Avodah Mailing List

Volume 36: Number 1

Mon, 01 Jan 2018

• 1. truth telling (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Birchat Cohanim (Rich, Joel)
• 3. FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: truth telling (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: truth telling (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: FW: Rav Moshe on Smoking (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Foreshadow (Ben Bradley)
• 8. Re: truth telling (Rich, Joel)
• 9. HELP - Why is there an Issur BBCh on a Nefel/Shellil? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 10. Re: Foreshadow (menucha)
• 11. Merchavyah (Akiva Miller)
• 12. Sh'mos (Richard Wolberg)
• 13. Re: Merchavyah (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: Historicity of Aggadta (H Lampel)

Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we could tell a
particular non truth to our children and X% would stay frum but if we told
them the truth (X - Y)% would stay frum. At what values of X and Y (if any)
would being not truthful be required and/or preferred?
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171229/13b9e6a2/attachment-0001.html>

One is in Eretz Yisrael and davens shacharit in a minyan which often does
not have Cohanim to duchen. Is he required to seek a minyan which has
Cohanim? If he isn't required, is it preferable?
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/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171229/5d53ba1c/attachment-0001.html>

[Take 2. File stripped off for the sake of text digest recipients and
moved to <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/hamaor480.pdf>. Fixed
formatting.
-micha]

FYI-An old Avodah topic.
KT
Joel Rich

In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe
which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about
smoking and would indeed forbid it.

Kol Tuv,
Reuven Chaim Klein
Beitar Illit, Israel

Check out my book Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew
<http://amzn.to/1FwDM0q>

[Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew (Mosaica Press) on Amazon]
>><http://www.amazon.com/author/reuvenchaimklein>
[Academia.edu]<https://yeshivasmir.academia.edu/RebChaimHaQoton/>
[Google Scholar]<https://scholar.google.co.il/citations?user=WQng6v8AAAAJ&;hl=he>
[LinkedIN]<http://il.linkedin.com/in/rabbircklein>
[https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&;id=0B1NJHmIXg4QJTWZsRUpZblJpWE0&revid=0B1NJHmIXg4QJcXQxRU1kN0JWZ3pQVmZsdlYrVlljRUdSb2ZvPQ]<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/whats-in-a-word>
[Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein on TorahDownloads.com]
<http://torahdownloads.com/s-297-rabbi-reuven-chaim-klein.html>

You'll have to define "truth".? I know a lot of self-Identified frum 
Jews who consider it "truth" that the Exodus didn't happen.? That the 
Mabul was a metaphor.? That the text of the Torah she'bichtav we have 
now is not the one given to Moshe at Sinai in an actual, factual, 
historical event.? It's never good for them to tell that "truth" to 
their children.

If by truth you mean the truths stated in Judaism, then it's a matter of 
judgment.? If you're considering telling your children about Amnon and 
Tamar, their age would enter into the decision.? If the truth you want 
to tell them is about the molesters in the frum community who were 
respected leaders, again, age matters.? But I wouldn't withhold the 
facts from my child if they were old enough to hear it and it seemed 
relevant.

Lisa

On 12/29/2017 11:36 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we could tell 
> a particular non truth to our children and X% would stay frum but if 
> we told them the truth (X ? Y)% would stay frum. At what values of X 
> and Y (if any) would being not truthful be required and/or preferred?
> KT
> Joel Rich
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 09:36:06AM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: Thought experiment: As a community, assume we know that we could tell
: a particular non truth to our children and X% would stay frum but if we
: told them the truth (X - Y)% would stay frum. At what values of X and Y
: (if any) would being not truthful be required and/or preferred?

I understand the point of your question as being about the relative value
of emes and of yir'as Shamayim. But...

I can't bend my head around the case for balebatishe reasons. Is it
not inevitable that many of our children would eventually learn of the
lie and lose confidence in the whole concept of mesorah? And wouldn't
that percentage inevitably be greater than Y, the additionaly percentage
who are only staying because they believe the non-truth?

To address the comparison behind the question:

According to the Rambam, emunah is defined by emes. Unproven faith isn't
emunah. So, he would say that the Y% of the children who believe because
of a lie aren't necessarily saved.

