Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 126

Mon, 25 Aug 2014

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: saul newman
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2014 21:39:08 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] marriage segula?


on torat rav aviner----


Kiddush for the Birth of a Daughter

Q: If parents did not have a Kiddush to express gratitude for the birth of
a daughter will it impede her ability to get married?  Is there a Segulah
for her to have a Kiddush later in life?

A: Nonsense (Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski was once asked: I was in Los Angeles,
and there was a Kiddush for a 25-year-old woman whose parents had not made
a Kiddush for her when she was born.  They said in the name of Ha-Rav's
father ? the Steipler ? it was for this reason that she was having
difficulty finding a match.  Ha-Rav Kanievski said: "Who made this
up?  Wouldn't I have heard about this in my home?  He never said to make a
Kiddush in our family!  Derech Sichah Vol. 1, p. 33.  And Ha-Rav Ben Tzion
Mutzafi similarly writes in Shut Doresh Tzion: This is a complete lie, and
our mothers did not have a Kiddush made for them and they are happily
married).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140824/a649ffd7/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: via Avodah
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 02:41:43 -0300 (CDT)
Subject:
[Avodah] Spiritual Maladies



> 
> How could this happen?  How could a value-neutral action which has
> no relevance to halacha (in other words, it's not l[]shon hara or
> tum[']ah or any such) cause tzaraas?  If tzaraas is a spiritual
> malady, how could Rashi believe that it might have a physical cause,
> even in MBRA's day?  Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the tzaraas
> that Rashi referred to was some sort of medical malady?
>

I don't know what a "spiritual" malady is.

And neither do you.

The tzara`ath described in the Torah is obviously a somatic malady.
Ibn Ezra, in his comment on Leviticus 13:2, states that it is
contagious, and in his comment on Leviticus 13:45, indicates further
that it is airborne.

(Leviticus 13:45, parenthetically, is also the sole Scriptural basis
for wearing frum garments, the purpose of which, the Torah clearly
teaches us, is to separate Jews from other Jews.)


                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784   landline
                        (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 11:39:49 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Scientific Proof



This might be of interest to a number of the chevrah
<http://www.askamathematician.c
om/2014/08/q-how-many-times-do-you-need-to-roll-dice-before-you-know-theyre
-loaded>
or <http://j.mp/1lrVloL>:

     Ask a Mathematician / Ask a Physicist
     Q: How many times do you need to roll dice before you know they're
     loaded?
     Posted on August 22, 2014 by The Physicist

     Physicist: A nearly equivalent question might be how can you prove
     freaking anything?. In empirical science (science involving tests and
     whatnot) things are never "proven." Instead of asking "is this true?"
     or "can I prove this?" a scientist will often ask the substantially
     more awkward question "what is the chance that this could happen
     accidentally?". Where you draw the line between a positive result
     ("that's not an accident") and a negative result ("that could totally
     happen by chance") is completely arbitrary. There are standards
     for certainty, but theyre arbitrary (although generally reasonable)
     standards. The most common way to talk about a tests certainty is
     "sigma" (pedantically known as a "standard deviation")...
     ...
     Experiments at CERN have shown that the Higgs boson exists (or more
     precisely, a particle has been found with the properties previously
     predicted for the Higgs) with 7 sigma certainty (~99.999999999%).
     Thats excessive. A medical study involving every human on Earth
     can not have results that clean....

Still, don't confuse thise in religion vs science debates as proof
that science doesn't prove anything. As Karl Popper notes, while the
inductive process can only increase the probability when answering
"is this true?" affirmatively, can definitively *DIS*prove an idea --
a no could be definitively.

But where it /is/ relevant is that the standard for philosophical or
religious proofs is often WELL beyond the accepted limits for scientific
proof. "Proof" generally means "really really strong indication" in
/every/ domain.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:14:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Philosophical and theological challenges of,


On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 03:56:57PM -0400, H Lampel via Avodah wrote:
: If I correctly recall, Rav Hirsch attributes his symbology to the
: usage in Tanach and Midrashim...

