Avodah Mailing List
Volume 03 : Number 161
Friday, August 13 1999
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1999 18:04:22 -0400
From: David Glasner <DGLASNER@FTC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Avodah V3 #160
Mechy Frankel wrote:
<<<
The dor shivie's remark I initially found more puzzling since I had
perceived - sensitive soul that I am -no particular thrusts in my direction
which would call for speaking up "in his own defense". And then I got it, I
think. It must be that the good dr glasner took a passing reference
connecting me to "bais Satmar" - whatever the substance of the remark - as a
slur. While i had thought that david had gotten all that stufff out of his
system,
>>>
What on earth would have given you that idea?
<<<
it is tue tht some of my revered ancestors of certain persuasions
did make the odd attempt to ride some of DDG's revered ancestors out of the
occasional town on a rail,
>>>
That's what you say, I have yet to see any evidence that any of your ancestors
(underline ancestors) ever tried (whatever their ideological differences with the Dor
Revi'i) to do any such thing. Would you care to cite chapter and verse? I would
caution you against speaking lashon ha-rah (especially if it is untrue) about your
ancestors. (Sorry, about the unsolicited free advice. See below.)
<<<
and - closer to modern times - the continued
lack of civil discourse (at least according to the one-side report -guess
that would have been the dor shishi)
>>>
though your syntax habitually tends toward complexity, I can usually divine your
meaning, but now I'm lost
<<<
between some of the principals even
in extremis (the kastner train) did not do much to further endear the bais
harav to the doros glasner.
>>>
That's for sure! (I think)
<<<
.. But I at least do not consider mere mention
of such connection as a slur,
>>>
Well, if my (I assure you) good-natured remark seeking to draw a distinction between
a semi-distant relative and an actual ancestor came across as implying that you
have any reason for embarrassment about your family connections, I sincerely
apologize.
<<<
and david, my advice here is - as one of our
more celebrated local ex-mayors was wont to say - get over it..
>>>
Mechy, that's easy for you to say. But don't get me wrong, there is hardly anyone from
whom I would rather receive unsolicited free advice than you. (I guess now we're even!)
Warmest regards,
David
dglasner@ftc.gov
!
!
!
!
!
!
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 13:53:49 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Subject: Munkacs and Satmar rebbes
From Shlomo B Abeles
Subject: Munkacs and Satmar rebbes
"Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" wrote:
Subject: Re: The Satmar Rebbe
SBA wrote:
> I have heard ... the Satmar Rebbe... never cursed another Jew . ..
was it so
common for rabbonim in the old country to "trade curses"? <
>I have no proof, and certainly did not mean it to be derogatory...
>... my impression is that in Hungary and its environs the "eish lehava"
of
>kana'us le'shem shomayim was far more widespread than in the other
>areas ..
Eli Turkel wrote:
Subject: curses
> I have heard from people close to the Satmar Rebbe, that he never
cursed
another Jew <
I know nothing about curses ...but there were cases of one rebbe putting
another
rebbe into cherem.
Eli Turkel
I have spoken to many chassidim and rabbonim on this topic and all say
that curses
and charomim between Rebbes were extremely rare - if ever. What cherem
is RET
referrring to?
Admittedly the Munkatcher Rebbe was known to use very strong language.
A prominent Rabbi told me that he heard from an older
Rav - a Talmid of the Munkatcher - that whenever he 'cursed' - he would
(in an
undertone) add ''.. alle sonei yisroel (or goyim) ''
A Chassidic historian related that the Munkatcher was once in Poland
(visiting his
father-in-law the Komarner Rebbe) when one of his shverr's chassidim
asked him:
"Rebbe, do you curse us?" To which to Munkatcher answered: "Meineh
Kelolos
zenen Brochos".
(Being Rosh Chodesh Ellul, we may already say 'Tichleh Shonoh
VeKilleloseho-
Tochel Shonoh uBirchoseho')
Lest we may think that the Munkatcher was just your average 'small-time'
Rebbe (as
some recent posts seem to insinuate), maybe it should be emphasised
that in
addition to being a rebbe of tens of thousands of Chassidim, he was Rav
of a large Kehilla,
Rosh Yeshiva to hundreds of talmidim and a Mechaber of seforim on
Halacha,
Agaddah, Mussar etc. as well as one of the most important leaders of
Hungarian Orthodox
Jewry.
May I also pass on the following interesting episode told to me by a
Radomsker
Chossid - who was there when it occurred.