If we modernize the Rambam's position, then we would still need some kind
of valid justification. Even if modern philosophy believes (accuratly,
AISI) that theological proof is a meaningless concept, there are other
valid ways to reach a conclusion. Those of us blessed with children are
certain we love your chidren even though I never developed a proof for it.

BUT, I don't think too many people hold like a modern version of the
Rambam, which ties redemption to knowledge, and ethics is a lower
level of perfection necessary for true knowledge og G-d. Let's take
a more typical modern hashkafah, which gives priority to sheleimos or
experiential deveiqus.

Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case
were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On 29/12/17 05:09, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> In the attached file, there is a newly-published teshuvah from Rav Moshe 
> which basically confirms the rumors that he retracted his teshuvah about 
> smoking and would indeed forbid it.
> 

One has to wonder, then, why he never chose to include this in any of 
the three volumes of IM that he published after this date.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Is that not explicitly the message of the haftara for vayigash? That the
split of Yehdua and Efraim (Yosef) is the the same issue as the split in
the nation to reconcile the one is to reconcile the other. It's clear from
the end of vayechi that there's still broad daylight between Yosef and the
brothers. They are still wary of him and he still see the need to try to
bring them close.

There are many midrashim assuming it's all the same issue, a basic split in
Klal Yisrael manifestation over history. The Bnei Yissaschar on Chanuka
deals with this a lot and the best treatment I've seen in one place is Rav
Matis Weinberg's book on Chanuka.

In any case, even without aggadta the cycle of galus is consistently a result of this split, be it to Mitzrayim or to Ashur.

Geula has the same dynamic, thus a moshiach both from Yosef and from David (Yehuda).

BW

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171230/3abff6e2/attachment-0001.html>

Perhaps the non-truth would indeed be justified, if I thought your case
were possible. Just as shalom justifies tactfully bending the truth.

:-)BBii!
-Micha
---------------------------------------------------
That's what I wonder about, can belief ever be built on sheker.  I've heard
drush on not (e.g. why didn't the Chashmonaim not use shemen tamei) but
istm it is being done
In general I agree that it doesn't work.
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.

I have yet to find anyone asking this Q -
the Nefel and Shelil seem to be the same thing
it is a Neneilah
yet it is Assur to eat as BBCh - why is there no Ein Issur Chal Al Issur?

MAssuros 4:1 - one who eats flesh of a dead non-Shechted Kosher beast
transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah

MAssuros 4:4 - one who eats flesh of a Nefel [a non-fully gestated foetus]
transgresses the prohibition of eating Neveilah
Even [according to the careful reading of the RaMBaM] if it is not dead

MAssuros 9:7 - one who cooks a Shelil with milk or eats it transgresses the
prohibition of eating BBCh

MAssuros 9:6 - one who cooks Cheilev or Neveilah or similar, with milk,
transgresses the prohibition of BBCh but not when eating it because a
second prohibition cannot take effect upon a item that is already prohibited



Best,

Meir G. Rabi

0423 207 837
+61 423 207 837

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/20171231/2361e900/attachment-0001.html>

> 
> Bereshit Rabba 84 sees foreshadowing of Yeravam ben Nevat starting with Yosef's dreams.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171231/adc73698/attachment-0001.html>

.
There is a pasuk in Hallel (Tehillim 118:5) that begins "Min
hamaytzar". In RSR Hirsch's siddur, the last word of that pasuk is
"merchavyah". In his perush on Tehillim, there too, the last word is
"merchavyah", and in the perush he writes that "According to Pesahim
117a, merchavyah is one word, like halleluyah."

My understanding of that gemara is that R Yochanan, Rav, and Raba all
hold "merchavyah" to be one single word. Although Rav Chisda quoted R
Yochanan to that effect, the Gemara is unsure how Rav Chisda held
personally on this issue, and leaves that as a "tayku".

However - When I look in various Tanachs, Tehillims, Siddurim, and
Hagados, almost all of them (there *are* a few exceptions) print this
as two separate words: "merchav yah". Obviously, there must be someone
who either argues against this gemara, or understands the gemara
differently than how Rav Hirsch understands it.

The Minchas Shai on this pasuk refers to this gemara. If I'm reading
it correctly, he seems to feel that the gemara is an unresolved
machlokes, and I suppose that's why he tries to resolve it by looking
at whatever manuscripts he had, both here and in Beshalach (where
there's a similar question on Kes Y-ah).

