??? ???? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ?????? ?"? ????? ?????? ???????? ?????????
????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??????
?????? ??? ?????? ???, ???? ?"? ????? ?????,
And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive
commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we
should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut as it says in
perek notlev and we learn it from ?I am wisdom that dwells in cunning?, when
wisdom enters so does cunning since when wisdom enters the heart of a person
there also enters into it cunning and according to the explanation of Rashi
because of this she will do things privately, and if so we are concerned
that she will come to damage since their knowledge is light and even though
it is considered a mitzvah eit l?asot lashem so that one should not drown
out the reward by loss and all the more so where there is not a mitzvah
...
And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible
to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules
and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in
our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and
hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by
way of tradition from outside,
And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in
Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21 writes about what used to happen in previous
generations:
????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ???
??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ???
????? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????
But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when
each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers
was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like
it says ?ask your father and he shall tell you? and in this it was possible
to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their
upright fathers.
But hold on a second. Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the
ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach
women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was
taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in
the form of the Mishna? That the Torah sheba'al peh was passed from father
to son by oral transmission (albeit that at one point schools were instated
for those lacking fathers who could teach them)?
And on the other hand doesn't the Rosh (ie father of the Tur) famously say
that today one fulfils the mitzvah of writing a sefer Torah by writing other
seforim in Hilkhot Sefer Torah, chap. 1 as is brought by the Tur and
Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh De'ah 270:2?
So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what
the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women
to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al peh -
as the vast majority of the details are sourced in Torah sheba'al peh, and
if they were only to be taught what is in Torah shebichtav, they would all
turn into Karaites! And indeed that women were, as the Chofetz Chaim
suggests, taught in the home with the tradition handed over by their fathers
in the same way as Torah sheba'al peh has always been learnt all the way
back to Moshe Rabbanu. While if you understand Torah shebichtav as
including mishna and gemora and rishonim, all so long as they have been
written down, then one could indeed understand that as being a possible
practical distinction - ie not to teach women to read and write and
understand what is in the written seforim?
Now perhaps one might say that if the Rambam had poskened like Rav Elazar in
Gitten 60b as understood by Rashi, that Torahshebichtav is the majority and
Torah sheba'al peh is the minority, because he includes in Torah shebichtav
anything that is learnt out of the Torah by way of midrash or gezera shava
etc, then it might be possible to understand that by and large women could
both learn to do the mitzvot incumbent on them and simultaneously avoid
Torah sheba'al peh, but he doesn't, as in his introduction the Mishna he
categorises Torah Sheba'al peh into five categories, and is clearly in this
poskening like Rav Yochanan. So how, according to the Rambam, did women
know what to do if they were never taught Torah sheba'al peh, even ba'al
peh, remembering that it is the Rema's addition to the Shulchan Aruch in
the name of the Smag (actually Smak) via the Agur that adds in the halacha
that women need to learn all the mitzvot that are relevant to them?
Is not the Tur's version actually the one that makes more logical sense -
especially if you explain Hakel as per the gemora in Chagiga that the women
came to listen (ie hear it orally, without looking at the text)? Not that
this would seem to explain Rabi Eliezer himself, as Rabbi Eliezer in the
Mishna in Sotah 21a - objected to women learning that sometimes drinking the
Sotah water would not result in immediate death, and in the Yerushalmi,
Sotah perek 3 daf 19 column 1 halacha 4 he objected to telling a woman why
there are three different types of deaths listed vis a vis the chet haegel
when there was only one sin - both of which pieces of learning were, at
least in his day, definitely Torah sheba'al peh. So given that the Rambam
poskened like Rabbi Eliezer, he would have needed, if a distinction was to
be made, have to phrase it the way he did. But maybe what the Tur was
saying is that, Rabbi Eliezer or no, the Rambam's solution is not workable,
and given the way the gemora explains Rabbi Eliezer's limud from ?I am
wisdom that dwells in cunning?, and that already in his day that kind of
learning was found in Torah shebichtav, the whole thing can be made workable
by turning it the other way around?
Has anybody seen this suggested anywhere? Any thoughts?
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 08:56:51 +1000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chamets Sale, the one that got away
On 19 May 2017 3:15 am, "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>: If ownership
>: According to Halacha
>: Is determined by believing one is in control
>: And when that control
>: Is lost
>: There's YiUsh
>: Then this Chamets
>: Had no owner
>: During Pesach
> If this were true, there would be no discussion of yi'ush shelo mida'as
I don't understand. Please explain.
One who is unaware of the loss of his wallet, believes he is still in
control. We Pasken that he remains the owner. Famous story, woman lost her
money at a trade fair, was found and taken to the Rov. Although there was
no question that it was the money she had lost, there was no way to Pasken
that it had to be returned to her. YiUsh.
Until Reb Y ? explained that she was never the owner and her state of mind
was not relevant. It was her husband's money and he, being unaware it was
lost, still firmly believed he was in control.
YSheLoMiDaAs
suggesting that since he'd be in a different state of mind, if he knew the
facts, in other words YSheLoMiDaAs, is still a Sevara that recognises and
circulates around the principle that ownership depends upon ones state of
mind.
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Cantor Wolberg
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 12:16:28 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Erev Shabbos Thoughts
Two Faces of Love
Twice a day the Jew gives expression to one of the most potent forces
in social life ? LOVE. In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah,
abundance of love, for in the morning we want love to expand and grow
throughout the day. In the evening, however, when darkness descends
upon us, we pray again for love, but not in quantitative terms. Instead we
plead for ahavat olam ? enduring and eternal love. In the dark night love
does not grow; it deepens.
Two Philosophies of LIfe
Sarah advised her husband to cast out Ishmael, when she saw he was
?Miitzachaik? and she feared he would be an evil influence on his brother
?Yitzchok.? Interestingly, both ?Miitzachaik? and ?Yitzchok? have a common
root, meaning to laugh or to play. What is the disparity?
The difference is compelling: ?Mitzachaik? is in the present tense and
?Yitzchok? is in the future tense. Sarah realized that Ismael?s philosophy of
life was all about the here and now, immediate gratification and getting as
much pleasure out of life with no concern about the future.
Conversely, she saw that Yitzchok?s philosophy of life was to live life spiritually,
delaying immediate gratification and living his life in a way that would provide genuine
happiness and enjoyment in the future.
The future depends on what we do in the present.
Mahatma Gandhi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20170519/459a61cd/attachment.htm>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/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://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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)