Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 176

Sun, 11 May 2008

• 1. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rabbi Michael Rosensweig - Kedoshim Tihiyu: The Obligation to Internalize Halachic Values and Adopt a Halachic World View (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Heter mechira (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 4. Re: Education - was RAYK and the end of chol (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Rabbi Michael Rosensweig - Kedoshim Tihiyu: The Obligation to Internalize Halachic Values and Adopt a Halachic World View (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Rosh Hashanah 32b There's Hope For Everyone (Michael Makovi)

<331485a50805070440w42c5588ege8bb71871090f3bf@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 7 May 2008 14:40:21 +0300 "Michael Makovi"
<mikewinddale@gmail.com> wrote:
: a) The Torah was given to be kept in davka Eretz Yisrael; to keep it
: in chutz is simply practice for the real thing in EY. Therefore, it
: would make sense if the Torah's legislation is truly concerned with EY
: only, both hashkafically and in terms of halachic feasibility. (Rabbi
: Moshe Shmuel Glasner in haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna, and Rabbi Eliezer
: Berkovits in one of his writings, both say that the Torah is not
: concerned with Shabbat observance being feasible in chutz; it is a
: chiyuv, but it is your own problem, not God's or the Torah's, if it
: isn't feasible.) Perhaps then, the Torah legislated ahava only for the
: Jewish neighbor and for the gentile ger toshav neighbor; where in EY
: is there a non-ger-toshav gentile neighbor? ...

1- I thought I got you to shave some off this position. Not so much
mitzvah vs practice, but that there is only one component which is
missing.

My argument was that otherwise, Hashem would ahve had no reason for
mitzvos specific to beris Sinai to override issurim that are part of
beris Noach when the Jew is in chu"l.

As proof, look at your own sources: There is a chiyuv, keeping it is your
own problem. Saying they weren't designed for chu"l, or more correctly
(in keeping with the direction of cause-and-effect of histakeil beOraisa
ubarei alma) that chu"l wasn't as designed to fit observance, is very
different than saying that observance has no real role there (short of
keeping the memory alive). The Dor 4 is simply saying that nothing is
in there to make chu"l specific loopholes. Which actually presumes that
the Torah is concerned with Shabbas in chu"l bifnei atzma.

2- But to draw the parallel, the chiyuv in EY and chu"l of ve'ahavaa
lerei'akha would be identical, just that in chu"l feasibility is your
problem, not G-d's or the Torah.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

Truth is, universal love with no differentiation is the same as
non-love. Picture this marriage proposal:
    Tom: Cindy, will you marry me?
    Cindy: But Tom, do you love me?
    Tom: Of course, I love everyone!

I REALLY REALLY beg you take the time to read RSShkop's haqdamah to
Shaarei Yosher. Literally words to live by; at least, I'm trying to.
See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf> for the original
(starting from the last page and going backward) and my translation. The
layout makes sense if printed and stapled -- the Hebrew would start from
the Hebrew 1st pg, and the English from the English. He speaks about
kamokha, and ever increasing distance from one's etzem self. His words on
"Im ein ani li" is well known and classic -- and based on this pasuq.

Also, how could we not be expected to love every tzelem E-lokim? Would
it be possible to have full ahavas Hashem and not love that which is
similar to Him? AFAIK, that's not how love works. It's just that this
love happens not to be /this/ chiyuv.

: b) The Gemara says v'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha = Jewish neighbor, but
: perhaps this is a drash and not a kabbalah. [Citations of tertiary
: halachically non-authoritative courses deleted. -mi] ...          If
: we follow Drashot haRan, Sefer haChinuch, Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner,
: etc., that a drash from Chazal doesn't mean the drash is objectively
: correct, then we can suppose, hypothetically and with no effect on
: halacha l'maaseh, that we are to love gentiles too...

First "not objectively correct" is different than "not subjectively
correct".

But in any case, we're supposed to follow the pesaq. That's Judaism.
If there is no halakhah lemaaseh to your hypothetical, it isn't. You're
just saying that there could have been a fulfillment of beris Sinai in
which... I'm not sure I would agree, since (as you note) we have no idea
if this was a constructive derashah or a derashah mequbeles. But even
without agreement over the possibility of such a version of fulfilling
the beris, it's not Judaism as the mesorah evolved it.

Your speculation doesn't make *Judaism* any more universalist.

(This ties in to my imaginary Isaacarism... the fulfillment of beris
Sinai had the Torah of sheivet Yissachar survived the Bavliim. Think how
much of halakhah evolved after their disappearance. What if somewhere
in some corner the internet hasn't yet reached, they were still out
there, with their batei din making their own pesaqim and derashos. The
differences would make Ashk vs Teiman look infantesimal by comparison --
we all share Chazal, moreso, we all share AKhG! And yet, they would be
following the same process, just taking a very divergant path.

(A topic for a good frum sci fi author.)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:39:56PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: > #1 The Gra favored the book sources (at least for his own practice),

: For the GRA himself this method had boundaries. For thothers the slippery
: slope allows people to use that GRA to justify paskening new Halacha from
: the Gmara.  This is also attributed to the Rambam but in HIS time the Gmaar
: was stil lrealtively NEW

But they didn't take that slippery slope. They realized he was sui
generis. Yeish gevul.

:> #2 Yekkes
:> will accept much textually weaker arguments if they justify halakha
:> as received.

: Yekkes have a boundary, too - namely time- honored tradition.   You don't
: monkey with halachah OR minhag w/o major justification and ONLY in a way
: that conforms in both sytle and content

We're in agreement then.

...
:> Whereas Chassidum changed numerous practices to fit the
:> Chassidic worldview.

: This imho is dangerous. the hashkafa dictates the way to behave instead of
: an objective read of the sources [mimetis are imho an alterante form of
: source]

AISI, not so, as long as one is medaqdeiq that the hashkafah is used
only to choose between options actually supportable through textual
halachic process.

Following minhag avos too requires the option is not ruled out through
a study of textual, codified, din. That is the sole distinction between
minhag avos and minhag shtus.

As well as my third kind of weighting, which I believe is currently
dominant -- which shitah has more backing (authority of author, rov
rishonim, etc...) and failing any clear answer that way: be chosheid
for both! Entirely textual, with no eye to minhag avos or to enhancing
kavanah.

: When Rackman radicalizes afkin'yu he is taking Aggdic hashkafa [the poor
: Agunah! let's do ALL We can to help and over-rides precedent...

AND (in his detrators' opinion, which seems muchrach to my limited
understanding of the topic) overrides that textual winowing of options.
CHaning how you weight options is different than changing the list of
options. The accusation is that RER did both.

: BTW at least TWO Rashi's I just learned in Kesubbos [daf 2: daf 3.]  are
: very clear implications taht afkin'u is about making a FLAWED GET work, not
: about  undoing  kiddushin w/o a GET.

I posted about this in the past. All of the gemaras cases include
either:
1- anullment at the time of qidushin (which may not be hafkaah as much
as hefqeir BD); or
2- at the time of a flawed get.

IIRC, the machloqes geonim is wether only the 5 cases in shas can have
hafkaas qedushin, or whether a beis din could establish any other rule
that fits those two cases.

Sepharadim, who often made such rules, did so as rules. (Anyone who did X,
the qedusin is not chal.) There is no history of casewise hafkaah.

: I think we should learn like the AhS and be noheig mostly like
: Rema/Levush/Maharil in practice.

I think that in a generation whose greatest battle is against mitzvos
anashim meilumadah, we need to shift pesaq to whatever will increase
passion in shemiras hamitzvos. We have plenty of diyuq, we need more
"erev Shabbos Jews".

Add to that that in our day, there is no dominant minhag avos to define
a minhag hamaqom, we are in the beginning of a process of congealing new
minhagei hamaqom in our new meqomos. I therefore feel it's an appropriate
time to give aggadah more weight than usual.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 19th day, which is
micha@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Tifferes: When does harmony promote
Fax: (270) 514-1507                         withdrawal and submission?

     R.Zev Sero, in his lucid and thorough description of the differences between mechiras chametz and the sale of EY, wrote
 
<What if the goy doesn't want to sell it back?  Are you prepared to part with it permanently?>

     R.Michael Makovi responded

<So do what we do with chametz - sell it to him for $5 down payment
now, and tell him that after Pesach, he has to pay another
$1,000,000,000 to keep it. So too with the land - sell it for a
pittance now and a fortune when shemitta ends. I don't know if we do
this, but we could if we needed to.>

     If that's how your chametz was sold, it has accomplished nothing.
     Either the purchasing goy didn't know what he was doing, or obviously
     did not consider it anything other than a sham. In either event, it is
     not a valid m'chira.

     The way it's usually done is for the sale to call for an assessment of
     price to be made on the day after Yom Tov, usually by a zabl"a
     arrangement.  However, the repurchase is effected before the time
     designated for the assessment of price, and mutual quitclaims are
     agreed to by both parties: "If you owe us, because what we are
     repurchasing is worth less thatn what we sold, we forgive you; if it
     is worth more, you forgive us."  I assume something similar is done
     for the heter m'chira.

     In addition, there is the following difference: if, during Pesach, the
     purchaser should come to our door with his shtar in hand and ask to
     take possession of the items sold to him, I imagine that we would turn
     them over.  Now imagine that the sheik who purchased EY comes to an
     olive grove during Pesach and tells the once and future owner that he
     is going to have all the trees chopped down, then and there, and pave
     it over for a parking lot.  Do you imagine that the sellers would
     stand idly by and let him do it?  If not, then again his refusal
     indicates that the sale was never meant.

EMT

 
_____________________________________________________________
Click here for great computer networking solutions!
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3oHgMuKSf8Zg3NvUynUfJ4lZN5mjCletdqYEtX237bAj9NkW/?c
ount=1234567890

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 1:11 PM, <T613K@aol.com> wrote:

>
> >>>>>
> Yet in the Torah world Talmud learning for girls is considered a radical,
> politically motivated innovation, and we do not in practice see the same
> correlation between advanced Talmudic learning and dikduk bemitzvos among
> women that we see among men.
>


YOu have answerd your obserfation!  If ONLY radicals are permitted to learnr
Talmud then ONLY RADICALS  will draw Halcha from it

Once you mainstream more in-depth analyssi for nice BY girls then they will
have more dikduk in mitzvos

Let me tell you the other side.  Several BY girls ahve said to me that women
have ONLY 3 mitzvos hallah, niddah, & hadlakas haneiros!

So you might be right on one level but ofostering am ha'arztus is not much
of a trade off.  My friend's duaghter is a math major in Columbia Law.  She
doesn't GET Talmud she is clueless, But her sister DOES.  {the father is
moderately yeshivish BTW]

It was different when women were uneducated but if they can tear apart a
legal text the they can do Talmud , too.

What I have noticed with many [not all] women is that they chafe at Talmudic
style argumentation. for them perhaps the Shulchan Aruch makes more sense
-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/





> Often it is just the opposite (see Hollywood FL for one example) -- in the
> MO communities where women are more likely to have learned at least some
> Talmud, there is visibly LESS tznius among the women.  If anything, the
> correlation goes the other way -- across the spectrum, in the schools and
> communities where women do NOT learn Talmud, they are far MORE likely to
> cover their hair, not wear shorts or sleeveless dresses in public, and so
> on.  Learning Talmud does not seem to have the same positive effect on women
> in terms of increasing halachic observance and yiras Shamayim that it has on
> men.
>
> Having said all that I will add that my father did not hold that it is
> always absolutely assur for a woman to learn Talmud (certainly there have
> been individual great women in history who learned Gemara), but he did hold
> that this should not be done on a community-wide basis as a general part of
> women's education, as a matter both of halacha and of public policy.
>
> I would suggest that it is more important to encourage young women to MARRY
> talmidei chachamim than to BECOME talmidei chachamim.  Men have a strong
> tendency to live up to (or sometimes, sadly, down to) what is expected of
> them by the women in their lives.  This is why women have such a civilizing
> influence on society.
>
> *
> *
> *--Toby Katz
> =============
> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080509/71d2e35e/attachment.htm>

On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:39:56PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> : > #1 The Gra favored the book sources (at least for his own practice),
>
> : For the GRA himself this method had boundaries. For thothers the slippery
> : slope allows people to use that GRA to justify paskening new Halacha from
> : the Gmara.  This is also attributed to the Rambam but in HIS time the
> Gmaar
> : was stil lrealtively NEW
>
> But they didn't take that slippery slope. They realized he was sui
> generis. Yeish gevul.


Who are tehe they
Zev SEro said SA harav is the same. Who says that list is exahastive
one Rav told me he accepts RYBS reads of the Rambam over those of Bet
Yosef.  is he right?


>
>
> :> #2 Yekkes
> :
> We're in agreement then.
>
> ...
> :> Whereas Chassidum changed numerous practices to fit the
> :> Chassidic worldview.
>
> : This imho is dangerous. the hashkafa dictates the way to behave instead
> of
> : an objective read of the sources [mimetis are imho an alterante form of
> : source]
>
> AISI, not so, as long as one is medaqdeiq that the hashkafah is used
> only to choose between options actually supportable through textual
> halachic process.
>

So give me the sources for dancing on Shabbos against codified Mishna!  You
re contradicting yourself. This SHOULD be minhag shtus as per YOUR shita and
Tsoafos therefore should be wrong here. and  how about Sukkah on Shmini
Atzeres?


And if you are clear that you are right and I am not then let the slippery
slope being. YOU might be satisfied that his process will not be abused, and
I say it is inherently fuzzy and quite abusable!



>
>
>
> CHaning how you weight options is different than changing the list of
> options. The accusation is that RER did both.
>

Well if you follow BY and SA you will ssee that he winnowe dout MANY
Rishonim and most nos'ei Keilim voiced thier objections and let the others
to rest.

But when the GRA revived the RIF/RAmbam on Matzos he [imho] unwinnowed
Rishonim back to the Talmud.  That is my point of slippery slope.  Even the
kaf Hacayyim rejected the GRA purely on consensus [ont on the merits of the
text]

But if you accept going back to Talmud...


>
> : BTW at least TWO Rashi's I just learned in Kesubbos [daf 2: daf 3.]  are
> : very clear implications taht afkin'u is about making a FLAWED GET work,
> not
> : about  undoing  kiddushin w/o a GET.
>
> I posted about this in the past. All of the gemaras cases include
> either:
> 1- anullment at the time of qidushin (which may not be hafkaah as much
> as hefqeir BD); or
> 2- at the time of a flawed get.
>
>
>
> I think that in a generation whose greatest battle is against mitzvos
> anashim meilumadah, we need to shift pesaq to whatever will increase
> passion in shemiras hamitzvos. We have plenty of diyuq, we need more
> "erev Shabbos Jews".


So it if FEELS good it is OK?  C's argue bring guitars to shul and get
kabbalas Sahbbos to be more lively like kumsitz!

Maybe in a hora'as sho'ah NCSY permitted dancing on Shabbos, but your pardim
opens a can of worms

Some say dtich Piyytim
One C rabbi [with Ortho Semicha] says if we ONLY ditch the minhag Ta'us of
kittniyyos magically all Jews will observe passover somehow




>
>
> Add to that that in our day, there is no dominant minhag avos to define
> a minhag hamaqom, we are in the beginning of a process of congealing new
> minhagei hamaqom in our new meqomos.


I kinda accept that




> I therefore feel it's an appropriate
> time to give aggadah more weight than usual. :-)BBii!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger
>


Makes no sense to me. It makes a fuzzier situatoin evn FUZZIER and MORE
subjective and substituting FRUMKEIT for EHRLICHKEIT  We can now ply MORE
games with texts and  pasken by emotiosn w/o sources because  it ulimtately
leads to piety. this was the early Anti-nomian position of the Hassidim upon
which the GRA put a herem!

AISI we live in a WESTERNIZED society in the USA.  We should use more
obejctive and stricter Yekke style analysis of sources and get Halcha from a
more fiar-minded Centrist shvil Hazahav with less lieralism and
reactionariyism.

Set up a fair BD. Kitzur SA did it we can, too.  Rabbis today can
eclectically do jsut bout anyting and call it halacah.

I know ther are at least 100 recipes for cholent, but imagine if you wanted
a chocolate doughnut and it had 100 differnt recipes too! you could NEVER
define it again!

AISI the SA/REMA simplified halacha by cutting off options and giving us a
brand new start [I call it a synpoint for your database  gurus out there]
Now some of the no'sei keilim twek the SA/REMA but for the most part it
stands up.

The Ben Ish Chai ante dto Lurianize Halachah by Rejecting Maran in favor of
Arizal
Ashkenazim have come up with a whole new set of poskim in order to add MANY
more non-Talmudic minhaggim to a very long list taht Rishonim had etc. I
don't think adding more aggadah will do anything but increase the confusion
.

ROY is attempting to REstore Maran BY to his pre-eminence. I am attempting
to restore Rema/Levush and perhaps AhS [who is usually a Tradtionalist] to
be the Ashkenazic alternative.

That said, I do agree that paskening w/o any grounding in Midrash and
Agagadah is a VERY bad thing. I have started mini-doses of Tanna devai
Eliyahu [great hizzuk for me] Pireki R. Elizeze [over my head at times]

I have done Avos, Shomenh Prakkim, and I BEH will be doing Avos Dr. Nassan
and Derech Eretz etc. I started Tanhuma and put it down for a while because
I could not keep up to the parsha of the week.   I accepted Micha's premise
that Aggdah is a necesary componet for being a well-rounded Yid. But I would
be very cautious about applying it to the Halachic process.

For those of a more rational bent, I would suggest Rambam hilchos Dei'os,
Teshuva, and Talmud Torah as good "mussar sefarim", too!   Also Emes - Iyyov
Misheli Tehillim.  Mishlei gives me a lot of Musar.



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080509/06b80e86/attachment.htm>

> 1 - ...
> ...
> As proof, look at your own sources: There is a chiyuv, keeping it is your
> own problem. Saying they weren't designed for chu"l, or more correctly
> (in keeping with the direction of cause-and-effect of histakeil beOraisa
> ubarei alma) that chu"l wasn't as designed to fit observance, is very
> different than saying that observance has no real role there (short of
> keeping the memory alive). The Dor 4 is simply saying that nothing is
> in there to make chu"l specific loopholes. Which actually presumes that
> the Torah is concerned with Shabbas in chu"l bifnei atzma.
>
> 2- But to draw the parallel, the chiyuv in EY and chu"l of ve'ahavaa
> lerei'akha would be identical, just that in chu"l feasibility is your
> problem, not G-d's or the Torah.
>
> Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

> R' Micha Berger

In truth, my idea is merely inspired by the Dor Revi'i, and not what I
think he himself meant. He says that the Torah is not concerned if a
mitzvah is feasible in chu"l (i.e., it's your problem, not G-d's), and
he says this only to say that any difficulties of keeping Shabbat in
chu"l, practically, are our problem and not G-d's (and therefore, we
should all get on El Al and...).

I've extended this to say that the Torah doesn't even legislate for
chu"l at all, in the first place, except to say that it is a chiyuv in
chu"l as a remembrance and preparation for when we are redeemed.
(Question: Why then don't we do korbanot today as a similar zecher?
Perhaps, the theological problems of offering outside the beit
ha-mikdash are greater than any benefit of zechira.)

The Dor Revi'i speaks of practical feasibility, while I speak of the
very basis of the legislation and the very geographic scope of the
Torah's chiyuvim.

So the Dor Revi'i would simply say that with vehavta l'reacha (R'
Micha's example) that feasibility is your own problem, while I take
this one step further and say that it is really outside the Torah's
purview, except as a remembrance.

Saying that, I can say (with everyone else disagreeing with me) that
there is no command to love a gentile in chu"l simply because the
Torah's purview is only Jewish neighbors and gentiles in EY (gerei
toshav), not gentiles in chu"l.

> Truth is, universal love with no differentiation is the same as
> non-love. Picture this marriage proposal:
>    Tom: Cindy, will you marry me?
>    Cindy: But Tom, do you love me?
>    Tom: Of course, I love everyone!
>
> R' Micha

Ze'ev Maghen in "Imagine: On Love and Lennon" (Azure.co.il) makes the
same example, except in his, Tom concludes by asking "by the way,
what's that excruciating pain in my groin?" Excellent essay,
summarized by R' Nathan L. Cardozo in Thoughts to Ponder no. 2.

> Also, how could we not be expected to love every tzelem E-lokim? Would
> it be possible to have full ahavas Hashem and not love that which is
> similar to Him? AFAIK, that's not how love works. It's just that this
> love happens not to be /this/ chiyuv.
> R' Micha

But then why make a chiyuv to love your neighbor? If the fact that G-d
created man is enough to tell you to love the gentile, then it's
enough to tell you to love the Jew. What I'm troubled by then, is why
there's not an explicit chiyuv on either both or neither. It's the
disparity that troubles me.

So I agree that G-d's creating us all means we should love gentiles,
but the problem remains despite this.

> : b) The Gemara says v'ahavta l'rayacha kamocha = Jewish neighbor, but
> : perhaps this is a drash and not a kabbalah. ...
> Mikha'el Makovi

> But in any case, we're supposed to follow the pesaq. That's Judaism...Your speculation
> doesn't make *Judaism* any more universalist.
> R' Micha

I realize the problems involved (viz. following a minority view of
TSBP, unsupported speculations, no effect on halacha l'maaseh even if
I'm correct), which is why I put it as number two. It's more a way by
which I, as a last resort, customarily relieve any cognitive
dissonance; it goes something like "If it's a kabbalah, then the
logic/rationale/explanation/justification/derivation doesn't matter
and it doesn't matter if it makes sense to me or even seems to
contradict the pasuk, and it's a drash, then if the
logic/rationale/explanation/justification/derivation doesn't have make
sense, and if it seems to contradict the pasuk, then I can disagree in
my mind while I still act kach v'kach". Every single base is covered!

We can even take this logic further. Imagine if a person wants to
insist that basar v'chalav means davka a mother and her kid. I'd
reply: if Chazal are correct, by way of kabbalah, then whatever you
think the pasuk means is irrelevant. OTOH, if Chazal are wrong, and
our maskil correct, then I'd simply reply that apparently, Chazal
either made an authoritively-binding-but-not-necessarily-objectively-correct
drash, or they made a gezerah to extend basar and chalav beyond the
d'oraita, and in time, the original d'oraita was forgotten due to
Roman persecutions and the like (cf. the Gemara asking when Kriat
Shema is d'oraita or d'rabbanan). So either which way you cut it,
Chazal are correct and binding and the practice of basar and chalav is
a correct one.

I use this logic not infrequently, which is part of why I love Rav
Glasner and Rav Berkovits so much. Prior to my learning them, I had
the same ideas as now, but no one with which to back them up. At
least, I can claim some sort of authority behind me so that I'm not as
much of an apikorus.

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 176
***************************************

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..."