In my very unlearned and inexperienced view, it is not reasonable to
consider these as two words, which is an unproven opinion that the
gemara left as a tayku, and reject the combined weight of R Yochanan,
Rav, and Raba, who all clearly held this to be a single word. Can
anyone help me out?

Akiva Miller

It is brought down that the place where the Burning Bush occurred 
was Har Sinai. The talmud asks why did it occur in a thorn bush and
the answer: God says "when the Jews are suffering, I am suffering, too."

A midrash relates that taking the Jews out of Egypt was nowhere near as difficult
as taking ?Egypt? out of the Jews.

Aish.com Mayanot Wellsprings bring out:
The longest private conversation recorded in the Torah between God and a
human individual takes place in our parsha. It takes God 39 long verses
(from Exodus 3:1 to 4:17) to persuade Moses to accept the mission of
serving as the savior of the Jewish people. In a wide-ranging conversation
that covers many topics, God patiently responds to Moses' many objections
and queries before Moses finally caves in to the Divine will and accepts.

It reminds me that the Shulchan Aruch says if you are asked to be a ba'al
tefilla, you should first politely refuse (out of modesty). If you are
asked a second time, you should still refuse. But if you are asked a third
time, you must accept.	

It's a not such a well known minhag and is just another example of menschlechkeit, sensitivity and humility for the time it was written.

?The Bible is meant to be OUR critic, not we, ITS critic!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20171230/6ec27563/attachment-0001.html>

For one thing, the Keter Aram Tzovah has it as two words.


-- 
Zev Sero            A prosperous and healthy 2018 to all
z...@sero.name       Seek Jerusalem's peace; may all who love you prosper

On 12/26/2017 11:06 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
 > On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 11:41:54PM -0500, H Lampel wrote:
 > : The historical mentions the Rambam's makes, treating the plausible
 > : Midrashim as history without making any qualifications, indicates
 > : otherwise.
 >
 > It indicates that some medrashim which both didn't defy evidence or
 > his philosophy that the Rambam felt had a
 > literal point worth making. Not that plausible medrashim should be
 > assumed to be literal history.

You are saying that Rambam repeated in a historic context the Talmud's 
plausible reports of events principally for ''a literal point worth 
making,'' and not because he assumed them to be actual historical 
events? But surely you agree that the Rambam? recorded Chazal's reports 
of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3), for 
example, as actual history (see 
https://www.torahmusings.com/2017/01/avraham-finding-hashem-spreading-word/ 
for more examples), and not only for a point whose literal (but possibly 
historically false meaning) was worth mentioning!

And I refer you again to my point(posted Tue, 26 Dec 201, Message 10) 
about the Rambam's felt need to identify which aggadic reports were 
really reports of dreams and which were not. Historical veracity is 
important.

But you are going even further than saying the Rambam did /not say/ that 
plausible medrashim should beassumed to be literal history. You go on to 
imply that he indicates the principal intent in all historical reports 
is for their deepest truths, and that the historical veracity of even 
plausible medrashim is irrelevant.

 > He spends so much time telling you they're all statements of the deepest
 > truths, and quoting Shelomo, that chakhamim conduct such discussions
 > via mashal and melitzah.
 >
 > The fact that some deepest truths has historical impact doesn't give us
 > license to ignore paragraphs of writing.

But the paragraphs of writing do not say what you attribute to them. 
Your take hinges on the sentence (in commentary on Perek Cheilek) which, 
after invoking Mishlei, reads,

 ?? l'fi shedivrei hachachamim kulam /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim 
hatachlis/ amnam heim chiddah umashal.

You apparently treat /bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/ as the 
predicate of the sentence, and you translate it:

 ??? ''for /all the words of the sages/ are about lofty matters, which 
form the ultimate concern, but they are [all expressed through] chiddah 
and mashal.''

But I treat/bedevarim ha-elyonim she-heim hatachlis/as part of the 
subject, modifying and restricting /divrei hachachamim kulam/. So the 
passage translates:

    for the words of all the wise men /concerning the lofty matters,
    which form the ultimate concern,/ are truly [expressed in] chiddah
    and mashal.


Which did the Rambam mean?

