Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 001

Wednesday, April 5 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 10:54:17 -0400
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
RE: eating matzah and marror together

In response to my post Avrohom Weidberg  wrote: 

Tosfos (Pesachim 115a, d"h Ela M'voreich) says that matzas reshus would
be mevatel moror of chova-- even though the ta'am of moror is stronger
(my assumption)-- so apparently one would not look at the "stronger"
taste even according to the Chasam Sofer.

Does the Ramban disagree with this Tosfos-- there's no question which
mitza the person is trying to be mekayem?

What does the Ramban do with the gemoro (Pesachim 115b) that says bola
matza umoror, yedai matza yotzo?

I was able to look into the sugyah a little bit more. 

In regards to your first question from Tosfos in Pesachim Rabbi Akiva Eiger
already asks it. Tosfos in Zevachim 79A mentions that taam morrer is mevatel
taam matzah. Rabbi Akiva Eiger brings the tosfos in pesachim as a stirah to
this tosfos and leaves it as a tzarich iyun. Although it isn't muchrach I
thought maybe the machlokes between the 2 tosfos is same machlokes between
the Ramban and Maharam Chalvah/Chasam Sofer. The Tosfos in Zevachim would be
like Maharam Chalvah/Chasam Sofer and Tosfos in Pesachim like Ramban.
 	As far as your statement that when eating matzah reshus and marror
chova it is clear which mitzva you are doing, I don't think that is the
point of the Ramban. I think what the Ramban is saying is that if you do 2
things at once it is not clear what you are trying to accomplish. By eating
matzah and marror we don't necessarily know you are trying to be m'kayeim
mitzva of matzah maybe you are eating a sandwich cause you are hungry. (I
agree it's a strange sandwhich :-) ). By the way, the rayah that I had to
support my hesber in the Ramban comes from the Alfasi Zutah in Rosh Hashana
33A. (I have no idea how I even came across this mareh makom). He says if
you blow shofar to teach kids (misaseik) you are not yotzei because the
misaseik dirabanan (of teaching kids) is mivatel the mitzva d'oraisah of
sghofar like we find in pesachim by maror being d'rabanan bzman hazeh. I
thought the pshat was like the ramban - if it is not clear from your actions
that you are doing a mitzvah than you are not yotzei.

> What does the Ramban do with the gemoro (Pesachim 115b) that says bola
> matza umoror, yedai matza yotzo?
	The rishonim on this gemara ask why don't we say that marror
d'rabanan is m'vatel matzah d'oraisah. 2 answer sare given in the Chiddushei
Rabbeinu Dovid. 1) the gemara is talking abbout b'zman habayis so both
mitzvos are d'oraisah and the klal of mitzvos m'vatlin would not apply 2)
marror only m'vatel matzah when you chew it- if you swallow them it isn't
m'vatel the matzah.
	The Ramban would hold like teretz #1 and Chasam Sofer like teretz

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:52:44
From: yolkut@ymail.yu.edu
The Shishim Ribo Letters

At 07:40 PM 4/4/00 -0500, you wrote:

>> I also frequently read of the 600,000 letters in Torah, and yet also that
>>  there are approximately 308K letters in Torah.  While the 600K may be a
>>  metaphor (?), most references to this 600K number do not mention that
it is
>>  so.
>>  Can someone shed light on this, too?
R' Tzadok ha-Kohen writes that the letters may include pieces of letters:
(for instance, a ches is made up of a vav and zayin joined together) I
would provide an exact quote, but I'm leaving Yerushalayim for the US
tonight, and I'm a little pressed for time. I'll try to get a mekor in day
or two, but as I recall its mentioned a couple of times in the Pri Tzaddik
on Shemos.
Be-Nissan Nig'alu, be-Nissan 'Asidin le-higa'el, vkyh'r,

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:43:45 -0400
From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
matza shiurim

> Micha Berger wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 09:44:19AM -0400, Sammy Ominsky wrote:
> > : So why insist on defining it by area filled instead of by weight?
> Weight
> > : will be consistent across all your measuring schemes.
> > 
> > RYGB addressed this already: a k'zayis is a unit volume.
> > 
	     Sammy Ominsky responded: 
	>>Have you any sources for this? It seems to be common knowledge,
	>>everything I have indicates weight. 