The specific symbols? The nearest I recall -- although I am no RSRH
expert -- is the beginning of Collected Writings vol III. But in there,
he points out the use of symbolism and metaphor in nevu'ah and medrash
as a means of proving that symbolism is a traditional Jewish means of
relaying truths to be internalized. Dry recitation relays facts, but
a symbol can give those facts an emotional anchor.

IOW, I recall him anchoring the mode of communication in Tanakh and
medrash, not his particular symbols. Also, it would seem from Dayan
Grunfeld's lengthy intro that DIG didn't know of a location where RSRH
sources his specific symvbols; although DIG believes they originate in
the Zohar. (The discussion of RSRH's study of the Zohar are in intro
to Horeb pp cxx - cxxix.)

R/Prof Y Levine has sources on his web site to both sides of a machloqes
about Hirsch and Qabbalah:

It begins with R' Joseph Elias's comments on the 18th of the 19 Letters,
which is not on site. RJE's posiotion is that RSRH's notion of Qabbalah
was the same range as most mequbalim.

R Shelomo Danziger rebuts in his review of RJE's commentary on 19 Letters
in Jewish Action. RSD RSRH held that Qabbalah is a medrash system,
rationalist truths draped in symbolic language. (Like all medrash)
<http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/Danziger.pdf>

And then the dialog continues in a later JA (RJE followed by a second
RSD essay):
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/RS%
20Hirsch%20R'Elias%20vs%20R%20Danziger%20JAction.pdf
or <http://j.mp/1mJ5xnP>.

H/T R Jon Baker
<http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2008/06/r-hirsch-and-zohar.html>
for having the sources (some of them in a resulting comment by
"Michael") to buttress my impression.


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The true measure of a man
mi...@aishdas.org        is how he treats someone
http://www.aishdas.org   who can do him absolutely no good.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Samuel Johnson



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:30:16 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Insights Into Halacha: Smoking and Halacha: A


I am wondering if there is a connection between this thread about smoking
and the one about tzora'as, fish, and meat.

In that case we are asking about the physical causality involved in a
disease that is primarily spirito-somatic.

In this case RMF raises the issue of spiritual protection involved in
a disease that is usually understood to be of the usual physical sort.

And in all cases, the question of bitachon and hishtadlus, of their
foundations in spiritual and physical causality (respectively) may mean
that neither disease should be described as one to the exclusion of
the other. Which would also explain the IE RYS mentioned.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:08:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Was Rav Yosef Caro a Rishon?


On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 02:48:56PM +0300, Ezra Chwat via Avodah wrote:
: If RHK is a Rishon or Achron, whether in the bibliographic realm
: or in the realm of overriding authority, is pending the general
: question of defining the boundaries of Rabbinic periodization. The
: mechanism that constructs these boundaries was addressed at depth
: by Prof. RSZ Havlin (Mehqarim B'safrut HaTalmudit, 1983, pp. 148-192
: http://aleph.nli.org.il:80/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000355780&local_base=RMB01),
: who presented a number of models. He also tackled the parallel question of
: 'is Rambam a Gaon or a Rishon' in Hama'ayan Nisan 5725 pp, 42- 47.

: "Emes Ata Hu Rishon, emes Ata hu Achron". The Mechaber straddles the
: boundary between the periods. Similar to the first generation Amoraim,
: of which are said "Tanna [Hu] uPalig". Only in the case of RYK, or Rebbe,
: he is, by definition, the boundary.

Which is where I stood, at least WRT the "overriding authority" of rishon.

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 05:06:45PM +0000, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer via
Avodah wrote:
: Post: To Begin to Appreciate Rav Ovadia Yosef's Derech
: Link: http://rygb.blogspot.com/2014/08/to-begin-to-appreciate-rav-ovadia.
: html

RYGB focuses on ROY's pesaq style involving a heavy use of rov from
a pre-winnowed sources of textual authorities. A style that imitates
the SA's emphasis on Rif, Rambam and Rosh. And that kind of echo is
unsurprising.

But it also explains why the SA often rules in ways other than where it
looks like the Beis Yoseif was heading. Quoting RYGB's post's translation
of the Yam shel Shelomo:
    Rabbi Yosef Karo composed the Beit Yosef on the Tur, in which he
    omits none of the opinions of those who preceded him. He barely left
    any room to improve on his work. However, in his Halachic decisions
    he made many compromises in matters of issur v'heter...

Okay, that "however" begins the Maharshal's objection to the SA's derekh.
But speaking wihtout taking sides, the SA follows the methodology ROY
imitates, the BY explains the full field without the winnowing. Although
I didn't see RYGB making the point, ROY is noted for citing *everyone*
as well, even if not necessarily using them in his masqanah.

Notice that this winnowing involves the authority of the author, not the
specific argument. And when they do deal with specific argument, it's rov
posqim, not shiqul hadaas weighing its merits. With the obvious exception
of when ROY had to break new ground and construct his own argument,
in the absence of predecessors weighing in on similar enough cases.

ROY's extreme nomionism not only gives priority to acharei rabim,
a formal rule of law over the merits of the individual arguments,
it also plays into a major theme in his pisqa RYGB didn't touch upon.
ROY's emphasis on the SA as the establisher of minhag EY and defining
Sepharadi practice unwinds the effects of the Chida and the Ben Ish Hai
on Seph practice since the SA. Majority taking priority over Qabbalah.

(Speaking of which, I suggested here in years past that the SA's use of
legal authority over shiqul hadaas was perhaps influenced by the SA's need
to minimize the influence of his maggid on pesaq -- lo bashamayim hi.)

Heading over to comparatively more familiar territory, Litta:
The latter (merit of specific argument) would figure more in RMF's system
of pesaq.

The AhS appears to winnow based on accepted practices, and within the
resulting options, use shiqul haddas. He also appears to use the Rambam
vs the Rosh as his big pillars, as colored by the Tur and SA/Rama, with
other sources being blatantly less leaned upon. But without sharing
the SA's inclusion of the Rif, the Sepharadim don't have an automatic
majority. And, with winnowing by accepted practice, the AhS would never
end up with an agreement of Rambam and Rosh overturning well-accepted
Ashkenazi practice.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Michael Feldstein
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 14:07:26 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


Story in Haaretz reported online (I'd link to the story in Haaretz, but you
have to be a premium subscriber to access story...so I'm providing a
summary from an online blog instead):


In 2011, Miriam Katz filed for divorce after after finding out that her
husband had a history of mental illness that hid from her before they were
married.

Sometime after she filed for divorce, her husband tried to kill himself by
hanging. He was saved, but has remained hospitalized in a vegetative state
ever since.

Ha'aretz reported that last Wednesday, a state rabbinic court headed by
rabbinic judge Rabbi Maimon Nahari dissolved the woman's marriage on the
grounds of mekah ta'ut - fraud. Her husband had deceived her by hiding his
mental illness history
from her and, if she had known about his history of mental illness before
the wedding, she likely would not have married him.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and several other rabbis outside of
Israel's haredi community have reportedly ruled that mekah ta'ut can be
used to dissolve a marriage where fundamental details about a groom -- a
history of mental illness, for example -- were hidden from the bride.


QUESTION: If mekah ta'ut is a legitimate halachic loophole to dissolve a
marriage. couldn't it be applied to many other agunah situations (eg, where
a husband has become abusive and refuses to give his wife a get...one could
legitimately argue that if the wife knew about this kind of behavior before
the marriage, she never would have married him).

--
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140825/531589b3/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:40:57 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:07:26PM -0400, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote:
: Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and several other rabbis outside of
: Israel's haredi community have reportedly ruled that mekah ta'ut can be
: used to dissolve a marriage where fundamental details about a groom -- a
: history of mental illness, for example -- were hidden from the bride.

