Avodah Mailing List

Volume 22: Number 8

Wed, 13 Dec 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "SBA" <sba@sba2.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:27:05 +1100
Subject:
[Avodah] "v'imru amen"


From: "Aryeh Stein" <>
Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: Reminder - Monday evening begin Prayer forRain
>>>It's the old minnek in general (as so often...). The "ve-imru
omein" seems to have crept in from the end of gantz kaddish both to
Eloukai netzour and the end of benshen. It doesn't make sense unless
it's said to somebody else, does it?>>>
============================================
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this on Avodah before, but RSZA
explains that when we say "v'imru amen" in our silent shemonah esrai,
we are asking the malachim (who escort us everywhere we go) to answer
amen.
>>

I too remembered this discussion and made a search and
found that it was only 8 months ago!
We sure forget things fast around here...
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol17/v17n009.shtml

Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:14:16 +0200
From: Minden <phminden@arcor.de>
Subject: Re: to whom are we whispering ?

> From: "D&E-H Bannett" <>
>> And while on the subject, the time may have come for another round on
>> Avodah of to whom one multi-bows when stepping back at end of shmoneh
>> esrei and more important to whom are we whispering when asking to
>> answer Amen?

[RSBA:]
> Siddur Otzar Hatefilos, Likutei Maharich, RS Schwab, Boruch She'omar all
> say that we are whispering to the Malochim - that accompany a person all
> the time. [Maybe 'oseh sholom BIMEROMOV' indicates this?] The earliest
> source seems to be Mateh Moshe - which some cite.
> The OH also brings a nusach - IIRC - Machzor [or Siddur] Roma - that
> indeed does not include the 'Ve'imru Omein' at the end of SE.

This is a bedieved explanation (aetiology). It's simply an error: people
automatically went on with "ve'imru omein" after "ouse sholoum". The
same error occurs at the end of benshen, unless somebody is leading it.



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:02:06 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yaakov's division of his family into two camps


Sun, 10 Dec 2006 From: "Elchanan Schulgasser" <mechina@gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah] To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Does anyone know how Yaakov Avinu divided his family before his encounter
with Eisav? 

The Abarbanel explains that the family was not divided. This explains why we find that when Eisav came, they were all together.

Yaakov's strategy was to place one camp with the cattle and sheep nearer to where Eisav was, gambling that Eisav would be attracted to the property and attack that camp, letting the other camp (with the family, located farther away) escape. Addressing the unlikelt possibility that Eisav would instead approach the more distant family camp, Yaakov prayed to Hashem for protection against Eisav killing "aim al banim," and prepared the gift-setup as hishtadlus.

I think Rashi's peyrushim do not contradict this understanding; but Rabbeynu Bechaye has that the family was indeed divided, which leaves me with the propblem of why we see then all together again when Eisav comes.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061212/72e774fd/attachment.htm 


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:58:24 +0100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Halachic Infertility, or, Abolishing Shivah


RJR wrote:
> What if a woman's cycle were such that if we shortened the 5 to 4 she
> could get pregnant. I'm guessing that using some of the possibilities
> alluded to above, a posek might well say not to go ivf but rely on such
> a kula (especially given the cost of IVF).
>
> Of course my memory on these items may be patchy, lmaaseh , and
> especially in print, my recollection is that these types of issues are
> all covered under consult your LOR.

IIRC, there is a 'Hatam Sofer allowing shortening the waiting period even to 3 
days (quoted in Pit'hei Teshuvah in Hil. Niddah), provided that bleeding has 
stopped. However, from the Haaretz article it seems pretty clear that the 
doctor is taking aim at the taqanah of conflating nidut and zivah.

Kol tuv,

Arie Folger



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Yisrael Medad" <yisrael.medad@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 11:44:00 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Infertillity


All I wish to add is that this issue which started off 6 weeks ago in
HaTzofeh has been perturbing
my Motzei Shabbat Rav, Rabbi Yaakov Navon who has just published a major
work on Niddah, et. al,
Beit Yaakov.  He claims that Dr. Rosenak is making a very major
misunderstanding as to the status
of the chumra and has pointed out various resolutions of fertility problems
suggested by Rav Ohrbach z"l.