The Radomsker Rebbe and Munkatcher met at one of the 'rebbishe'' summer
resorts
(possibly Karlsbad). The Radomsker asked the Munkatcher for a brocho for
his
married daughter who after many years of marriage had not yet been
zocheh to
children. The Munkacher agreed on condition that he be Mohel when a son
is born.
Naturally the request was granted and predictably some time later the
couple were
blessed with a son.
The Munkatcher travelled to Sosnovtze (where the Radomsker resided) for
the Bris
and spent a few days there.
When the Radomsker rebbe heard that certain elements in town (upset at
the
Munkatcher's views on Jewish political groupings) were readying
themselves to
abuse and even harm his guest, he asked for volunteers amongst his
chassidim to
stand watch and guard him - which a group of them did most dutifully.
Before leaving town, the Munkatcher thanked his 'guards' and told them:
''You guarded me, may Hashem guard you.''
EVERY ONE of those 'guards' survived the horrors of the holocaust!
> Finally and BTW again, today Sunday 26 Av is the Yorzeit of the late
Satmar Rebbe zt'l. Zechuso yogen oleinu and may all of us merit
Yeshuos and
Refuos in his Zechus<
>his is certainly the case. .... It would be most wonderful if on the
respective day ...we
>would also write: "Today... is the Yotzeit of the late Rav Kook zt'l.
Zechuso yogen oleinu..."
YGB
Most definitely and I am sure that many, not only Rav Kook's talmidim,
followers and
admirers, think and do so.
Meanwhile I attach part of an online report I have been sent re the
Satmar Rebbe's
yohrzeit by the 'Times Herald Record' daily newspaper in Rockland
County:
Thousands trek to Kiryas Joel to remember former leader
KIRYAS JOEL: It's been 20 years since the death of
Kiryas Joel's first
religious leader. An estimated 90,000 Orthodox Jews, mainly Hasidic
people of the
Satmar sect, made a pilgrimage to Kiryas Joel over the weekend to
visit the
tombstone of the late Satmar leader Grand Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum.
Normally, about 60,000 make the annual pilgrimage to his grave site.
But this year's
commemoration was more pronounced because it marked 20 years since the
leader's death...
90,000! Amazing ! I wonder if besides Meron on Lag B'Omer, would this be
the
largest crowd to commemorate a yohrzeit of a Tzaddik (or indeed any
orthodox
Jewish gathering) or does anyone know of similar-sized or indeed
larger assemblies anywhere in the Jewish world?
SBA
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:23:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@icase.edu>
Subject: electricity
>
> Do we consider only the device as a unit or do we have to examine sub-assemblies
> and components for MT"B. For example, RShZ"A (Kovetz Ma'amarim p. 23) states
> that he believes that the Hazon Ish would consider the connection of a refrigerator to
> the electric outlet to be boneh as this is what "creates" the device's ability to fulfill its
> function. But the refrigerator motor going on and off to maintain proper
> temperature is simply shimush of an existing device. ('AK"D)
>
> The stopping and starting of the motor is simply normal refrigerator operation, but is
> there MT"B of the motor as a motor. Similarly, changing radio volume is not MT"B of
> the radio. But is there MT"B of some internal component?
>
>
To my mind it is obvious that we look at the internal details of the device
to decide ha;acha. As a trivial case if I have a box that gives off light
it makes a big difference ifthe source is incadescent or flourescent.
As far as I know the various groups that make devices for halachic use
on shabbat (for the appropriate people) rely on the difference between
turning on a device and changing the level of electricity in a device
that is already in use. Lowering or increasing the level of electricity
does not seem to be prohibited according to any shitah,
again with restriction that it is not causing some other effect that would
be prohibited.
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:13:54 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Electricity is not esh. Do we alter halakha?
From: D & E-H Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
I seem to be quoting R' ShZ Auerbach whenever I post to Avodah, this time from
p. 54 of the same K"M. After an explanation of why he believes (in theory)
that answering a telephone call should not be assur he states "But what can I
do, kvar hora zaken, the Gaon R' Yitzhak Shmelkes in his Shu"t Bet Yitzhak..."
He also quotes from Tzitz Eliezer who quotes from the Bet Yitzhak's son in law
who wanted to permit but didn't because kvar yatza le-issur.
In other words, to go back to the beginning of this thread, without going into
halakhic questions such as esh MT"B or other issurim, the ban on electricity is
at the least a minhag that has been generally accepted (and cannot be proven to
be a minhag shtut or against halakha). And there is no method to amend or
repeal a universally accepted minhag. The term "universal" does not include
Conservative, Reform or mechalelei Shabbat who, today, make up the majority of
'Am Yisrael.<<
FWIW this is pretty much the point of my rhetorical question.
WADR respect to my bar plugta, it is somewhat dangerous to revise that which has
been accepted as practice. IMHO it calls into question other aspects of Mesora?
Are the Rabbis wrong about electicity, perhaps they are wrong wrt to
gittin/Agunos? Why not question minhga wrt to calling women to the Torah, after
all the TB only objects due to kovod hatzibubr - wouldn't this too be subject to
revision based upon our supreior sociological knoweldge or via some other
construct? IOW, if you allow for revisionism, where does one draw the line?
Truly, there are even exceptions to my rule of respecting Mesorah, but they must
be applied judiciously. IOW no matter how erroneous or flawed the original
premise appears to be, we must respect the force of actual practice lest we
subejct ourselves to far reaching revisionistic rejection or modifciation of
Halacho.
On an entirely different level, it is also IMHO a bit presumptuous to assume
that we have it right And the previous doros have it wrong. Sophistication
does not always produce greater clarity.
Wrt to electricity specifically, It was explained to me that melochos Shabbos
are different in that they are Avos, which is a premise that assumes there are
analogous yet not identical tolodos. In THAT aspect, electicricity is not esih
mamash, but a Toldo of eish. And no matter how different it might be under teh
scrutiny of sophisticated laborotories, on the naked eye level it has enough
similarities to justify that categorization. And it would take a LOT of lomdus
to say that electricity is not only NOT EISH but NOT TOLDAS EISH.
According to my theory that Chazal had access to advanced technology but lacked
the terminology to express those concepts to their contemporaries, I would
sepculate that EISH might be a primitive term for a more generic class of
energy. (EG radiation might be another) And that class of Eish includes the
narrow Eish, and the more general concepts of energy such as electricity etc. I
believe that articles have been written illustrating the parallel of Yehi Or to
the big bang. If you say Yehi Or means - on a technical level - let there be
photons - it might indeed dovetail well with the general premise of a big bang
(though I am told the specifics might diverge). But guess what dibro Torah
beloshon bnai Odom! Even if Hashem MEANT lte ther be nergy let ther be photons,
etc. the Torah as not written for physicists, and the term OR conveys that
point.
So another rationale not to alter halacho that has been accepted, is that if we
dig deep enough, we might find an additional reason to continue the practice
despite a revision in the oringal premise. Isn't this analogous to the Gro wrt
to Tosfos, Melach Sedomis and Mayim Acharonim - in that he posited other
justifications for the practice?
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:22:33 -0400
From: Sholem Berger <bergez01@med.nyu.edu>
Subject: Ramban on the eglah arufah
A short question: The Ramban says, "..vekol hashomeya shemets davar beinyan yavo veyagid veyisparsem hadavar veyehareg [the rotseyakh] al-yad beysdin o hamelekh o goel hadam..."
Where is it written that a king has rshus in diney nefashos?
Thanks.
A gutn khoydesh
Sholem Berger
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:40:16 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
In a message dated 8/13/99 9:32:31 AM EST, bergez01@med.nyu.edu writes:
> A short question: The Ramban says, "..vekol hashomeya shemets davar beinyan
> yavo veyagid veyisparsem hadavar veyehareg [the rotseyakh] al-yad beysdin o
> hamelekh o goel hadam..."
>
> Where is it written that a king has rshus in diney nefashos?
See Rambam Hil. Mlochim 3:10
Gut Chodesh, Ksiva Vachasimah Tova
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:46:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
--- Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/13/99 9:32:31 AM EST, bergez01@med.nyu.edu
> writes:
>
> > A short question: The Ramban says, "..vekol hashomeya shemets
> davar beinyan
> > yavo veyagid veyisparsem hadavar veyehareg [the rotseyakh] al-yad
> beysdin o
> > hamelekh o goel hadam..."
> >
> > Where is it written that a king has rshus in diney nefashos?
