Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 31

Thu, 26 Feb 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:33:34 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] wasting time


> Reb Noach raised his eyebrows. "Wasting time," he said, "is
> very serious. It's a kind of suicide.

What is wasting time?
Is sitting in fron of a TV to relax after a hard day wasting time?
Is sports wasting time? how about hobbies like stamp collecting or quilting
or playing music?
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/165222cf/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:58:24 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah


On 02/25/2015 11:28 PM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote:
> The Luchos Rishonos [..] the actual writing of Hashem Himself ? A N Ch Y.

So were the second luchos.


> The Second Luchos [..] were more bilateral and flexible.

The first ones were bilateral too.  How were the second ones more so?
And they were both on inflexible stone.


> The changes from Luchos I to Luchos II as written in Dvarim ?

The second luchos had the exact same text as the first.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: dr
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:11:34 -0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] majority rule


Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 17:45:33 -0500
From: Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

> One beis din has more clout than another if it's gadol mimenu bechokhmah
> uveminyan. How do we define this:
...
> 2- There is a machloqes how to get gadol beminyan: Are we talking about
> a beis din hagadol like Anshei Keneses haGadolah that had 120 members
> rather than the requisite 70? Or does the minyan include talmidim,
> and a Danhedrin is presumed to consist of 70 (+1)?

An aside
re 120 members of Anshei Knesses HaGedolah - they were not the Beis Din
HaGodol: not all their members were there [alive?] at the same time ..

Dovid



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: dr
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:16:47 -0000
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?


From: Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 01:14:21AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
>: ALL THESE WORLDS (according to the multiple universes interpretation)
>: are equally real. Or in our context, equally real to Hashem...

> R' Jack Love...
> RJL took multi-worlds theory as a resolution; if MRAH could compare the
> worlds where he kolled the Mitzri and where he doesn't, he could check
> the versions where there are children and decide.

strikingly similar to the modern theory of parallel worlds:

Reb Elimelech of Lizensk (Vayechi, s.v. VaYechi Yaakov) writes that all
possibilities were in the first machshovoh [at time of creation of world
- G-d created every type of potential possibility before creating this
world] and a tsaddik can draw down from those infinite possibilities
that still exist in the Primal Thought.

Dovid



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:51:50 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] wasting time


R' Eli Turkel asked:

> What is wasting time?
>
> Is sitting in front of a TV to relax after a hard day
> wasting time?
>
> Is sports wasting time? how about hobbies like stamp
> collecting or quilting or playing music?

I would answer that it depends on the circumstances. In many situations,
these activities do NOT constitute "wasting time", but are productive means
of restfulness, or exercising one's creativity, and/or any of a number
positive ideas.

But many people are lazy by nature, and I believe that there is a strong
yetzer hara to relax when there's really no need for it, or to relax longer
than one really needs to. Those are the cases when productive relaxation is
transformed into a suicidal waste of time.

I concede that it is often difficult to determine how much relaxation we
really need. And while many people are lazy, others are workaholics who
relax too *little* - and that's a sort of suicide as well.

It is isn't easy, but as I find myself asking more and more these days, is
there anything worthwhile that *is* easy? Or, to quote one of R' Micha's
many great taglines:

> Life is complex.
>     Decisions are complex.
>         The Torah is complex.
>                       - R' Binyamin Hecht

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ef5d5226b0d5d526f4cst01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:13:26 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] wasting time


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 05:51:50PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: R' Eli Turkel asked:
: > What is wasting time?
: > Is sitting in front of a TV to relax after a hard day
: > wasting time?
: > Is sports wasting time? how about hobbies like stamp
: > collecting or quilting or playing music?

: I would answer that it depends on the circumstances. In many situations,
: these activities do NOT constitute "wasting time", but are productive
: means of restfulness, or exercising one's creativity, and/or any of a
: number positive ideas.

To quote the haqdamah to Shaarei Yosher
<http://www.aishdas.org/asp/ShaareiYosher.pdf> (tr. mine):

    And so, it appears to my limited understanding that this mitzvah
    includes the entire foundation and root of the purpose of our
    lives. All of our work and effort should constantly be sanctified
    to benefitting the community. We should not use any act, movement,
    or get benefit or enjoyment that doesnt have in it some element of
    helping another. And as understood, all holiness is being set apart
    for an honorable purpose which is that a person straightens his
    path and strives constantly to make his lifestyle dedicated to the
    community. Then, anything he does even for himself, for the health
    of his body and soul he also associates to the mitzvah of being holy,
    for through this he can also benefit the masses. Through the good he
    does for himself he can benefit the many who rely on him. But if he
    derives benefit from some kind of permissible thing that isnt needed
    for the health of his body and soul, that benefit is in opposition
    to holiness. For with this he benefits himself for that moment as
    it seems to him but to no one else does it have any value.