Here are links to the debate in the paper:
Rav Benny Lau
http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/newsnew/katava6.asp?Modul=24&;id=51593&Word=&gilayon=2914&mador
*=*
Rav Yoel Katan
http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/newsnew/katava6.asp?Modul=24&;id=51823&Word=&gilayon=2921&mador
*=*
Dr. Rosenak
http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/newsnew/katava6.asp?Modul=24&;id=52291&Word=&gilayon=2935&mador
*=
*--
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh
Mobile Post Efraim 44830
Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061213/fa7e238a/attachment.html 


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:02:49 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Chanuka and the winter solstice



A while ago RYBG cited on this forum AZ 8b regarding the shortening and lengthening of daylight during the winter. 

R. Menachem Leibtag relates this to Chanukah in a particularly enlightening shiur:

http://www.tanach.org/#shiur11.

The second shiur which appears is the one I'm referring to; I prefer to link to this page because the other shiurim on Chanukah linked to there are excellent as well.

Chanukah sameach

Saul Mashbaum



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:22:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Yetzer HoRa Issues


On Tue, December 5, 2006 10:49 pm, Litke, R Gary wrote:
: There are also ma'amarei chazal (including some in the Zohar, I'm
: told) to the effect that one's neshomo first appears at age 12/13 and/or
: 20. Seems that we are discussing a process, not sudden appearances. When
: the process ripens it becomes fully a 'yetzer tov' or a 'neshomo'; not
: to say there is no yetzer tov whatsoever before that time.

Which is akin to what I said, that the yeitzer hatov can't really exist until
teenage rebellion rears its head. What I prefer about my suggestion is that it
ties back to RYGB's original Pinnochio observation by suggesting that a true
yeitzer hatov, in terms of a constructive internal drive, can not exist until
a child learns that ignoring the cricket (parents, rabbeim and other authority
figures) is a real option.

As for the ability to recognize the little angel and devil arguing out a
decision... This goes back to our still hanging discussion about Adam's
bechirah qodem lacheit. Decision making doesn't require internalized yetzarim.
Besides, most children are at some point taught what the representation means;
how many figure it out without being told?

About imagination vs seichel... This touches on a blog entry I'm in the middle
of writing.

Koach hadimyon as used by Aristotilians goes beyond the colloquial meaning of
the word "imagination". It's the entire ability to reproduce memories as they
were seen. Creating, recreating and modifying scenarios. Yes, when the scene
is new, it requires imagination. But when the scene isn't, we still use koach
hadimyon to reproduce it.

By my own experience, conscious thought happens two ways: dimyon or the
internal monologue we call a "stream of consciousness". I suggest the latter
is what the Targum's "ruach memalela" (Ber 2:7) is about.

For example, there are two ways to think through the question "Does an
elephant have hair?"

The stream of consciousness way would be to realize that elephants are
mammals, all mammals have hair, and so unless elephants are the exception to
the rule, they must have hair. Elephants are well known and discussed animals.
Could they be an exception to the rule and I don't know it? Nah, they must
have hair.

OTOH, through dimyon one can remember elephants one saw, or saw pictures of.
The detail may be blurry, so you may have to manipulate the picture a bit.
Finally, a version which has a tuft of hair at the tail, maybe (if your memory
is good) some downy hair around the eyes and ears, strikes you as the most
familiar.

This point is by the way essential to nevu'ah, which is clothed in dimyon.
Yet, according to the Rambam (as explained .... see previous discussions), it
is still an awareness of a reality.

Aristotle separated imagination (which he used to mean dimyon in general) and
desire as different kochos hanefesh, although he considers it a tool of mind
used only in support of real stream of consciousness thought. But then, the
Greek idea of Logos is both idea and word... And this takes me even further
off topic, so I'll stop my stream of consciouness here.

Given this, I'm missing what's so ra about dimyon. Or are there two meanings
to the word -- one used by Artistotilian rishonim, and one used by everyone
else?

Here's how RYSalanter's Igeres haMussar opens:
> Man is created to be free in his imagination and bound by his intellect. But,
> his unbridled imagination draws him mischievously in the way of his heart's
> desire without fear of the certain future - the time when G-d will examine
> all of his affairs.

RYS seems to be saying that dimyon needs channeling, and lacks the ability to
channel itself; that function must be provided by seichel. Is seichel stream
of conscious thought? Something else / more?

And thus dimyon isn't evil, it's value free. The yeitzer hara would seem from
this description to be *unbridled* dimyon. And he doesn't address seichel's
ability to justify doing wrong.