	My impression is that even when weight is given as a measure it is
based on measuring by displacement-another words how much matzah will
displace x amount of volumes. The shiurim are probably given as weight
measures since it is easier for the average layman to figure out. (I hope I
haven't said anything which shows my scientific "am ha'aratznus")
		Also just for the record I believe Rav Dovid Feinstein in
his halacha pamphlet on the seder (which has been translated and made into a
Haggadah by Artscroll) says a kizayis is 1.1 ounces. 

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 08:42:14 -0700
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
matza shiurim

at  www.daat.ac.il/daat/kitveyet/mahanaim/pesah/matsot.htm  an article on
machine vs hand matza history.  if the included pictures of hand matza are
real, then the volume of a matza was much greater in the olden days...

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:44:27 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef...

Please keep the discussion toward the halachic and lifnim-mishuras-hadin
question of the appropriateness of the comments, and the proper response to
the current challenge, and away from political details.


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Apr-00: Shelishi, Sazria
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 19b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 12:58:59 -0400
From: "David Glasner" <dglasner@ftc.gov>
Re: Dor Revi'i

Toby Rubinson wrote:

I really have a lot more to say about the Dor Rivii, but I will not continue 
being that it seems that I somehow gave the impression that I was "insulting" 
him. Being that I chas Vshalom do not want to do so, I am hesitant to 
continue this thread. I had thought that it I was speaking respectfully (as 
David noted) but in case I wasn't I want to ask mechila from the Dor Rivii 
and his distinguished descendant.

For my part, I want to say as clearly as I can that there was nothing that
you said for which you need to ask for mechila from me (and I cannot
presume to speak on behalf of the Dor Revi'i, but I agree with your 
comment about "sefifosav dovivos bkever").  On the contrary,
if in the course of discussion about a topic that I care about deeply, I
gave the impression that I did or might take personal offense, it is I who 
require mechila.

I don't believe that there is any reason why we should not continue
having our discussion.  My impression is that our esteemed listowner
was simply issuing a warning (in my humble opinion a tad prematurely) 
intended to avoid any ruffled feathers, not suggesting that feathers
actually had been ruffled.

David Glasner 

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 13:20:35 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Re: shi'urim craze

In Avodah 4#480, MBerger responded to DBannett:
> I don't think the pikuach nefesh aspect is shechiach
though, despite your anecdotal evidence. <
So long as we remember the Torah of our mamas:
don't talk (or be mafsik in any other way) with your mouth full :-).

All the best (including wishes for the safe "sh'mira" of
"matzos[/mitzvos]") from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 14:08:36 EDT
From: DFinchPC@aol.com
Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef...

In a message dated 4/5/00 10:45:05 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Please keep the discussion toward the halachic and lifnim-mishuras-hadin
 question of the appropriateness of the comments, and the proper response to
 the current challenge, and away from political details. >>

I made a promise to Micha to limit my future comments on the Avodah line to 
matters strictly halachic, and, thus far, doubtless with HaShem's assistance, 
I have overcome any urge to do otherwise. (A good step, don't you think, 
toward acquiring the type of self-control necessary obtain a deeper personal 

Having said that: The controvery over Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef's comments confuses 
me. ROY is as serious a rabbinic leader as exists today. Since anything ROY 
says about halacha IS halacha, or is at least presumptively deeply halachic, 
then his views on his political enemies cannot be dismissed as purely 
personal no matter what one might be tempted to think of them. On the other 
hand, it is possible -- perhaps even very likely -- that some of ROY's 
political operatives have abused his trust and that of his Shas followers in 
a way that is venal at best and felonious at worst. The same is true of the 
political operatives of almost every other religious and anti-religious 
faction in Israel, be they left, centrist, or right. Such are the costs when 
there is a commingling of church and state, even in -- particularly in -- the 
land of the Jews.

If Israeli law-enforcement authorities believe that improper things have in 
fact occurred, and if they believe in good faith that these things violate 
Israeli law, well, then system would seem to require that the authorities 
proceed. In this context it really doesn't matter whether ROY's comments are 
halacha or personal political commentary, at least not if Israelis are to 
live in a democratic state instead of a theodic one that is ruled by an elite 
of "Gedolim" who offices are created by a sort of inchoate consensus of 
haredi wise men.