: QUESTION: If mekah ta'ut is a legitimate halachic loophole to dissolve a
: marriage. couldn't it be applied to many other agunah situations (eg, where
: a husband has become abusive and refuses to give his wife a get...one could
: legitimately argue that if the wife knew about this kind of behavior before
: the marriage, she never would have married him).

There is a huge difference between "has become abusive" and the husband
who knew he was morbidly depressed at the time of the chasunah and hid
it from her. Things that develop later are nistapchah sadeihu. Facts
kept from the other party are grounds for meqach ta'us.

So, if he had a history of antisocial issues that was withheld from her
knowledge, perhaps. It wouldn't aaply to *many* other situations.

Also the machloqes between R' Henkin and RMF about non-O marriage might
be elevant. What does the chevrah think?

R Henkin held that a couple who had a non-halachic wedding would still
be married afterward based on ein adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas zenus. So
if the wedding wasn't qiddushin, there was qiddushei bi'ah at some point.

RMF was meiqil on the grounds that a couple who thought they were already
married would still think that their was no be'ilas zenus and yet also
never perform bi'ah for the sake of qiddushin.

Let's say the wife finds out something negative about the husband that
was kept from her at the time of the wedding. And let's say that it was
in a way that made the qiddushin a meqach ta'us. However, they contnue
living together; she tries, nobly, to make it work under the impression
they are married.

Wouldn't RYH say that this subsequent attenpt would mean they're married
anyway, the wife suffering for her own attempt to do the right thing,
whereas RMF would still allow for meqach ta'us?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:21:43 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On 25/08/2014 2:07 PM, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote:
>
> QUESTION: If mekah ta'ut is a legitimate halachic loophole to dissolve a
> marriage. couldn't it be applied to many other agunah situations (eg, where
> a husband has become abusive and refuses to give his wife a get...one could
> legitimately argue that if the wife knew about this kind of behavior before
> the marriage, she never would have married him).

No, it certainly can't be applied when the husband has *become* abusive
after the marriage, any more than you can retroactively cancel the purchase
of a car if it develops a problem after you bought it.  In this case
1) there was clear proof that the defect existed before the marriage;
2) she left him *as soon* as she found out about it;
3) her doing so was objectively reasonable, since the defect was severe enough
that few women would agree to marry someone with it.

Annulling marriages retroactively based on newly discovered defects, with no
proof that they preexisted the marriage, is what Rackman was doing.


-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 16:01:20 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 03:21:43PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: Annulling marriages retroactively based on newly discovered defects, with no
: proof that they preexisted the marriage, is what Rackman was doing.

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman was no am ha'aretz.

And the other wing of his argument was that women's lib undid the basis
for assuming tav lemeisiv. Women don't need men to support them as in
days of old.

And RYBS's response to RER's beis din was also two-fold:

1- The majority of his shiur was how a piece of halachic engineering
available to centuries of rabbanim that wasn't utilized and would make
a large chunk of Mes' Yevamos moot couldn't possibly be valid.

2- The more remembered bit, but RALichtenstein remembers as a tangent,
was that "tav lemeisiv" is a chazaqah based on permanent ontological
principles. Bereishis 3:16, ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh, isn't undone
by sociological changes. See also Qiddushin 7a.

Note that missing from this argument, except if the engineering flaw 
not named in #1, is that it was far-fetched to apply meqach ta'us.

RER's position, while wrong (and therefore because it could risk creating
mamzeirim, also dangerous), was not absurd.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 15:52:36 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On 25/08/2014 3:40 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Let's say the wife finds out something negative about the husband that
> was kept from her at the time of the wedding. And let's say that it was
> in a way that made the qiddushin a meqach ta'us. However, they contnue
> living together; she tries, nobly, to make it work under the impression
> they are married.
>
> Wouldn't RYH say that this subsequent attenpt would mean they're married
> anyway, the wife suffering for her own attempt to do the right thing,
> whereas RMF would still allow for meqach ta'us?