I need to do much more work on this topic. Your help would be appreciated.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:25:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Kissing Places In A Sefer Torah


On Sat, December 9, 2006 11:04 pm, SBA wrote:
: From: RallisW@aol.com
: Does anyone know where the Lubavitch minhog of touching one's tzitzis  to
: both the begining and end of an Aliyoh comes  from?

: Presumably you are referring to sweeping the Tallis over the
: section being layned - before and after the brochos.

: AFAIK, this is not an excludive Lubavitch minhag, but done by all.

We touch the beginning and end with a tallis or the gartel (if no tallis is
being worn). I have no seen this sweeping thing. The Muncaczer's argument that
it will lead to qilqul ST seems compelling.

As for why... It's so that one knows what one is supposed to read. That
enables (1) making birkhas haTorah over la'asiyasan rather than looking for
the place, as well as (2) being more specific as to what one is mentally
appointing the baal qeriah as a shaliach for.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter




Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:28:44 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eidut


On Sun, December 10, 2006 9:00 am, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: Halachically, is a victim of a crime supposed to go to a Beit Din and report
: the crime?
: Does it change things if he knows who performed the crime?

Isn't this straightforward teviah, not eidus?

If one doesn't know the crime, who in bayis sheini society was charged with
finding the criminal? The shoterim? I pictured them more as an executive
branch than part of penology, but I have no idea where that picture came from.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Daniel Israel" <dmi1@hushmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:43:53 -0700
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Kissing Places In A Sefer Torah


On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 15:25:55 -0700 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> 
wrote:
>On Sat, December 9, 2006 11:04 pm, SBA wrote:
>: From: RallisW@aol.com
>: Does anyone know where the Lubavitch minhog of touching one's 
tzitzis  to
>: both the begining and end of an Aliyoh comes  from?
>
>: AFAIK, this is not an excludive Lubavitch minhag, but done by 
>all.
>
>We touch the beginning and end with a tallis or the gartel (if no 
>tallis is being worn).

I'm confused.  The responses here seem to suggest that this is not 
a Lubavitch minhag, yet I, like the original poster, was under the 
impression it was.  In fact, the only people I know who do this are 
either Chabad themselves, or became frum at a Chabad shul.  So 
whose minhag is this, actually?

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu




Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:41:00 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fwd: Kissing Places In A Sefer Torah


Micha Berger wrote:

> We touch the beginning and end with a tallis or the gartel (if no
> tallis is being worn). I have no seen this sweeping thing.  The
> Muncaczer's argument that it will lead to qilqul ST seems compelling.

I've only ever seen one person do such a "sweeping", and I've always
wondered where he got it from.  He's certainly not a yodea sefer, so
either someone must once taught it to him, or he made it up himself.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 17:45:42 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eidut


Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, December 10, 2006 9:00 am, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> : Halachically, is a victim of a crime supposed to go to a Beit Din and report
> : the crime?
> : Does it change things if he knows who performed the crime?
> 
> Isn't this straightforward teviah, not eidus?
> 
> If one doesn't know the crime, who in bayis sheini society was charged with
> finding the criminal? The shoterim? I pictured them more as an executive
> branch than part of penology, but I have no idea where that picture came from.

Not even an executive branch.  Rashi says they are court officers, who
do the practical work of the judicial branch.  The king was the executive
branch, and before Shaul it didn't exist, and thus despite the existence
of batei din it was "ish kol hayashar be'enav yaaseh".

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: "Chana Luntz" <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 22:24:15 -0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] Halachic Infertilit



In the interests of fair disclosure, I had better restate what I
explained on Areivim (although for some reason it does not seem to have
been published), which explains a bit why I know something about the
topic:

I am/was borderline vis a vis this.  After doing numerous measurements
during the year and a half before I conceived my 5 month old daughter,
it became clear that I was ovulating so that what is considered my
fertile period post ovulation finished shortly before I could get to
mikvah (although often we seemed to be talking about nothing more than
around three -six hours).  Luckily, we seem to be pretty fertile in
other ways so that - in that year and a half period, while mostly I
could not get a clean hefsek tahara on my fifth day no matter how I
tried (meaning I started counting on my seventh day), three times in
that year I managed to get a clean hefsek tahara on day five.  The first
time we got as far as the 30 day and a positive pregnancy test before I
lost it. The second time nothing (but that time I ovulated a day earlier
as well) and the third time my daughter was conceived.  But that is
actually an extremely high hit rate - if we had had other problems
besides halachic infertility I doubt I would have had my daughter.
 
RMB writes:

> There are ways of shortening the time until a hefseiq taharah
> as well.

Only if in fact you *can* get a clean hefseiq taharah earlier than the
normal five days (eg on day two or three) and the only reason you are
waiting until four or five is because of the minhag (Rav Moshe has a
psak about this).  It does not apply if your period is long and your
ovulation period is short.

> But if all else fails, there have been pesaqim
> lequlah -- at least before IVF.

The funny thing is, everybody seems to believe there are heterim out
there, until one goes exploring for one, and they seem to vanish into
thin air - and one keeps being referred to the medical system.  I can't
say we explored very hard - basically we (well I) just gave up - it was
getting too stressful as it was (with all the measuring etc - I think it
was the time I ended up in tears because there was queue at the mikvah
which meant I couldn't go in in the first round, putting us back around
an hour that made me say that I am not going to let this dominate
anymore and I gave up).

 Now that a couple can produce a baby without violating minhag yisrael,
as IVF-H involves 
> simpler halachic issues (donation for the purpose of procreation) than

> eliminating 7 neqiim, I do not know if
> those teshuvos are still applied.

In most of these cases one isn't talking about going as far as IVF -
there are apparently hormones that generally make the cycle longer.

In our case I live in England, and as I wrote in my Areivim post:

"when hormones to lengthen the period of ovulation was suggested, I was
extremely sceptical that I could even get hold of such on the NHS.  I
could just imagine a dialogue with a doctor going like this - Woman
presents herself to a doctor and says she wants IVF.  Doctor asks
whether she has problems conceiving and she explains that she doesn't
think so, just that she is a religious Xtian and holds that sex is
sinful, but she wants a child, and hence she wants to have it via IVF.
I think that the NHS would throw her out the door, saying they have
enough people with real infertility problems making claims on the
system.  And while we are not talking about the expense of IVF, from
their perspective this is no different. If  my husband and I are not
prepared to have relations as the time when I am going to conceive, that
is not the NHS's fault, and they are unlikely to want to be able to help
me."

Now, in England you can go to a GP privately (so long as you pay) and
there are apparently frum GPs who will prescribe these things.  BUT, if
I am prescribed something on the NHS and there are complications, I go
back to the NHS.  If am prescribed something by a private GP - and
especially when I *know* that the NHS would not recommend such
prescribing- and from their perspective he is probably a rogue GP (since
he is medicalising unnecessarily) and there are complications - what is
going to happen?  (As I also explained on my Areivim post - in England,
birth control and abortion are allowed as follows:

"The logic that is used here in the UK regarding birth control pills
goes like this:  it is more dangerous for a woman to have an abortion or
proceed through a pregnancy than to use birth control pills - so
therefore since you are not going to be able to prevent relations, then
birth control pills should be prescribed (it is the same logic that is
used to allow an abortion once a woman is pregnant - the risks to the
woman (eg of dying) of going through with a pregnancy is something like
nine times that of an abortion so therefore, although we do not
technically have abortion on demand here in the UK, the two doctors who
have to permit the abortion are reading from the same risk chart, and
hence invariably permit on medical grounds).  Regarding acne - unless
you are killing two birds with one stone, my understanding is that the
doctors are supposed to weigh up the psychological harm to eg a
vulnerable teenage girl with acne verses the risks of these pills.  In a
society where physical appearance is considered very important, and
there have been numbers of suicides as a consequence of teenagers
feeling ugly (or having been teased/bullied to the point where they
believe they are ugly) this is not a totally insignificant concern, but
that the doctor is *supposed* to consider the case of the patient before
him and weigh up these risks."

But the same analysis cannot be applied to prescription of hormones to
lengthen ovulation - and when we approached another doctor (who happens
to be frum) he told us that the procedure on the NHS would have been to
refer us to an NHS infertility clinic where they would have done a
battery of tests (including taking a sample from my husband to determine
fertility) before coming to any conclusions.  And given that we were
pretty sure that was unnecessary, where is your heter there?

I also don't really understand this idea about "donation for the purpose
of procreation" being so easy. It seems to me it is the same analysis as
the shiva nekiim- ie an aseh of procreation being doche a lo taseh -
except that in the case of the shiva nekiim it is at most a safek
d'orisa and in the case of shichat zera it is a vadai d'orisa violation.
In fact the discussions in the gemora around the lo taseh are not
related to the causing of procreation (because of course relations are
permitted in cases where there is clearly no chance of procreation, such
as when the woman is pregnant or too old) but about the place.  The only
case of this sort of thing (Ben Sirach) seems to have been involuntary.
So the heter seems to be a very modern psak based on modern logic.

> 
> But finding a doctor who wants to do away with minhag yisrael
> altogether is just a Haaretzism, and an Areivim discussion if 
> anywhere.
> 

I was assuming that he was only talking about in cases of halachic
infertility - given that the default position today seems to be a
medical one (of course my assumption could be wrong).  And of course
only in a case where the couple wanted a child (I would have thought
that the shiva nekiim could go on performing their function as a form of
birth control in all other cases - which I guess I have tended to assume
was part of the point.  It is known that a woman's cycle shortens as she
gets older - which is why I suspect there are more cases of this than
there used to be, as women are marrying later.  I therefore suspect that
in gemora times it functioned as a natural way of preventing excessive
children at relatively old ages - this is of course just being my
speculation).

> Tir'u baTov!
> -mi

I have to go, so I am only going to respond to a small portion of RIS's
post (maybe more another time) but:

>
RIS writes:

> The seven clean days requirement is based on a SAFEK 
> D'ORAITA. We can no longer distinguish niddah from zivah, 
> because we have lost the mesorah of which precise four shades 
> of red and one of black render a woman niddah d'oraita. 

 This I also don't fully understand.  As I understand it, the way rov
rishonim seems to understand the difference between nida and ziva is due
to the counting system which is reset every month or so.  The problem is
that the counting system is complicated, and it was difficult for women
to account for it on a regular basis.  But I would have thought that
when everybody is looking over her shoulder in a halachic infertility
situation, it could be allowed.

I agree this does not work with the Rambam, as you needed to have kept
count since you first got your period at around 12 or so, and nobody has
done that - but is not the Rambam a daas yachid?

This 
> makes it impossible to pinpoint the halachic onset of 
> bleeding, which means we can no longer keeep an accurate 
> niddah-zivah calendar.

I don't really understand this - because even if you take the most
machmir position regarding onset, if you get long enough then you must
be out of the yamei ziva and into the yamei niddah, and most women -
even with short cycles, do do that.  So the way I understood the safek
d'orisa it was based on general propensity to miscount, not different
colours - how do you get to this different colour understanding (it is
true we have lost the ability to distinguish colours - but I understood
that to mean that any form of red is assur - even though d'orisa there
are some permissible reds) not that this affected the ziva/nida
equation.

> - Ilana

Regards 

Chana




Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "kennethgmiller@juno.com" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:22:44 GMT
Subject:
[Avodah] A Caravan of Yishmaelim


Onkelos (Bereshis 37:25) says that the brothers sold Yosef to 
a "sh'yaras arava'ay" - a caravan of arabs. But the Torah was not so 
ambiguous, and identified them more specifically as Yishmaelim.

I did not see any perushim, nor do I recall any divrei Torah, which 
point out the family relationship between the sellers and buyers in 
this transaction. 

To these brothers, Yishmael was their father's uncle. The Yishmaelim 
themselves are either Yishmael's descendants, or perhaps their 
employees or followers. In any case, there is some sort of 
relationship (for better or for worse) between the founder of the 
group which the brothers belong to, and the founder of the group 
which the Yishmaelim are named after. But I cannot recall hearing 
anyone comment on that relationship.

But the Torah does call them "Yishmaelim". It did not have to do 
that. The pasuk could have referred to "a caravan of men" or even 
simply "a caravan". Why did it go out of its way to call 
them "Yishmaelim"?

One possible answer that comes to my mind is that the 
word "Yishmaelim" here does *not* refer to the person Yishmael. Could 
it be that this is a generic word referring to some sort of merchant, 
like the word "Canaani" in Eishes Chayil? Could it be that the Torah 
used this word specifically to demonstrate that it lost its ethnic 
meaning in just a few generations?

If that is indeed the case (i.e., that Yishmaelim have nothing to do 
with Yishmael) does this cast aspersions upon today's Muslims, who do 
claim to be Yishmael's heirs?

Any other thoughts?

Akiva Miller



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


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 8
************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >