Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 24

Wed, 18 Apr 2012

• 1. Re: two fictional sects (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: The 8th Day of Pesach in Golus (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: two fictional sects (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Particles of flour cannot become Chamets (hankman)
• 5. Re: Kama Maalot Tovot Lamakom Aleinu? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Eretz Yisrael and the Roots of Ashkenaz (Arie Folger)
• 7. roots of Ashkenaz (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: two fictional sects (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Eretz Yisrael and the Roots of Ashkenaz (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: two fictional sects (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: two fictional sects (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: two fictional sects (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: two fictional sects (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: two fictional sects (David Riceman)
• 15. Re: two fictional sects (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Fwd: [DTT] A new Fear of Gd? (Poppers, Michael)
• 17. Stopping Saying Mashiv Haruach (Simon Wanderer)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 06:57:26PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> Aren't you assuming your conclusion? The mishna talks about minhag  
> hamakom.  The earliest source I can recall off hand for "minhag avos" is  
> the Ran about Herem d'Rabbeinu Gershom.  What justifies your  
> retrojecting the concept into Hazal?

(Abayei uses the words, when he canonized YT sheini from a minhag to a
derabbanan. But that's arguably not the same thing, since it was maqom
based.)

The first use of the idiom I could find is Machzor Vitri (#265, #278,
#506). "uminhag avoseinu Torah hi". That pushes it back to 11th cent.
Other early uses: Tosafos (Menachos 20b "nifsal") and the Rosh (Pesachim
pereq 10 #13). In Tosafos' case, ties into my post of a little while ago.

But that's the idiom, not the concept. These people left their maqom and
are told to do what their families have been doing for generations. Use
of the idiom or not, that is what we would call minhag avos. I think
that's simple de facto, not a presumption on my part.

Similarly, Pesachim 50b: Benei Baishan had a minhag not to travel from
Tzur to Tzidon on erev Shabbos. The next generation, who were poorer and
needed another day of sales, asked if they were bound by this chumerah,
and R' Yochanan answers they are, invoking "shema beni musar avikha,
ve'al titosh toras imekha".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:13:20AM +0300, Simon Montagu wrote:
: > Based on this I conclude that for those people who are not on the right
: > spiritual level it is "better" for them to remain in Golus.

: This advice seems to me to lead to stagnation. I can only speak for
: myself, but if I wait to be on the right spiritual level before doing
: mitzvot I will never do anything.

Same could be said of worrying about hypocracy in general. Rather than
"If I don't do X, is it hypocritical for me to do Y?", I find it more
useful to use that passing thought as a flag to check for yuhara as a
motive for my wanting to take on Y.

However, the line of reasoning here is specific to yishuv EY, and
has to do with it being palterin shel Melekh. (Not that I hold by
this shitah; but it is a shitah in Torah to be learned correctly.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On 18/04/2012 2:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> (Abayei uses the words, when he canonized YT sheini from a minhag to a
> derabbanan. But that's arguably not the same thing, since it was maqom
> based.)

It's not Abaye's lashon; he's just quoting the letter they got from the
Sanhedrin in EY.  And the letter didn't use it as a halachic concept but
as a description of what it was that the Sanhedrin was ordering them to
do.  "Hachaziku minhag avoseichem biydeichem"; not *because* it's minhag
avoseichem, but because it might come in handy in the future if there's
ever a troubled time when it's difficult to keep the cheshbon.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RMB wrote:
When I saw the ST, I *assumed* he was talking chemistry, not shiurim. One
wet grain of wheat can't leaven (neither chimutz nor even sirchah). Even
if ambient yeast turn some of the carbs in the wheat into CO2 and alcohol,
there isn't the ability to make a bubble of dought around the CO2.

CM asks:

My understanding of what actually makes something chometz has always been
quite deficient. I understood that as a practical matter it requires one of
the 5 grains to come into contact with water for an adequate length of time
(which could vary with temperature etc), and is commonly called rising or
leavening. The more direct terminology in lashon hakodesh (as RMB mentions
above) of chimutz (process) or sirchah (result of process?) was not
correlated well to my English terminology for the same. Loosely, I took
chimutz sometimes to mean the rising (or synonymously leavening? ? or is
leavening a term more related to the chemistry?) brought on by the chemical
process RMB refers to above. Then I pictured the notion of sirchah as sort
of stretch marks (or surface cracking? not sure which) when the dough
rises? Not to clear how all this fits together to make a coherent picture
of what chometz is, and when chometz happens. Furthermore the distinction
between the trapped CO2 bubbles f
 orming so the dough actually rises, or the CO2 chemistry still happening
 but not being trapped to form a bubble, (so no visible rising occurs)
 would that actually prevent chometz from forming? If it is a process or
 substance not detectable to the eye (without enough substance to trap the
 bubbles) it does not matter halachically (as in eating bacteria etc.)? If
 anyone has a good handle on these things I would certainly appreciate a
 clarification.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120418/264f67a8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 09:37:05AM -0700, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: RMG pointed me at the Ritva and Abudraham who both say that you see from
: this question that these pesukim are just "asmachta b'alma vhakabala ikar".

: It's not a particularly satisfying answer to me, but that's my chisaron.

Combining this thought with RAF's about looking at this as one looks at
aggadita in general...

Li nir'eh the machloqes between 40 and 50 makos might really be about
whether there is a difference between teva and neis.

Teva is with eser ma'amaros, but that is 10 sheheim arba'im. 40 then
becomes the usual metaphor for birth and rebirth -- 40 days before and
after conception, 40 days of rain, 40 years in the midbar, 40 se'ah of
water, 40 chaseir achad melakhos, 40-1 makos, etc...

For R' Eliezer to say the makos too were 10 sheheim 40 would mean that
the lemaalah min hateva of makkos are the same in kind as teva. "He Who
commanded oil to burn could command vinegar to burn."

Rabbi Aqiva, OTOH, holds that nissim are different in kind. Thus, each
makkah had an element beyond the normal fourfold-act of teva. It's R'
Aqiva who says (Sanhedrin 67b, Tanchuma Va'eira 14) that one frog,
when hit, became all the frogs of the makkah. (R' Elazar b' Azariah
responds with a possibility that while rare, doesn't defy nature --
the frog called the others.

This might be the beginning of making this machloqes leshitasam with the
same two tannaim WRT sukkah. R' Eliezer says the sukkos we commemorate
were ananei hakavod; R' Aqiva says they were actual sukkos. (Sukkah
11b) R' Eliezer more naturally considers our teva sukkos representative
miraculous ananim, since they are of a kind. (I did imply at the beginning
of the paragraph this was still half-baked.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> The depiction of the Baalei haTosafos is not one I would embrace, though.
> You make it sound like they set out to fit the Bavli to Ashkenaz. I would
> have instead suggested that they had a tendency to assume the absence of
> a machloqes.

I agree. I don't mean to imply some conspiracy. The Bavli had become
the primary learning source, so it is natural that it would be
harmonized with practice. But a tabula rasa read of the Bavli would
not yield Minhag Ashkenaz.

> Given the belief that the Bavli has importance just because
> it is Chazal's final work and halakhah kebasrai, and the belief that
> minhag Ashkenaz can't be entirely wrong this stance is natural.

Wait, wait, hold off. The Bavli as we know it is not entirely the work
of Chazal. A significant portion of the Bavli was edited and reedited
by the Savoraim, who also wrote entire sugyos, and by Geonim, who
continued editing. The Geonim's edits were not changing any basic
thrusts of sugyos, but could still include some things that point to
Bavel rather than EY, and those were late developments. The above
comes from an analysis of various quotations of the Bavli in Gaonic
works, as well as from a comparison of different manuscripts of the
Bavli.

> Related to the question of how strongly this minimalist stance toward
> such machloqesin is justified would be the issue of how well R' Ashi,
> Ravina and the savoraim had access to the Y-mi. Not just the mesorah
> that the Y-mi is a snapshot of, or cross-fertilization by Amoraim who
> traveled between EY and Bavel, but the work iself.

Another significant question is regarding the extent of Gaonic and
Savoraic edits.

> Last, I am being careful in calling Ashk a mix of EY and Bavel

Definitely. Ashkenaz and Sefarad are both mixes, which brought EY and
Bavel closer to each other.



> If you consider how often the Rambam and the Rif disagree, that chain
> doesn't anchor him to Bavel any more than the Ashkenazim are.