>
> See Rambam Hil. Mlochim 3:10
>
In connection to this, see the Drashot HaRan, drasha 11 (which, BTW,
is a drasha on various aspects of this week's parsha) where he
discusses the role of the bet din vs. the king. The bet din follows
mishpat tzedek --requiring all the technicalities of 2 witnesses with
hatra'a--while the king ensures that society runs smoothly and
therefore may punish based on circumstantial evidence.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:02:38 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ma'aseh B'reishis
In a message dated 8/12/99 10:03:30 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> See the first intro to Gevuros Hashem (just in case there's more than one,
> I mean the Maharal's). He discusses "ein dorshin" and "chachmah unvu'ah,
> chachmah adif". In short, nevu'ah can only describe those things for which
> the navi can see an image or the image of a mashal for. It must be similar
> to something in human experience. Chachmah allows for extrapolation. Except
> that the material discussed in "ein dorshin" is beyond that too.
>
I read it inside and still see no support to say Mashal for what is written
untill Vayechulu, while it is far from complete and fully understood (how and
why) see also Ramban, (and Byochid Dorshin shows that one can comprehend a
certain amount), "Hasteir Davar" doesn't have to mean Mashal.
Gut Chodesh KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:06:01 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
In a message dated 8/13/99 9:46:30 AM EST, moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:
> The bet din follows
> mishpat tzedek --requiring all the technicalities of 2 witnesses with
> hatra'a--while the king ensures that society runs smoothly and
> therefore may punish based on circumstantial evidence.
That is the basic difference, however even without king Ltzorach Hador B"D
can punish even with death.
Umisaymim Btov.
Gut Chodesh KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:11:47 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Electricity is not esh. Do we alter halakha?
In a message dated 8/13/99 10:26:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
<<
According to my theory that Chazal had access to advanced technology but
lacked
the terminology to express those concepts to their contemporaries, >>
And this knowledge of advanced technology was handed down from Moshe
Rabbeinu? Has it since been lost or do the gedolim of the current (or past)
generation have access to it as well?
Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:23:51 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
In a message dated 8/13/99 11:06:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Yzkd@aol.com
writes:
<<
That is the basic difference, however even without king Ltzorach Hador B"D
can punish even with death.
Umisaymim Btov.
Gut Chodesh KVCT
Yitzchok Zirkind
>>
Sources? Does this predate the cessation of the malchut? Has anyone written
on the original balance of power between the sanhedrin and the malchut and
how those roles have been reallocated over time between Rabbinic (bet din)?
and civic (7 tovei hair)? Authorities over time?
KT,SS,GC,KVCT (that's a mouthful:-)
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:43:59 EDT
From: Yzkd@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
In a message dated 8/13/99 10:24:09 AM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> Sources? Does this predate the cessation of the malchut? Has anyone
written
> on the original balance of power between the sanhedrin and the malchut and
> how those roles have been reallocated over time between Rabbinic (bet
din)?
> and civic (7 tovei hair)? Authorities over time?
>
See Sanhedrin 46a, Rambam Hil. Sanhedrin 24:4, S"A C"M 2. and see S"A Horav
Hil. Nizkei Guf V'nefesh 15-17
GC KVCT (and all other brochos)
Yitzchok Zirkind
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 09:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
--- Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/13/99 9:46:30 AM EST, moshe_feldman@yahoo.com
> writes:
>
> > The bet din follows
> > mishpat tzedek --requiring all the technicalities of 2 witnesses
> with
> > hatra'a--while the king ensures that society runs smoothly and
> > therefore may punish based on circumstantial evidence.
>
> That is the basic difference, however even without king Ltzorach
> Hador B"D
> can punish even with death.
>
The Drashot HaRan says that "bet din malkin v'onshin shelo min hadin"
is really an extension of malchut. In the time that a king existed,
the responsibility to ensure the smooth running of society was placed
upon the king, with the bet din doing just mishpat tzedek. When
there is no king, the bet din performs both functions.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:27:56 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
In a message dated 8/13/99 12:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:
<<
The Drashot HaRan says that "bet din malkin v'onshin shelo min hadin"
is really an extension of malchut. In the time that a king existed,
the responsibility to ensure the smooth running of society was placed
upon the king, with the bet din doing just mishpat tzedek. When
there is no king, the bet din performs both functions.