Speaking of which, there's an old Jethro Tull song containing the line, "Your 
wise men / don't know how it feels / to be thick as a brick." Halacha that is 
divined by a Gadol like ROY as a weapon in Israel's interminable war of Jew 
vs. Jew may still be halacha, but it doesn't help me at all. It doesn't 
relate to my struggles to connect with HaShem in my own simple, everyday life 
as a galus Jew. Perhaps there is Big Halacha and Little Halacha. Big Halacha 
on partisan political issues is pronounced on high by politically powerful 
rabbis with large followings who, because they are politically powerful 
rabbis with large followings, must be presumed to understand the reality of 
the world much better than the rest of us. Little Halacha is not pronounced 
but is taught, patiently, to those of us who are thick as a brick and need 
guidance to conform our everyday lives to HaShem's expectations. We get the 
Mishnah Berurah, the Shulcan Aruch, the Horeb, and whatever insights can be 
had from Rashi and the Rambam. The rest of you guys can worry about ROY's 
attacks on the Israeli police.

I'll defer to anyone on Big Halacha, because I'll never understand it and 
find it neither relevant or particularly interesting. These days, I care much 
more about Little Halacha, which speaks to the heart, to kedusah and avodah.

David Finch

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 11:53:15 -0700
From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>
kosher lpesach

fyi a large section of r blumenkrantz 2000 pesach book online at

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 15:31:59 -0500
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita

Regarding this topic some of our esteemed list members might be interested in
reading R Jonathan Rosemblum's article in the JP of April 2.

Miss Manners takes Rav Ovadia to the woodshed

By Jonathan Rosenblum
(The writer is a biographer and contributing editor to the
Jewish Observer)
    Words kill. That is the great lesson of the Rabin
assassination. Or so the mantra goes. As a consequence, our
enlightened brethren tell us, Israel cannot afford too much
freedom of speech - at least not too much by the wrong kind
of people.
    Not a shred of evidence exists (as former attorney-
general Michael Ben-Yair found), however, that Yigal Amir
was influenced by anyone other than GSS agent provocateur
Avishai Raviv in private conversations. Yet Attorney-
General Elyakim Rubinstein has not shown the slightest
interest (to say the least) in prosecuting Raviv for
incitement, despite the fact that in Raviv's case the
causal nexus between words and deeds is not merely
    A far more plausible case could be made for the
proposition that too little freedom of speech, not too
much, made assassination thinkable.
    The free marketplace of ideas ceases to exist when the
media are fully mobilized on one side of a fateful public
debate and the political echelons act to ensure the
continued monopoly of those voices sympathetic to them.
Roiling anger among those shut out of participation in the
marketplace of ideas is the result. And when those shut out
of the debate are dissed as "propellers" whose opinions are
unworthy of note, temperatures rise even further.
    Finally, when representative democracy itself is
subverted by the purchase, with government ministries, of
the votes of two right-wing MKs to pass Oslo II, a crisis
of democratic legitimacy ensues.
    Rubinstein's decision this week to open an
investigation against Rabbi Ovadia Yosef demonstrates that
the wrong lessons continue to be learned from the past and
doom us to repeat past mistakes.
    Rubinstein ordered an investigation of  Yosef on three
grounds: encouraging violent acts that could lead to death
or injury (under a statute leftover from the British
Mandatory period, when it was used against the Jewish
civilian population) against Education Minister Yossi
Sarid; insulting a public figure, and slander. That
investigation will have a chilling effect on the freedom of
political expression that is a necessary condition of
democratic government.
    Laws prohibiting insulting elected officials, who
knowingly make themselves targets of the public's
vituperation, are a civil libertarian's nightmare. Such
statutes will inevitably be employed discriminatorily, and
they can be used to shield elected officials from public
scrutiny, an essential element of democratic government.
Moreover, the ability to criticize one's elected
representatives protects democracy by allowing citizens to
blow off steam until they can throw the rascals out in the
next elections.
    The application of slander and libel laws to
statements of opinion about public officials is fraught
with some potential for discrimination and stifling public
debate. So the US Supreme Court recognized over 30 years
ago, when it limited its application to statements of fact
made with a reckless and malicious disregard for the truth.
    Characterizations like "self-hating Jew" or "worse
than Pharaoh" are matters of opinion that inevitably depend
on one's definitions. For that reason, they cannot serve as
the basis of criminal prosecution, especially when directed
at public officials - or at least they could not until
Rubinstein's ruling.
    Tellingly, the only journalist ever socked with a
civil libel judgment for such characterizations was Rabbi
Yisroel Eichler for calling Shulamit Aloni an "antisemite."
(Meanwhile, Aloni gets the Israel Prize although she
reportedly compared haredim to Nazis and described Binyamin
Netanyahu as a "good student of Goebbels.")
    Rabbis crying " the vengeance that was done on Haman,
so will vengeance be done on [Sarid]"   merit criminal
investigation; those chanting "murderer" at Menachem Begin
and Ariel Sharon do not. (Nor should they.)
    The most serious charge against Yosef, of course, is
that of inciting others to physically harm Sarid. Yet
nothing he said could be construed as a call to violence
against Sarid. For more than 30 years, Yosef has been famed
(and sometimes defamed) for elevating the preservation of
Jewish life over every other Torah value - a fact known to
all his followers. And he twice stated explicitly and
unambiguously in public, after his Motza'ei Shabbat attack
on Sarid, that the Torah does not countenance violence
against Sarid.
    True, he still does not wish Sarid well. That may not
be nice - traditionally we pray for the return of the
sinner, not his demise  - but it is not a crime. Yosef
spoke only of God exacting vengeance on Sarid.
    That is no small point. Religious Jews, as Rubinstein
should know, regularly leave to God that which they have no
right to do themselves - including, for instance, the
punishment of most criminal behavior where the strict
evidentiary requirements are not met. Those who smell
racism - albeit unconscious - in the decision to
investigate Yosef are on solid ground.
    Such investigations never ensue when Yonatan Geffen
calls for a "secular intifada" or Amnon Dankner expresses
the wish to set aflame the beards of those "weird Shas
rabbis" or Uri Avinery savors the thought of machine-
gunning haredim in Me'a Shearim, or Yigal Tumarkin begins
to understand the Nazis whenever he sees large haredi
families. Everybody knows that they, and their friends, are
"elevated spirits" and their remarks are not to be
understood literally.
    Yet when Yosef hurls imprecations and calls for Divine
wrath, that is incitement. Why? Because "everyone knows"
that his followers are primitive, violence-prone thugs, who
cannot distinguish themselves from God.
    Rubinstein's repeated citations of previous insults
aimed by Rabbi Yosef at Supreme Court justices demonstrate
how weak his case is and how little he understands his
role. Comments about the sexual practices of justices may
be "offensive" and they may not add luster to the stature
of the speaker (as the Supreme Court said), but they do not
advocate any action nor create a clear and immediate danger
of such action.
    Rubinstein has become the national scold. But he is
not Miss Manners whose task it is to teach Yosef etiquette.
He is the attorney-general charged with determining
    Were he to spend less time burnishing his credentials
as a philosophe - he should stop worrying, he's a shoo-in
for the Supreme Court - he might have done a better job of
the latter, and in the process avoided triggering the
latest polarization of Israeli society.
(c) Jerusalem Post 2000

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 23:08:57 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Darchei Shalom

In message , David Glasner <dglasner@ftc.gov> writes
> If one were to read the vast majority of 
>Rishonim and Achronim on the matter one would be forced to come to the 
>conclusion that the position of the dor rivii is not normative, meaning the 
>overwhelming evidence is against him.
>Perhaps yes and perhaps no.  I haven't done the literature search that you
>are suggesting, though I agree such a literature search would be very
>worthwhile.  I hope to consult the BaCH that you cited.  But does anyone
>else address the Dor Revi'i's argument?  A simple headcount cannot 
>establish whether "the overwhelming evidence" is against him or not.  To 
>do that we would have to study the contrary arguments to his position and 
>then assess their relative merits.  Has anyone actually done that?  I can 
>understand that a posek faced with an actual case might be reluctant  to 
>rely on a da'at yahid, especially a rather late Aharon against the weight of 
>so much contrary opinion.  But then does "normative" mean anything other 
>than "the generally accepted halakha l'ma'aseh"?  If not, fine.  But you 
>seem to have something else in mind.

I am a little confused as to which particular position of the Dor Revi'i
(or in fact of David Glasner) we are now discussing.  

As I understood it, David began by making a general argument about
Darchei Shalom and it being l'chatchila, and not b'dived - and segued
from that into a discussion about saving non Jewish lives on shabbas
(which is a different discussion altogether).  Various citations were
brought on the shabbas point (alone, as far as I could see), and then
the discussion seemed to segue again into one generally on the Dor Revii
and, in particular, his position on spending all one's money to avoid
transgressing a lav.

But what I have not seen is a discussion about the original point, ie
regarding darchei shalom (not pertaining to shabbas).

I note in passing that Rav Unterman has an article in Kol Torah (nissan
taf shin kaf vav) in which I believe he makes a similar point that
Darchei shalom is to be considered l'chatchila and not b'dieved (I only
have a cite in something else I was reading).  His proof text is from
the Rambam (Hilchos Melachim perek 10 halacha 12) and his use of the
same pasuk that David has been quoting.

In terms of summary, there is a lovely summary of what the takanos of
darchei shalom and of eivah apply to in the Encylopedia Talmudit.

What is particularly nice about this summary, is that it puts the
takanos vis a vis goyim into context.

With regard to Darchei Shalom, the subject headings are:

a) mishum kavod;
b) mishum chashad;
d)b'ychsay shechainim v'chaverim
e)b'yachas l'goy.

With regard to Eivah the subject headings are:

a) bein ba'al l'ishto;
b) bein av l'beinav;
c) bein adam l'chavero;
d) bein yisroel l'nochri.

By doing so, they make it clear that these takanos are a subcategory of
a more general category that I suspect one would have difficulty in
characterising as b'dived (certainly darchei shalom, and I suspect the
same is true of eivah - do we waive the takanos between husband and wife
if the husband happens to be the type that will not fall into eivah?).

None of the citations brought so far appear to go against this
particular point - does anybody have any?  

>David Glasner

Kind Regards


Chana/Heather Luntz

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 18:15:39 -0400
Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita

Since many people have responded to my statements with similar reactions, in
the interest in band-with economy I am using the following as representative
of them, and am not responding to each message.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Cc: <SCHWARTZESQ@worldnet.att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2000 10:55 PM
Subject: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita

> Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:07:55 -0400
> From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Ruchani Eye on Rabbi Ovadaih Yosef, shlita
> <<The politcal fallout aside, I have one very basic question; are Rabbis,
> no
> > matter how great in stature, above the law?>>
> Is Yossi Sarid and the other dati haters above the law in their
> incitement?

    Not thay are not; but I have not heard Sarid say that ROY is chayav
mitah or is a rasha.  I have heard Sarid et cie unnecessarily and
offensively disrespect ROY and Da'ati'im, but I have not heard them incite
people to violence against religious Jews.

   Have you read any of the sewage that issues from them
> concerning datiim?

    See above

> Is the Arab MK who encouraged terrorism,  Hizbolla style,  above the
> law?

    No not at all.  He too should be investigated and prosecuted as
appropriate under the law.  But that does not in any way derrogate from
ROY's possible liability.

> Or is only a Rav subject to the law?

    No, but I do hold ROY to a higher standard of conduct than a chiloni or
Arab MK.  But I agree that the law should be equally applied to all; status

> It is well known that this particular law is invoked by the
> establishment against those with whom they disagree.

    And if that is true, and I believe that it probably is, it is a
disgusting politicization of the legal principle.

 Should this prevent
> a gadol beYisrael and a recognized manhig from expressing his views?

    Not not all, and ROY in the ensuing battle should raise the issue of
disparate impact and selective enforcement.  It's a good strategy to map
out.  But again it does not speak to the actual and technical merits of the
issue.  Nor does it answer my question of "Is a rav by mere dint of his
status above the law?"  Do rabbonim have the right to break traffic laws?
Are they allowed to double park?  Are they allowed to assault those they
believe are sinners and then claim a Halachik justification (Not to say that
any of these offenses are regularly committed by rabbanim, I'm merely
raising the theoritical question)?

> <<Was there a Halachik mandate for ROY to speak as he did?  Was there no
> other way, (i.e. one which would not have resulted in this
> investigation/new culturkampf) for him to have expressed his views?>>
> The halachic mandate was obviously determined by ROY himself.  He is not
> a katla kanya who needs our haskama,

    I'm sorry, I didn't know that we "mere mortals" are not allowed to
question the leadership; If ROY wants to hide behind the stature granted him
by the length of his rabbinic frock coat, I for one will not follow him into
his lair.   My respect him and the respect for him  of a great many
non-Chareidi Orthodox is directly related to his conduct and the
presentation of his justifications for his actions.

but certainly the fight for
> continuation of control of chinuch in the hands of the rabbanim and not
> the anti dat misrad hadatot is worth the battle.

    Could be, but so what?  How does that affect the issue of whether ROY
committed a crime?  All that may say is that he allegeldly committed the
crime in the name of an arguably noble cause.

 In case you haven't
> been watching,  it is not Rav Yosef who declared war against the
> Meretzniks,  it is the opposite.

    I'm not sure that is correct when considering the entire historical
context.  There is probably more than enough blame to go around.

> (Note:  I am not in any way condoning fraud or mishandling of public
> funds.  If this is found to be the case in the Shas system,  it should be
> rooted out.  But the opposition to Shas by Sarid is clearly not based on
> the supposed violations of the public trust.  He has a very defined anti
> dati agenda.)
> <<If we will defend ROY simpy on the grounds that he is a gadol beYisrael
> and for no other reason, then  we are then treading precariously down a
> slippery slope.>>
> You are absolutely correct.  __Anybody__   who takes it upon himself to
> speak out against the travesties being perpetrated upon the Torah should
> also be defended.  Would you have censured Pinchas and had him tried by
> Zimri's chaverim?

No but then again, I'm not sure that Yossi Sarid is Zimri either.  I fail to
see the direct comparisons between sexual congress with a heathen woman in
the presence of the Shechina and introducing Darwish into a secular school

> <<Shall we then defend and stand by those most admirable mosdos,
> operating with the haskama of gedolim that commit tax fraud?  Shall we
> signal our approval for those thugs who kidnap and beat men who do not
> give their wives gittin (and do so at the behest of batei din and
> dayanim)?>>
> This odious comparison does no justice to your argument.
> Gershon
> gershon.dubin@juno.com

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 00:26:35 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Need to Reach Chicago Kollel

Does anyone out there have an email address or web site for the 
Chicago Kollel? I have someone who has been writing to me via 
mail jewish who wants to get one of their publications.

Thanks in advance.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 18:18:13 -0500
From: Steve Katz <katzco@sprintmail.com>
Re: Need to Reach Chicago Kollel


best regards

Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:

> Does anyone out there have an email address or web site for the
> Chicago Kollel? I have someone who has been writing to me via
> mail jewish who wants to get one of their publications.
> Thanks in advance.
> -- Carl
> Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
> Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
> Thank you very much.
> Carl and Adina Sherer
> mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Go to top.

Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2000 20:15:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: jjbaker@panix.com
Matza shiurim

/semi humorous/

After reading David Bannett's story about the girls with the undersized
kebeitza, I have to wonder.  With stories like this around, and with
the known idea that one uses large measurements for Pesach (to eat as
much as possible of the mitzvah food) and small measurements for Yom
Kippur (to figure how much one can eat in an emergency and still be
fasting), aren't we in danger of violating the rule of "you shall have
one set of weights"?  Shouldn't we pick one set of measurements for 
everything and use them consistently?  Say, an amah of 44 cm or 48 cm
or 55 cm or whatever, and use all the measurements that come out of
that (volume measurements are linked by way of the Rambam's statement
that a space .5 x .5 x .6 amah is two s'ah, then all the volumes are
related to the s'ah)?

    Jonathan Baker     |  What is the 7th verse of the piut Shir haChodoshim?
    jjbaker@panix.com  |  The Nissan Stanza.  [1st verse in the orig. ms.]
     Web page update: Teachings of the Rav http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/

Go to top.


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

< Previous Next >