Fortunately, there is a parallel passage in the Rambam's Hakdama 
L'Payrush HaMishna that eliminates the mistake that he means that /all 
the words of the sages/ are really intended only to convey lofty 
matters. There he phrases the thought:

    V-al inyan zo ramaz Shlomo b-amro (Mishlei 1:6) ''lehavin mashal
    umelitza, divrei chachamim vechidasam.'' Umachmas seebos eilu kav-u
    haChachamim a''h /ess divreihem be-inyanim elokiyim/ beramazim.

    And to this idea Shlomo hinted/indicated by saying (Mishlei1:6) "to
    understand mashal and melitza, the words of wise men and their
    chiddos." And for these reasons (to hide lofty teachings from the
    undeserving, and to provide material for children and women to
    develop as their minds mature) the sages, a"h, established their
    words /concerning inyanim elokiyyim/ [not ''all their words''--ZL]
    through remazim.


What kind of remazim? The Rambam there elaborates and explains further: 
/Lofty concepts/ are too precious to be shared with everyone. If baser 
people heard them straight out, even if they would not dismiss or 
ridicule these truths, they would not appreciate them as much as they 
should. So Chazal would purposely use the device of framing specifically 
and exclusively these /lofty concepts/ in a code language whose surface 
meaning is implausible, to keep the lofty concept secret. It is better 
that the baser people think the sages believed in the face value of the 
code language and ridicule the sages for saying ridiculous things, then 
that they should under-appreciate the lofty concepts. (An amazing 
preference, but that's what he says!)

This devicewas specifically needed and reserved for the class of lofty 
teachings that must be disguised. It was not necessary and not utilized 
for less profound lessons, which are not to be confused with all other 
teachings, which certainly possess valuable lessons, plausibly nistar as 
well as nigleh, but are nevertheless not in the unique category of the 
profound matters that demand hidden expression through such devices. 
Surely the Rambam put in this latter category, for example, Chazal's 
reports of the Chanuka victory and oil miracle, and did not consider it 
to be an aggadita hiding Devarim haElyonim, as he plainly refers to both 
as a historical events (Hilchos Chanuka 1-3).

So the passage in Cheilek cannot be presented as evidence that the 
Rambam considered the historical veracity of historic-sounding reports 
irrelevant.

Besides, taking Rambam's ''all the words of the sages'' without 
qualification is necessarily overkill. Not all of Chazal's words, 
certainly not the words in their halachic pronouncements and not even 
all the words in their non-halachic comments, disguise inyanim 
elokiyyim/elyonim. The Rambam takes as literal history the narratives in 
the Talmud about who was ?whose rebbi, and their times and locations, 
and indeed invokes these facts in the ?Mishneh Torah introduction to 
support the legitimacy of the mesorah. (Much as ?does Iggeress Rav 
Saadia Gaon.) Historical veracity is important.

Moreover, when the Rambam presents the third, correct approach to 
Chazal's statements, he distinguishes between those maamarim expressed 
in implausible ways and can therefore have /only/ a nistar meaning, and 
the others which are to be understood both on their nistar /and nigleh/ 
levels. He writes that those who follow this approach know that,

    einam medabrim hitoolim, v'nis'ameis lahem shedivreihem yeish lo
    nigleh v'nistar, v'ki heim b'chol mah she-omrim /min hadevarim
    ha-nimna-im dabru bahem b'derech chiddah umashal/...chiddah hu
    ha-davar she-hamekviun b'nistar /v'lo b'niglah mimenu/.

    [Chazal] do not speak nonsense, and they [the people of this
    category] are confident that [Chazal's] words have nigleh /and/
    nistar [NOTE: Rambam may mean some statements are intended
    completely for their nigleh and others completely for their nistar,
    or he may mean that all statements contain both nigleh and nistar.
    I'll operate with the latter--ZL]; and that they, /in all of their
    statements containing impossibilities,/ spoke in way of chiddah
    umashal...chiddah is a statement whose intent is /only in nistar/,
    and /not in any nigleh/ from it.