Kol tuv,
Moshe >>
Is it just when there is no melech or when there is no "civil authority"? For
example, say the religious community had strongly supported the Zionist
movement and as a result we had in Israel a democratically elected government
strongly committed to maintaining a "tora state" (thus leaving aside the
question for now as to whether the current government has the role). Would
that government act in relationship to bet din the same way that sanhedrin
interacted with the melech?
kt,ss,gc,kvct,
Joel Rich
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah
--- Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/13/99 12:08:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:
>
> <<
> The Drashot HaRan says that "bet din malkin v'onshin shelo min
> hadin"
> is really an extension of malchut. In the time that a king
> existed,
> the responsibility to ensure the smooth running of society was
> placed
> upon the king, with the bet din doing just mishpat tzedek. When
> there is no king, the bet din performs both functions.
>
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe >>
> Is it just when there is no melech or when there is no "civil
> authority"? For
> example, say the religious community had strongly supported the
> Zionist
> movement and as a result we had in Israel a democratically elected
> government
> strongly committed to maintaining a "tora state" (thus leaving
> aside the
> question for now as to whether the current government has the
> role). Would
> that government act in relationship to bet din the same way that
> sanhedrin
> interacted with the melech?
We don't know whether the Ran was a Zionist.
Seriously, though, Rav Aharon Soloveitchik wrote an article in
Tradition some years ago in which he suggested that even the current
government of the state of Israel has the din of Melech. (Remember,
we had many kings who were not particularly righteous.)
You would like to create another category called "civil authority."
I don't know whether there is such a halachic category. I don't know
whether we need one if the category of king is to be expanded as Rav
A. Soloveitchik suggested.
BTW, I think that the Resh Galuta had the din of King. The Gemara
(Sanhedrin ?) states "Lo yasur shevet m'yehuda"--this refers to the
Resh Galuta (as opposed to the "m'chokek," who is the nasi in eretz
yisrael). The Rivash in his tshuvah dealing with smicha (heter
hora'a) (discussed on this list about a month ago) quotes this gemara
in connection with the ability of a judge in Bavel to judge dinei
knasot even if he doesn't have smicha ish m'pi ish; I wonder whether
this connects with the Drashot HaRan and the point is that the
ability of judges in Bavel to judge dinei knasot derives from the
kingly authority of the Resh Galuta.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 10:27:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Ramban on the eglah arufah(2)
I just looked up the Rivash I quoted. In fact, he says explicitly:
"The Resh Galutas in Bavel stand in the place of the King and they
have the ability to punish Israel [Jews] in any place and to judge
them. As it says [in masechet Sanhedrin 5a] lo yasur shevet
m'yehuda...."
Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 11:38:05 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
>>
From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Electricity is not esh. Do we alter Halacho?
......
Here's an analogy. When I was growing up, I didn't brush my teeth on
Shabbos because I was told it was assur. Most people I know don't
brush their teeth on Shabbos. When I was in Rav Hershel Schachter's
shiur (or perhaps somewhat before, when my roomate was in his shiur),
I was told that R. Schachter & R. Soloveitchik believed that it was
permitted and not memarei'ach (see Nefesh Harav for a discussion). I
went through the sources and now brush my teeth on Shabbos.
Interestingly, (as I recall) Rav Yitzchak Yaakov Weiss believes that
brushing teeth is uvdah d'chol. I haven't seen the tshuvah recently,
but as I recall, it sounded that to him tooth brushing is not
shabbosdik because it's completely foreign to shabbos--it's just not
done (like electrical use). Obviously, Rav Soloveitchik didn't buy
such reasoning.
Kol tuv,
Moshe<<
FWIW, The Rov not only mattired brushing, but with toothpaste. There is/was a
middle position which allowed for brushing but did not use toothpaste becaue of
the aforementioned memreiach issue. Perhaps baking Soda was ok.
One objection I heard to brushing teeth was wrt to causing the gums to bleed.
This is apparently not a psik reishei, so that argument might be weak unless the
indiviual's gums (virtually) always bleeds.
The uvda d'chol idea is new to me.
Rich Wolpoe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:23:07 EDT
From: Joelirich@aol.com
Subject: Re: Brushing Teeth on Shabbos
In a message dated 8/13/99 2:00:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:
<<
FWIW, The Rov not only mattired brushing, but with toothpaste. There is/was
a
middle position which allowed for brushing but did not use toothpaste becaue
of
the aforementioned memreiach issue. Perhaps baking Soda was ok.
>>
R' N Alpert advised students of the powder alternative(I think there was a
product called Vince which was a powdered tooth paste)
kt,ss,ct,cvt
Joel Rich
Go to top.
*********************
[ 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 ]