Sometimes lines cross, and sometimes the Rambam, who encountered
minhag EY in Egypt, follows EY.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wir ziehen um! ? We are Moving
* Muslims Question Their Calendar ? Could it Have Happened to Us?
* Technologie und j?disches Lernen
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iv
* The Disappearance of Big Ideas
* Rabbi, wie stehen Sie zur Ein?scherung?
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iii

<< That's very different than saying they set out to align Minhag Ashkenaz
and shas as a project in and of itself. There are very few examples of
that across the entire corpus, not enough to call that a primary theme.
I can think of:
   1- mayim acharonim,
   2- not learning shelish bemiqra ushelish bemishnah,
   3- clapping on Shabbos,  >>

I thought that much of the work of Dr. Hyam Soloveitchik was to show how
the tosafists intrepreted gemarot to justify local customs especially with
regard to stam yenam, usury and general commerce

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120418/ba574536/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 02:54:50PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 2:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> (Abayei uses the words, when he canonized YT sheini from a minhag to a
>> derabbanan. But that's arguably not the same thing, since it was maqom
>> based.)

> It's not Abaye's lashon; he's just quoting the letter they got from the
> Sanhedrin in EY.  And the letter didn't use it as a halachic concept but
> as a description of what it was that the Sanhedrin was ordering them to
> do.  "Hachaziku minhag avoseichem biydeichem"; not *because* it's minhag
> avoseichem, but because it might come in handy in the future if there's
> ever a troubled time when it's difficult to keep the cheshbon.

1- We don't know if Abayei quoted or paraphrased the letter. But in any
case, he used the words.

2- The words say, roughly: What *was* your minhag avos should be kept
strong, so we're now telling you to continue lehalakhah. There is no
mention of the future, or future problems just of minhag avos. Any
mention of motivation is your own.

Meanwhile, Abayei or the Sanhedrin he is quoting do attribute significance
to minhag avos simply because they thought "minhag avoseikhem" was a
meaningful label. Even if it's not the motivation (and I think that
lacking any other motivation mentioned, it is intended as such), it
is still a source implying the concept existed.

(In any case, I did add "that's arguably not the same thing". The post
you're responding to wasn't about YT sheini; it was about Benei Baishan
and rishonim who explicitly use the idiom "minhag avos" rather than
quoting Mishlei.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

Three clarifications:

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 09:36:55PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:> The depiction of the Baalei haTosafos is not one I would embrace, though.
:> You make it sound like they set out to fit the Bavli to Ashkenaz. I would
:> have instead suggested that they had a tendency to assume the absence of
:> a machloqes.

: I agree. I don't mean to imply some conspiracy...

I didn't think you did. That part of the post, as well as the closing
(general tendencies, not absolutes), was about the pedagogy used when
people discuss the topic.

I was trying to say I wouldn't embrace the depiction you gave, but
had no problems with the substance. I knew from previous iterations on
the topic that we were in agreement. Sorry that didn't come across.

:> Given the belief that the Bavli has importance just because
:> it is Chazal's final work and halakhah kebasrai, and the belief that
:> minhag Ashkenaz can't be entirely wrong this stance is natural.

: Wait, wait, hold off. The Bavli as we know it is not entirely the work
: of Chazal. A significant portion of the Bavli was edited and reedited
: by the Savoraim, who also wrote entire sugyos, and by Geonim, who
: continued editing...

You are using "Chazal" more narrowly than I did. My usage was kind of
correct by definition -- I was using Chazal to mean anyone from the
mishnah, Tosefta, beraisos or talmidim.

Thinking about it, this is not just a language issue. It probably reflects
my willingness to accept any opinion accepted as part of the standard
text of the Bavli as something more than a regular geonic statement.

There are those who say the Rambam doesn't hold that way. It is notable
that he doesn't quote any of the snippets normally attributed to savoraim.
OTOH, if the Rambam holds like the Y-mi over the stam bavli, it may
not be a large sample size remaning for the ommission to be significant.

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:02:48PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> That's very different than saying they set out to align Minhag Ashkenaz
:> and shas as a project in and of itself. There are very few examples of
:> that across the entire corpus, not enough to call that a primary theme.
:> I can think of:
:>    1- mayim acharonim,
:>    2- not learning shelish bemiqra ushelish bemishnah,
:>    3- clapping on Shabbos,
:
: I thought that much of the work of Dr. Hyam Soloveitchik was to show how
: the tosafists intrepreted gemarot to justify local customs especially with
: regard to stam yenam, usury and general commerce

No surprise that R"Dr HS had long discussions of topics I couldn't even
think of. Still, even if we chould get the number up to 20 examples, it
still is a negligable subset of Tosafos's comments.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On 18/04/2012 4:15 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 2- The words say, roughly: What*was*  your minhag avos should be kept
> strong, so we're now telling you to continue lehalakhah. There is no
> mention of the future, or future problems just of minhag avos. Any
> mention of motivation is your own.

Um, what are you talking about?  The letter (and BTW where does Abaye
come into it?  I don't see him anywhere) explicitly says the reason.
I didn't add anything, it's right there in the gemara.  "Hizaharu
beminhag avoseichem biydeichem, zimnin degazri hamalchus gezeira,
ve'asi lekilkulei."

> Meanwhile, Abayei or the Sanhedrin he is quoting do attribute significance
> to minhag avos simply because they thought "minhag avoseikhem" was a
> meaningful label. Even if it's not the motivation (and I think that
> lacking any other motivation mentioned, it is intended as such), it
> is still a source implying the concept existed.

Of course the concept existed: they had parents, and those parents
did things in a particular way, so the concept of "the way your parents
did it" existed.  How could it not?  But it's just a description, no
more significant than "your neighbour's custom", or "the custom of the
people in the next town".  This minhag happened to be that of the
Bavlim's ancestors.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 04:35:02PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> Um, what are you talking about?  The letter (and BTW where does Abaye
> come into it?  I don't see him anywhere) explicitly says the reason.
> I didn't add anything, it's right there in the gemara.  "Hizaharu
> beminhag avoseichem biydeichem, zimnin degazri hamalchus gezeira,
> ve'asi lekilkulei."

Both Abayei's role and this were discussed twice now in previous
iterations. You are continuing past the Hebrew quote and into the
gemara's Aramaic.

...
> Of course the concept existed: they had parents, and those parents
> did things in a particular way, so the concept of "the way your parents
> did it" existed.  How could it not?  But it's just a description...

Under normal circumstances, no one would describe the Washington
Monument as "That White Tower", or lehavdil the kotel as "The Sandstone
Wall". People pick significant features. The Benei Bavel are asked to
continue their parents' minhag (and not "maaseh", which itself *might*
be significant), which implies salience."

But on the other points we're just repeating ourselves.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

On 18/04/2012 5:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Both Abayei's role and this were discussed twice now in previous
> iterations. You are continuing past the Hebrew quote and into the
> gemara's Aramaic.

I am not.  See Rashi, who explains "dilma gazru" in the second person,
clearly showing that it is part of the quote.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 05:21:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 18/04/2012 5:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Both Abayei's role and this were discussed twice now in previous
>> iterations. You are continuing past the Hebrew quote and into the
>> gemara's Aramaic.

I realized I didn't actually repeat where Abayei comes in. Look a little
earlier, who is telling the whole story about the letter. IOW, it's not
the letter, it's how Abayei described the whole thing.

(My belief is that Abayei was on the beis din in question, as the
end of his life was during R' Hillel's nesi'us. But the topic is too
complicated for me to be sure of anything. This too was a repeated topic
of conversation.)

> I am not.  See Rashi, who explains "dilma gazru" in the second person,
> clearly showing that it is part of the quote.

What do you mean you aren't? Is "hizhiru beminhag avoseikhem" Aramaic,
or is "deziminin degazeru..." Hebrew?

And while I can't tell which Rashi you're referring to, I don't see any
of the 3 Rashi's on Abayei's quote as referring to the recipients of the
letter in particular. The letter itself gives no motive, the "zimnin
degazru" isn't "dezimnin degazru", and all Rashi does is describe the
possible gezeira -- that the people wouldn't be allowed to learn, and
the calendar algorithm would be forgotten.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 11th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        1 week and 4 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Netzach sheb'Gevurah: What is imposing about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            strict justice?

RMB:

<<But that's the idiom, not the concept. These people left their maqom 
and are told to do what their families have been doing for generations.>>

I'm confused by the referent.  Which people?

I hadn't planned to respond, since I think we've thrashed out most of 
our argument: I see the fundamental concept as minhag hamakom, and you 
think it's minhag avos.  Then I realized there's something basic I don't 
understand about your opinion: what's the mechanism?

If the kehillah is enforcing its minhag on future generations it does so 
through neder shel rabbim, which endures as long as the corporate 
structure endures.  IIUC that's why Rabbi Hirsch changed some of 
minhagei Frankfort after his kehillah seceded: he was graphically 
demonstrating that they were no longer the same kehillah, so the old 
minhagim need not apply.

But I don't know of any mechanism which enables me to require my kids to 
adopt a practice without their consent.  The Riceman family is not 
analogous to kehillas PPDM, it doesn't have a corporate halachic 
existence.  What mechanism do you propose enables the obligation of 
"minhag avos", and why didn't it apply to Rabbi Hirsch's kehillah?

David Riceman

On 18/04/2012 5:44 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I am not.  See Rashi, who explains "dilma gazru" in the second person,
>> >  clearly showing that it is part of the quote.
> What do you mean you aren't? Is "hizhiru beminhag avoseikhem" Aramaic,
> or is "deziminin degazeru..." Hebrew?
>
> And while I can't tell which Rashi you're referring to, I don't see any
> of the 3 Rashi's on Abayei's quote as referring to the recipients of the
> letter in particular. The letter itself gives no motive, the "zimnin
> degazru" isn't "dezimnin degazru", and all Rashi does is describe the
> possible gezeira -- that the people wouldn't be allowed to learn, and
> the calendar algorithm would be forgotten.

Rashi d"h "degazri hamachus gezeira".  Rashi explains what sort of gezeira
is meant, and how it could lead to problems with the calendar.  And he does
so *in the second person*.  This clearly shows that these words are part of
the letter, not commentary on it.   As for the language, Hebrew and Aramaic
are often used interchangeably within the same sentence in the gemara.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

In Avodah V30n22, R'Micha noted:
> This, in turn, reminds me of song lyrics that I had a theological question
about. They are taken from the Baal haTanya, translated from Yiddish to
Hebrew, and appear different in Breslov sources (which the songwriter
used) than in Lub originals. But it boils down to:
<<
    Ribon haOlamim:
    I don't want anything else, [Or: I am not afraid of Your gehenom,]
    I don't want Your gan eden
    I don't want Your olam haba [Or: I forgive my claim on Your mal'akhei elyon]
<<
    Do You know what I desire?
    Just You alone!
>>
> What is gan eden if not a "place" where tzadiqim sit, ve'atoroseihem
berosheihem, venehenim miziv haShechinah? What is the Baal haTanya's distinction between a taavah for Dayn gan eden, and a taaavah for Dir Alein? <
What R'Micha writes reminds me of the popular, but philosophically
double-edged, "H' is here/H' is there/H' is truly everywhere" lyrics and of
the dialectic between transcendence and immanence.  For me, gan Eiden would
represent gilui Shchinah in a way we can't currently see baOlam hazeh, so I
wouldn't dismiss it; and yir'as H' represents the level of awareness I
constantly aspire to ("yir'ah" more in the sense of "r'iyah"). 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

R' Liron Kopinsky asked:

> In Israel, we start saying Mashiv Haruach 2 weeks after Shmini
> Atzeret to give the people who made Aliya laRegel an opportunity
> to return to their homes.
> 
> Why don't we stop saying Mashiv Haruach 2 weeks before Pesach
> for the same reason?

I'm a little behind on Avodah, so excuse me if this has already been said.

1- you mean tal umatar. 

2- from memory, RSZA is quoted in halichos shelomo as answering that the
pilgrims returning after succos would still have been wearing summer
clothing, having originally travelled to Jerusalem in the summer, and ill
equipped to deal with a wet journey home. By contrast those being oleh
regel for pesach would leave their homes in the winter and travel
appropriately dressed to handle the rain.

I seem to recall the sefer saying this was a favourite chidush from RSZA's youth, but I might not be right about that. 

KT

--SW
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120418/62ac4b70/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 24
**************************************

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..."