...
:> Life is complex.
:>     Decisions are complex.
:>         The Torah is complex.
:>                       - R' Binyamin Hecht

I highly recommend his nishma.org . (Our old chaver RRWolpoe is involved).

(CC: RBH, RRW)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:33:17 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:58:24AM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 02/25/2015 11:28 PM, David Wacholder via Avodah wrote:
:> The Second Luchos [..] were more bilateral and flexible.

: The first ones were bilateral too.  How were the second ones more so?
: And they were both on inflexible stone.

:> The changes from Luchos I to Luchos II as written in Dvarim ?

: The second luchos had the exact same text as the first.

First, that depends on how we resolve Shamor veZakhos. But on a more
fundamental level, more along RDW's lines...

There is the Beis haLevi's famous (in Litvishe yeshiva circles)
derush #18.

According to R' Chananyah (Shabbos 104a), all of TSBK and TSBP were
written on the luchos.

The Yalqut Shim'oni (405) says that the reason why TSBP was left be'al
peh was to guarantee our uniqueness. Even if the Jews were subjugated
and the Torah would be translated, we would be uniquely the "parchment"
on which TSBP is "written".

But Eiruvin 54a says that had the first luchos not been broken, we would
have been on a path that wouldn't have required galus. The proof is
"charus al haluchos" -- "cheirus al halakchus". At matan Torah, we were
handed cheirus, withouth need for galus.

Therefore the BhL concludes that R' Chananyah was speaking specifically
of the first luchos, which predeated the Yalqut's given need for leaving
TSBP unwritten.

As for pesuqim.

The first luchos "kesuvim be'etzba E', le'aleihem kekhol hadevarim asher
diber H' imachem bahar..." (Devarim 9:10; see Megillah 19b, which includes
qeri'as Megillah in "kekhol" here!))

The second luchos were only "vayehi sham im H' 40 yom ve40
laylah... vayikhtov al haluchos eis diverei haberis aseres hadevarim"
(Shemos 34:28) and "kemikhtav harishon, eis aseres hadevarim." (Devarim
10:4) Notice that Shemos implies that the second luchos were written by
Moshe, not HQBH. Another machloqes rishonim.

But the BhL focuses on the point that again we see all the Torah on the
originals, and only the 10 devarim on the replacement.

This is then connected to the Yalqut (#392) which distinguishes between
the luchos in that the first were "maasei E-lokim heimah" (Shemos 32:16)
and seen from both sides (v 15). The second luchos were hewn by Moshe
"pesal lekha ... vekasavta al haluchos." (34:1)

The BhL then takes it another step, tying the above to the next medrash in
the Yalqut (#393) -- when MRAH saw the cheit ha'eigel and then looked at
the luchos, the letters flew up to shamayim, the luchos became to heavy,
and he dropped them.

He explains that the letters that flew up were the extra words beyond
the 10 diberos. Which is why Moshe was told to write "es hadevarim asher
hayu al halluchos harishonim asher shibarta". He wrote the 10 diberos,
all that were on the first luchos when they were broken.

We sinned, the TSBP became Oral. The first luchos were not sustainable,
because they no longer had the TSBP nor came with an oral version. So
Moshe had to break them.


Leaving the Beis haLevi, there is also a second difference between the
luchos in Eiruvin 54a:
    What does it mean when it is says, engraved on the Tablets (Shemos
    32:16)? Had the first tablets not been destroyed, the Torah would
    never have been forgotten from Israel.

This makes them very different in kind, no?

Rav Shimon, in his haqdamah, discusses this gemara as follows:
    One can use this to explain the whole notion of breaking the
    [first] Tablets, for which I have not found an explanation. At first
    glance, understanding seems closed off. Is it possible that Moses
    our teacher would think that because the Jews made the [Golden]
    Calf they should be left without the Torah? He should have just
    waited to teach them until they corrected their ways, not break them
    altogether and then have to fall before Hashem to beg for a second
    set of Tablets. Our sages received [a tradition that] there was a
    unique ability inherent in the first Tablets. As it says in Eiruvin
    (folio 54[a]), "What does it mean when it is says, 'engraved on the
    Tablets' (Shemos 32:16)? Had the first tablets not been destroyed,
    the Torah would never have been forgotten from Israel." Which is,
    they had the power that if someone learned them once, it would be
    guarded in his memory forever. This quality Moses felt would cause
    a very terrible profaning of the holy to arise. Could it happen
    that someone destroyed and estranged in evil deeds would be expert
    in all the "rooms" of the Torah? Moses reasoned a fortiori from the
    Passover offering about which the Torah says "no foreign child shall
    eat of it." (Shemos 12:43) Therefore Moses found it fitting that
    these Tablets be shattered, and he should try to get other Tablets.
    
    The first Tablets were made by G-d, like the body of writing as
    explained in the Torah. The latter Tablets were made by man [Moses],
    as it says "Carve for yourself two stone tablets." (Exodus 34:1)
    Tablets are things which cause standing and existence, that it's not
    "letters fluttering in the air." Since they were made by Hashem,
    they would stand eternally. But the second ones, which were man-made,
    only exist subject to conditions and constraints.

There is more, tying this to "pesal lekha -- lo he'eshir Moshe ela
mipesualasan shel luchos." In a first luchos world, acquiring the
Torah would be easy and one can go "mei'eiver layam" the rest of the
day pursuing weatlh. In our second luchos world, we can't waste time
making a living. However, we do need to whittle off the pesoles of our
soul to prepare it for receiving the Torah. And working at a parnasah is
the means to do so. Rather than having a career as a pursuit in itself,
RSS would have us aim for a job that exercises our middos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 13:50:53 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?




 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>> R' Jack Love asked on the  Chazal that says that Moshe looked into the
Mitzri taskmaster's future, saw  no future good children would come out
of him, and only then killed him. So  RJL asked me -- of course note,
the guy would be dead in a few minutes, no  further children would come
out from him at all!  <<





>>>>>
 
Had Moshe looked into the future and seen good children coming out of the  
Mitzri, then the Mitzri would /not/ have been dead in a few minutes! Moshe 
would  not have killed him!
 
In effect Moshe was able to look into the far future and see from  there 
what he was going to do, or not do, in his own immediate  future.  An 
immediate future that, from the perspective of the far future,  would be the past. 
It's as if you could today see into 2030 and look at the  past newspapers 
from 2018. 
 
Moshe had an even more remarkable experience of time travel when he went  
and sat in Rabbi Akiva's lectures.  BTW does everyone agree that that  
actually happened?  Are there any commentators who explain that story  
allegorically -- i.e., that when Moshe asked what the tagin were for, Hashem  told him 
they would one day be fully explained?
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/bbca67a2/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:23:21 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Free Will




 


>>  First, there is also combatiblism. (To quote wiki:  "the belief that 
free
will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it  is possible to
believe both without being logically inconsistent.")  <<

-- 
Micha  Berger              
mi...@aishdas.org         



>>>>>
 
Think of "combatiblism"!  This is one of the best typos ever to appear  on 
Avodah, although it would fit better under another running subject line,  
"Eilu v'eilu."
 
It's all very well to say that seemingly incompatible concepts (like "free  
will" vs "determinism") may in fact be compatible.   But what makes  Avodah 
so stimulating is the fact that so many people here fiercely and  
vehemently defend completely contradictory opinions, all with sources and  
precedents.  This is the very essence of "combatiblism" -- the belief that  it's worth 
fighting over ideas!  Not hand-to-hand, but head-to-head  combat!  That no 
such word actually exists is a mere quibble; it deserves  to exist. All it 
needs now is its own wikipedia entry.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/7715180d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:27:15 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Different Ways of Pronouncing Hebrew



 
From: Zev Sero via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
>>The Kenaanim were Bnei Cham, and  thus did not
speak Leshon Hakodesh (or any Semitic language).  Avraham  Avinu was
from Bnei Shem, and did.  He didn't learn it from any  Kenaanim, because
he grew up in what's now the south of  Iraq.<<

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


>>>>>
 
Yet apparently the people in Canaan spoke the same language that Avraham  
did, whereas his relatives back home -- Lavan, for example -- spoke  Aramaic.
 
There were different peoples in Canaan, some Semitic, some not.  One  
wonders if they all spoke the same language, or different languages.  
 
 


--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============




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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150226/395ed81d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:47:48 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: Had Moshe looked into the future and seen good children coming out of the  
: Mitzri, then the Mitzri would /not/ have been dead in a few minutes! Moshe 
: would  not have killed him!

But away from the hypothetical. He was in reality abou to keill the
Mitzri. So, if there were only one version of the future to look at,
he wouldn't see the merit or lack thereof of the Mitzri's descendents,
Moshe would simply see his own decision by which the fellow wouldn't
have any (more).

: In effect Moshe was able to look into the far future and see from  there 
: what he was going to do, or not do, in his own immediate  future...

But if killing him were in error, Moshe would have seen himself make
the error, and therefore decide that it was the right thing to do.
Seeing the future decision doesn't mean seeing the right decision.

Add this to trying to understand Moshe's bechirah at this moment, and
one gets dizzy! (Hakol tzafui vehareshus nesunah when the person in
question is also the metzapeh...)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:56:55 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Free Will


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:23:21PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: It's all very well to say that seemingly incompatible concepts (like "free  
: will" vs "determinism") may in fact be compatible.   But what makes  Avodah 
: so stimulating is the fact that so many people here fiercely and  
: vehemently defend completely contradictory opinions, all with sources and  
: precedents...

Not in this case, as I was stating the position exist, not that it's mine.

However, we don't really know what free will is. It's not random. Usually,
"not random" means you can plot a course from the past to the future if
you know the past in enough detail.

So, it's not absurd to consider free will to be deterministic, but in a
way that the determining causes, the relevant past, is internal to the
person making the decision.

As I said, I don't like it. I think free will is inherently ineffible
and a middle ground between random and algorithm. (And if it were effible,
it would be an algorithm.) And we can't explain it because of the nature
of what it is, so why try?

BTW, R' Moshe Koppel proves such a middle ground exists in ch. 2 of
Metahalakhah. Described here in the past, but only of interest to
people who would care about Information Theory. And leshitaso, both
bechirah and TSBP are in this non-modelable category.

R/Dr Isaac Chavel's review is here
    http://download.yutorah.org/1999/905/704449.pdf
My attempt to explain it (reflecting feedback from on-list attempts)
    http://www.aishdas.org/asp/neither-random-nor-predetermined

     ... and so our model gets ever more complex as we have more data to
     work with. We can always explain the sequence in less space than the
     sequence itself. So it isnt random. However, the description of an
     infinite expansion of this sequence would be infinite. Its not an
     algorithm because no finite model exists. They are "non-modelable",
     since neither a coin tosser nor an algorithm [nor a combination of
     the two] will model the resulting output.
     
     There is a middle ground between deterministic and random. If one
     watches a persons decisions, it will fall into that class.
     
     Dr. Koppel, following R JB Soloveitchik's approach in "Halachic Man",
     sees the role of halakhah as that of maximizing free ill. Man redeems
     himself through a creative partnership with G-d. That creativity is
     a product of being non-modelable; our decisions are neither inherent
     in our nature nor our environment nor random -- they are something new,
     products that our uniquely our creations....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 14:54:32 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Eilu V'Eilu?


On 02/26/2015 02:47 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
> : Had Moshe looked into the future and seen good children coming out of the
> : Mitzri, then the Mitzri would/not/  have been dead in a few minutes! Moshe
> : would  not have killed him!
>
> But away from the hypothetical. He was in reality abou to keill the
> Mitzri. So, if there were only one version of the future to look at,
> he wouldn't see the merit or lack thereof of the Mitzri's descendents,
> Moshe would simply see his own decision by which the fellow wouldn't
> have any (more).

Not if there is one future *which we can change*.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:03:17 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah


On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 02:49:14PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: >First, that depends on how we resolve Shamor veZakhos.
: 
: How so?    It doesn't matter how we resolve it, whatever was on the first set
: was on the second set.  There is no possible doubt or machlokes about that.

See the Ramban on Yisro 20:8 -- both were in the first luchos, and
the second contained only zakhor.

: >The second luchos were only "vayehi sham im H' 40 yom ve40
: >laylah... vayikhtov al haluchos eis diverei haberis aseres hadevarim"
: >(Shemos 34:28) and "kemikhtav harishon, eis aseres hadevarim." (Devarim
: >10:4)
: 
: Exactly: Kamichtav harishon.   QED.

See further below... "ka'asher shibarta", not what was there before.

Are you really trying to pit your wits against the Beis haLevi's?
And then, not even spending the time to read his idea in full, preferably
in the original rather than my restatement?

: >Notice that Shemos implies that the second luchos were written by
: >Moshe, not HQBH.
: 
: What!?  Where does it imply that?!   The Torah says explicitly that Hashem
: wrote the second luchos.   How can you see an implication otherwise?
: What could possibly make you think the subject of "vayichtov" is Moshe,
: when Hashem said He would write them?

Because the rest of the sentence is about someone being up on the mountain
with H' and not eating. The subject of the sentence is Moshe.

And besides, what about the Yalqut?

: >This is then connected to the Yalqut (#392) which distinguishes between
: >the luchos in that the first were "maasei E-lokim heimah" (Shemos 32:16)
: >and seen from both sides (v 15). The second luchos were hewn by Moshe
: 
: Yes, this is well known.  What has it got to do with the writing?    The Torah is
: very clear that Moshe took some physical stones (Rashi specifies sapphires),
: carved blank luchos out of them, and took them up for Hashem to write on
: them an *exact copy* of what He had written on the first luchos.

Actually, both pesol and kesivah. See the Yalqut.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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



_______________________________________________
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 >