--Two types of statements. a. Those which are at face value implausible, 
have /no intent/ in their nigleh, and which are intended /only/ for the 
nistar, which must be hidden from the common people; and b. Those which 
are intended for both their nistar /and/ their nigleh meanings, both of 
which can be safely revealed among the masses. Again, Chazal used the 
device of chiddah and mashal /only/ with maamarim whose /only/ intent is 
(nistaric? ;) inyanei elokiyyim/devarim ha-elyonim.

So it may well be that Rambam holds that every maamar Chazal has a 
(non-inyanei elokiyyim) nistar lesson to it. But he also holds that, 
like the meshalim of Mishlei, they all also have a lesson intended by 
the nigleh that the masses comprehend, the only exceptions being those 
maamarei Chazal that are expressed in implausible terms. Those 
implausible ones, and only those, were not intended for their nigleh at all.

Thus, in this very work, Rambam cites the Chazal ''gevuros geshamim 
la-tsadikim u-l-reshaim , u-techiyyas ha-meisim la-tzadikkim bilvad'' 
for its nigleh face value (that although the wicked share the benefit of 
rainfall with the righteous, they will not experience techiass 
?haMeisim), without claiming that it is really only intended as a mashal 
v?chidah for some other ?concept that must be disguised from the 
masses.? Many other such examples can be found.

Going through Avraham ben HaRambam's classes of maasiyos in the Talmud 
and his descriptions thereof, one sees that he considers much of 
Chazal's reports of events to be meant factually, and considers it 
important to know when Chazal's reports of events were factual.

When one is told an event occurred, the normal initial way to understand 
it is that the speaker means to say that the event occurred as 
described. Only if other factors legitimately negate its possibility, 
does one say otherwise.Thus, again, Rambam's intent to identify which of 
Chazal's reports were really reports of dreams. Historical veracity is 
important.

 > ZL: Regarding the Midrashic reports that Adam and the Avos spoke
 > : Ivris/Lashon Hakadosh, which I assume you agree the Kuzari accepts
 > : as historical fact (which of course teaches in its historicity an
 > : important thing to know)... Is your default position that the Rambam
 > : doesn't care whether it's historically so?
 >
 >RMB: That's the default. Perhaps the Rambam agrees with the Rihal that
 > the history of Ivris is a significant statement, and would be meant
 > literally even under his view. Perhaps not. I can't guess, and am
 > willing to entertain anything.
 >
 > But there are also reports that they spoke Aramaic, or even
 > that Adam spoke all 70 leshonos. See the sources I gave in
 > <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol35/v35n141.shtml#11> as well as
 > Sanhedrin 38b (R Yehudah amar Rav: Adam haRishon spoke Aramaic). Not to
 > mention historical evidence.

None of us are saying that Chazal necessarily held that Adam and the 
Avos spoke only Hebrew. And even if one maintains it's a two- or 
three-way machlokess, two opinions attributing only one language to 
Adam, no one says this maamar Chazal (not being implausible) was 
intended only as mashal and chiddah and not historically. To maintain 
that the Rambam would entertain taking the report as a chiddah umashal, 
despite its being quite plausible at face value, requires proof. And as 
I maintain I've shown (using the parallel passage in HLPH, among other 
arguments) he only ascribes chiddah umashal disguising inyanei 
elyonim/elokiyyim to maamaerei Chazal that are implausible on their 
surface.And that's all he's talking about in all those paragraphs of 
writing. Not maamarei Chazal reporting plausible events.

If there exists some indication the Rambam is noncommittal to the 
historical factuality of plausible events reported by Chazal, it does 
not come from these paragraphs of writing.

 > ...
 >
 > To complete repeating myself, my own instinct is to say that Adam
 > spoke some proto-Semitic, and therefore spoke a language which could be
 > considered both ancient Hebrew AND ancient Aramaic, or proto-everything
 > and thus an ancestor to all 70 languages. And this would explain the
 > medrashim as well as allow us to identify Adam's speech with Leshon
 > haQodesh.

That is one among several approaches to harmonize the statements. But 
again, all the approaches (including yours, which is at odds with what 
you attribute to the Rambam and with what you have been advocating) 
assume that this maamar Chazal (which is not implausible) is meant 
historically and is not meant only for metaphor, and certainly not a 
mashal and chiddah for some other inyanim elyonim/elokiyyim that must be 
hidden from the masses.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20180101/2148ce6d/attachment.html>

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



_______________________________________________
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.)