No.  Neither one would allow for it.  Once she knows about it and stays,
she has accepted it and retroactively validated the original kidushin.
To still be able to claim mekach ta'us she'd have to show a valid reason
why she stayed, e.g. she was afraid to leave, or she took immediate steps
to leave but it took time to do so, etc.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:08:09 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


R' Zev Sero wrote:
<<< No.  Neither one would allow for it.  Once she knows about it
and stays, she has accepted it and retroactively validated the original
kidushin. To still be able to claim mekach ta'us she'd have to show a valid
reason why she stayed, e.g. she was afraid to leave, or she took immediate
steps to leave but it took time to do so, etc >>>

I propose the following, which I admit would not work for a woman who is
well-learned, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't work for an UNlearned
woman: RZS asks for a valid explanation of why she willingly renained in
such a horribly objectionable marriage. In many cases, the answer is simply
that she did not know of any other option. If she knew that she could
complain and be done with him, she certainly would have. But she thought
that her only options (short of hiring a murderer, which might very well
have crossed her mind) were either running away to a life of agunahood, or
putting up with him.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
The End of the &#34;Made-In-China&#34; Era
The impossible &#40;but real&#41; technology that could make you impossibly rich.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/53fba621cb11262052ffst01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 17:48:01 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On 25/08/2014 5:08 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> I propose the following, which I admit would not work for a woman who
> is well-learned, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't work for an
> UNlearned woman: RZS asks for a valid explanation of why she
> willingly renained in such a horribly objectionable marriage. In many
> cases, the answer is simply that she did not know of any other
> option. If she knew that she could complain and be done with him, she
> certainly would have. But she thought that her only options (short of
> hiring a murderer, which might very well have crossed her mind) were
> either running away to a life of agunahood, or putting up with him.

If she prefers staying with him to a life with no husband at all, then she
has, albeit reluctantly, accepted him with his flaws.  Mekach ta'us is where
she'd rather have no husband at all than a husband like him, in which case
"a life of agunahood" shouldn't have deterred her.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:10:45 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


<< If she prefers staying with him to a life with no husband at all,
then she has, albeit reluctantly, accepted him with his flaws.	Mekach
ta'us is where she'd rather have no husband at all than a husband like him,
in which case "a life of agunahood" shouldn't have deterred her.
>>>

Would you apply the same definition of mekach ta'us in other situations? Please tell me if the following scenario makes any sense to you:

If you bought a car and found that it has a serious defect, so serious that
most people would not have bought such a car, but you prefer keeping this
car to a life with no car at all - because you are under the mistaken
impression that those are your only options - then you have, albeit
reluctantly, accepted it with its flaws.  Mekach ta'us is where you'd
rather have no car at all than a car like this, in which case "a life of
public transportation and bumming rides" shouldn't have deterred you.

If you respond that mekach ta'us for kiddushin has a higher standard that
for other kinyanim, then you're missing my point. I'm not focusing on the
degree to which this man is objectionable as a husband. Rather, I'm
focusing on the idea that this woman is being penalized for not availing
herself of a particular option, when she never knew that she HAD that
option.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 19:19:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mekah ta'ut


On 25/08/2014 7:10 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
>
> If you bought a car and found that it has a serious defect, so
> serious that most people would not have bought such a car, but you
> prefer keeping this car to a life with no car at all - because you
> are under the mistaken impression that those are your only options -
> then you have, albeit reluctantly, accepted it with its flaws. Mekach
> ta'us is where you'd rather have no car at all than a car like this,
> in which case "a life of public transportation and bumming rides"
> shouldn't have deterred you.

There are many cars available for purchase, and if I hadn't been conned into
buying this one I would have bought another one.  If cars were difficult to find,
so that if I hadn't bought this car I stood a small but significant risk of being
carless, *and* having found out about the defect I reconciled myself to keeping
it rather than risk going carless, then I have accepted it with its defects.

-- 
Zev Sero             Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable
z...@sero.name        from malice.
                                                          - Eric Raymond


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



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


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


***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >