Avodah Mailing List
Volume 10 : Number 040
Sunday, October 27 2002
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 09:47:58 +0200
From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Subject: Fw: A question from my father r.e. this week's Haftarah
[forwarded from a former student of mine]
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
A kashya from my father the rational skeptic which you might find amusing
from a hashkofic point of view. The death of the son of the Shunamis
perked up his medical ears. He's convinced that if you read scripture
straight, the business with Elisha resurrecting the son of the Shunamis
is not purely a supernatural phenomenon. The boy is quite simply not dead.
Basically, my father the neurologist says that the boy shows every
indication of having suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage, which would
account for sudden head pain followed by a coma and low blood pressure
suggesting death to an untrained observer. Alternatively he could have
had a meningoencephalitis. This depends on how quickly the headache
developed - an encephalitis develops more slowly. Granted, sponteneous
recoveries from subarachnoid hemorrhages and meningoencephalitis are rare,
but they're within the realm of nature as we know it.
The question is this - when scripture says the boy is "dead," are we
supposed to take it plainly and at absolute face value and assume that
by definition the boy is really in fact dead even by the standards of
our modern medicine, even if there are situations in which we would know
the boy to be alive (and in a coma) which the ancients would have read
as death?
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:48:00 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Fw: A question from my father r.e. this week's Haftarah
On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 09:47:58AM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: The question is this - when scripture says the boy is "dead," are we
: supposed to take it plainly and at absolute face value and assume that
: by definition the boy is really in fact dead even by the standards of
: our modern medicine, even if there are situations in which we would know
: the boy to be alive (and in a coma) which the ancients would have read
: as death?
Why not be literal? Is there a reason to be minimalist in our claims here,
or is it just a modern westerner's instinct to find rationalizations
for whatever he can?
The gemara, and therefore the nusach of birchas gevurah assumes that
it /was/ a singular event, ie a neis.
I would first assume it was halachic death. In which case, your choices
(so far) are: assuming a neis, or rejecting "brain stem death" as the
definition lehalachah.
Except the latter would imply that every case of CPR is no less techiyas
hameisim than this one. And what do we do with the gemara about mafteichos
from Mes Ta'anis (that I cited in a different context last week.)
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:49:38 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Rabbenu Gershom
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:31:18AM +0000, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In fact takkanot rabbenu Gershom are takkanat hakahal which certainly
: exist even today...
... and just to close the loop, and therefore RMF would have the power
to make takkanos for the US of his generation.
-mi
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:56:42 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject: Re:Torah True
On 22 Oct 2002 at 22:49, Arie Folger wrote:
> RYGB wrote:
>> Secondly, more importantly, why allow groups to co-opt terms that
>> should be more broadly applicable?!
>> I think, for example, that every "Dati" should rue the day they
>> allowed "Charedi" to be co-opted! Who does not aspire to be a Chared
>> l'dvar Hashem!
Rav Nebenzahl discusses this in one of his sichot in Bamidbar and
says that the DL world should rise up and shout that "we are Charedim
too."
-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fw: A question from my father r.e. this week's Haftarah
Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
> [forwarded from a former student of mine]
...
> Basically, my father the neurologist says that the boy shows every
> indication of having suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage, which would
> account for sudden head pain followed by a coma and low blood pressure
> suggesting death to an untrained observer. Alternatively he could have
> had a meningoencephalitis. This depends on how quickly the headache
> developed - an encephalitis develops more slowly. Granted, sponteneous
> recoveries from subarachnoid hemorrhages and meningoencephalitis are rare,
> but they're within the realm of nature as we know it.
> The question is this - when scripture says the boy is "dead," are we
> supposed to take it plainly and at absolute face value and assume that
> by definition the boy is really in fact dead even by the standards of
> our modern medicine, even if there are situations in which we would know
> the boy to be alive (and in a coma) which the ancients would have read
> as death?
I think it depends how we define death. If a man's heart stops
beating while in the ER he is clinically dead. Yet with electric
stimulation, it is possible and fairly common to re-stimulate the
heart. Was this individual really dead? Was he revived from the dead?
Surely he would have remained dead without the "paddles". But if he
is now alive post electric re-stimulation of the heart maybe he
wasn't really dead. When the Navi talks about death is it talking
about dead as in the cessation of the heartbeat? Or is it talking
about death in the final sense meaning that no electric stimulation
in the world can bring him back, but only a miracle?
I think that Hashkaficly one can look at it either way and it is not
heretical to look at the phenomenon described in the story of Elisha
as being anything supernatural. Perhaps Elisha resurrecting the son
of the Shunamis was done within the laws of nature. It was rendered a
miracle only in the sense that Elisha summoned HKBH to work his
wonders at that moment in time.
HM
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:19:47 -0400
From: "Shinnar, Meir" <Meir.Shinnar@rwjuh.edu>
Subject: RE: atzas gdolim
RYGB
>> a simplistic accusation that the dissenter is a kofer, even without any
>> proof, and no matter of past discussions (where this has been clarified).
>> How often do you beat your wife? Whether you choose to respond is,
>> of course, entirely up to you.
> While you are sidestepping the 13 Ikkarim issue, in this issue I am not
> accusing you c"v of Kefirah - I am merely stating that you are wrong! :-)
Me
Fine. I am not sidestepping the 13 ikkarim - I actually believe in 14
ikkarim - the 13, and another one (which is explicit in the rambam brought
below) - that ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem means that there is no halachic
requirement to be a shoteh, and the other 13 ikkarim should be understood,
as much as possible, so as not to contradict the 14th.
me (old)
> First, the issue is how far hilchot deot extends beyond the 13 ikkarim.
> The notion that there is a universal understanding (at least, among
> minimally torah true Jews) that maamre hazal about deot (rather than
> aggadta about maasim) need to be understood literally, and are as binding
> about hilkhot deot as they are about hilkhot kashrut is, quite simply,
> false.
RYGB
>Fascinating. And you can prove this?
me
yes (see below)
(me old)
> I didn't see a good (or even any..)proof (and as a former mathematician,
> I know proofs.:-)..). You are starting from assumptions about how we
> deal with maamre hazal that I reject. Furthermore, the rambam is highly
> relevant - it rejects the methodology of dealing with maamre hazal that
> deal with hilchot deot that you accept. stating it is irrelevant doesn't
> constitute proof.
RYGB
>Shucks, I missed the Rambam that you reference. Where is it, exactly?
Several sources come to mind. the hakdama to the perush hamishnayot,
with the discussion about the meaning of hashem having only 4 amot of
halacha is a good place to start.
There is also a specific statement (that is simple pshat) in one of the
letters of the rambam (I think it occurs in several other places, but
this one quickly comes to mind, when asked how he could hold a specific
gemara (which dealt with maasim, but his response is based on quite
other priniciples)
from a letter to rav Pinchas Hadayan ( the shelat edition of igerot
harambam, vol 2, p 461)
veeyn baze lo divre kabbala, velo asor velo muttar, velo din min hadinin,
ulephi cach eyn makshin bahen
the criteria for requiring makshin bahen - ie, that one has to understand
how they conform to other maamre hazal, is quite explicit.
One can also go to the iggeret of the rambam about gzerat hacochavim
(shelat edition, vol2, p 488)
my translation
and I know that it is possible that you will search and find some
statements of individual scholars in the talmud and midrashim, that
their words show that at the hour of a man's birth the stars will
cause him this and that. This should not cause you any difficulty,
that it is not appropriate that a man should leave halacha lemaa'se and
go after different questions and and answers, and similarly it is not
appropriate for a man to leave the words of reason that were already
proven by proofs, and shake his hands from them, and rely on a statement
of one of the chachamim, that it is possible that he forgot something,
or that there is in those words a hint (remez), or he said that according
to the hour and an event that was before him. You should know that there
are several psukim of the holy torah that are not like their pshat, and
as it was known with the proofs of reason that it was impossible that
the thing should be like its pshat, the targum (onkelos) translated it
a translation that is acceptable to reason. A man should never leave
his reason behind, that the eyes are in front and not in back.
This seems highly explicit (no separation between aggadic stories and
outright statements). By the way, note that the simple pshat of the
rambam is that the psukim that onkelos translates not kipshutam were
not done because of a tradition that they weren't pshat, but that the
contradiction to reason mandated a different translation - quite radical).
I would add several things. First, the statement by rav meir, in addition
to being (IMHO) guzma, is phrased as a bracha - those who do this will be
zoche to some things. To translate this bracha into a chiyuv, viewing
the current leaders as one who are zoche to the bracha, and therefore
the amcha is required to actualize the bracha is quite radical, and goes
against simple pshat (even if you don't take it as guzma). Furthermore,
it is one thing to argue that one who has achieved a certain gadlut
batorah will and should be consulted on some issues - common sense
dictates that we consult experts on different issues. It is another to
argue that venehenin etza vetushia requires us to consult them on all
issues, and that they achieve expertise in all areas.
RYGB
> I sure hope the other Centrists don't beleve this. I cannto believe
> R' Saul Berman or R' Yosef Blau do - Centrist leaders I am aware of,
> am acquainted with and respect - could someone get them to comment -
> aren't one or more of them on board here? Indeed, perhaps they might
> comment as to whether they ever asked RYBS for advice? Did he answer?
Me
We are conflating several different issues. Are there times we ask for
advice? Sure. Do we sometimes ask that advice from torah gdolim? SUre.
When we start developing ourselves, do we need advice and mentoring,
especially in torah values (as RAL suggests) - sure. Do communal issues that
reflect communal values need input (even if not veto power) from rabbanim -
yes (difference between understanding values and understanding all the
political ramifications).
Does this mean that a gdolim have "greater insight reaching unto the
heavens", and therefore should be consulted on all difficult issues? no.
Meir Shinnar
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:39:09 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Ramo and psak
From: Stein, Aryeh [mailto:AStein@wtplaw.com]
>> Also, if further proof is needed, the sefer chassidim says that a father
>> should not kiss (...) his son in Shul......
> The Ramo also says this in SA OC 98:1.
I think the point is that the Sefer Chasidim is known to be the ultimate
source of the minhag.
From: Stein, Aryeh
<<But I think it's significant that this minhag became codified
as halacha. (Although I have often wondered whether this halacha is
perhaps really one of those instances where, although something may be
written in SA, it is not really an iron clad absolute halacha.) >>
Which is where my point comes in. The fact that the Ramo writes it does
not mean that it's automatically binding (this opens another can of worms
of whether/how the SA is binding--see the article by Prof. SZ Havlin
which I discussed in the Avodah archives); rather Ramo is reflecting
the minhag of Ashkenaz at his time, and that's why it's binding (i.e.,
it's not the Ramo had a tremendous koach ha'psak which caused everyone
to follow him). If so, it's important to investigate exactly what the
Ramo is codifying--if he's codifying a minhag, then the "psak" of the
Ramo doesn't have any strength beyond the minhag.
See Rav YH Henkin's Shu"t Bnei Banim dealing with the permissibility
of husbands to hold their wives' hands in public and his analysis of
the Ramo there--IIRC he shows how the Ramo's plain words should not
be binding because the Ramo was based on a different rishon who used a
different lashon.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:40:38 -0400
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
Subject: Re: Derech Limud
From: Tania Tulcin [mailto:ttulcin@mindspring.com] on Areivim
> First, I've noticed that lots of people (namely guys)
> jump into the lomdus without really getting a firm grip on the shakla
> ve'tarya of the sugyah;
A classic issue. When I was in R. Rosensweig's shiur at YU (86-87), Rav
Schachter wrote a dvar torah in Eiyanim L'torah in which he blasted those who
spent a lot of time making their own chakiros, as most of this was pilpul
shel hevel. OTOH, Rav Lichtenstein encourages talmidim--even younger
ones--to approach a sugyah conceptually and ask chakiros before they have
learned any of the rishonim. This helps build the proper mental muscles and
also gives one a framework for analyzing the rishonim.
Counter-argument (made with great force by R. Shmuel Nacham of Shaalvim): R
Lichtenstein's method causes one to approach the rishonim with preconceived
notions, and possibly misread them. R. Nacham (my rebbe in 85-86) prefers to
first read all the rishonim in all parallel sugyos very carefully, and only
then start thinking conceptually. He comes up with quite a lot of brilliant
chiddushim (esp. using the concept developed by his rebbe, R. Nachum
Percevitz of Mir, that Rashi--when faced with conflicting sugyos--took the
approach that each sugyah was said according to a different man-da'amar in
the gemara). Unfortunately, this method is *very* time consuming and
requires a tremendous memory for nuances in texts w/o having an organizing
methodology to organize the texts.
I believe that R. Nacham is more correct conceptually, but his method is very
difficult to apply practically, esp. if you don't have that much time each
day to learn (in contrast to one who spends all day learning in yeshiva). R.
Lichtenstein's method is much easier for us working stiffs.
R Hershel Schachter takes an entirely different approach. (I was in his
shiur 87-88.) He believes that its better to have tremendous bekiyus in what
the achronim have said before you attempt to make your own chakiros. So if
you can sit through his shiurim (or listen to tapes of those shiurim) for a
couple of years and remember most of what he says, you can take the next step
of klering your own chakiros. This requires a very good memory. I know
people who have such a memory and have successfully implemented his method;
however, I believe that most people do not have a good enough memory to
implement it.
> For example, should
> I use others' marei mekomos (like the one generated by Gush's VBM), or
> should I cast around the Rishonim and try to develop my own
> ideas (but if I
> do so, how will I know if I'm on the right track?)?
Depends on how much time you have. Marei mekomos given by others are often
geared towards the maggid shiur's particular take on the sugyah, and they may
miss other points. OTOH, unless you are a baki in shas, you may miss
analogous sugyos (even with the use of the Ein Mishpat). My recommendation
is to go with other's marei mekomos until you feel that you have a lot of
bekiyus.
> Moreover, is it OK to
> develop svaros based on the texts of Rishonim quoted in the Shittah
> Mekubetzes? I eagerly await responses.
Just remember that the modern "scientific" Ritva, Rashbah, etc. put out by
Mossad HaRav Kook are a lot more accurate than the texts quoted in the
Shittah. Also, depending on the time you have available, it may be
inefficient to read the entire Shittah.
I would limit myself to a few rishonim and only look at the Shittah when I've
come up with a theory and want to test out whether any rishonim agree.
In case you're interested, I learned Kesubos with both Rav Nacham and Rav
Rosensweig and would be willing to share my notes with you (at least at the
time, I was a good notetaker--RR used my notes to see exactly what he had
said in shiur).
===============
As to RAFolger's suggestions (on Areivim):
> The following is my prefered approach:
> 2) read the gemara like a book, without resorting to Rashi
> and Tosafot. <snip>
> 3) now study the gemara, with emphasis on shaqla vetarya. <snip>
> 4) in all this, don't dare bringing questions from other
> sugyot. <snip>
> 5) <snip>> read all the Tosafot sequentially.
> 6) for more perspective: pick one rishon, I suggest either
> Ramban or Rosh or
> Meiri, and read one complete sugya at a time in that Rishon.
> You will often
> find a different perspective in important matters.
> 7) don't jump around in rishonim, because you'll miss the best <snip>
I agree if you are very interested in mastering the shakla v'taria. OTOH,
if you are interested in knowing the concepts derived by the achronim
(e.g., the classic chakiros of Rav Chaim) and don't have that much time on
your hands, you might not wish to take the time to do what was suggested.
===============
And then there's the whole issue of whether to spend less time with
chakiros and more time with the development of halacha (including reading
Shu"tim). As I have grown older, I have leaned more and more towards
this, especially when learning sugyos which are halacha l'maaseh (which
I tend to do). R. Shlomo Fisher (the charedi dayan I mentioned whose
daughter married a Gushnik) spent a shabbos at Gush when I was there
(89-90) and suggested that the main reason yeshivos learn non-halacha
l'maaseh masechtos in Nezkin (we were learning Bava Metziah at the time)
was in order to build the tools necessary to learn halacha l'maaseh
b'iyun.
Kol tuv,
Moshe
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 17:19:42 +0000
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: Derech Limud
And then you could learn a derech other than Brisker, and not have
a worldview that necessarily revolves around chakiros.
R'it TT might want to search the archives for VIDC,
RYGB's "Vos is Der Chiluk" challenges. See also his article
<http://www.aishdas.org/rygb/derachim.htm>, "An Analysis of Darchei
HaLimud (Methodologies of Talmud Study) Centering on a Cup of Tea".
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Go to top.
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 13:11:45 -0400
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: RE: atzas gdolim
RMS has written for us a broadside of his philosophy, for which we must be
indebted. I would be curious to know, since we do have representatives of
the self-defined MO and Centrist camps here on board, how many of our
little band subscribe to these views.
A few responses:
At 03:19 PM 10/24/02 -0400, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
>RYGB
> >> a simplistic accusation that the dissenter is a kofer, even without any
> >> proof, and no matter of past discussions (where this has been clarified).
> >> How often do you beat your wife? Whether you choose to respond is,
> >> of course, entirely up to you.
>
> > While you are sidestepping the 13 Ikkarim issue, in this issue I am not
> > accusing you c"v of Kefirah - I am merely stating that you are wrong! :-)
>
>Me
>Fine. I am not sidestepping the 13 ikkarim - I actually believe in 14
>ikkarim - the 13, and another one (which is explicit in the rambam brought
>below) - that ki hi chochmatchem uvinatchem means that there is no halachic
>requirement to be a shoteh, and the other 13 ikkarim should be understood,
>as much as possible, so as not to contradict the 14th.
A fine example of Bal Tosif!
As a matter of fact, your 14th ikkar contradicts an explicit mishnah:
"Muttav lee le'heekarei shoteh kol yomai, v'lo lei'asos sha'ah achas rasha
lifnei ha'Makom" (Eduyos 5:6).
Perhaps that mishnah, too, is a guzmah?
>Several sources come to mind. the hakdama to the perush hamishnayot,
>with the discussion about the meaning of hashem having only 4 amot of
>halacha is a good place to start.
A fine place to start! A mama'mar Chazal that is clearly allegorical, has
there is no actual dalet amos shel Halacha, and, therefore, the Rambam
gives it a beautiful and profound explanation.
And from this you want to prove...?
>There is also a specific statement (that is simple pshat) in one of the
>letters of the rambam (I think it occurs in several other places, but
>this one quickly comes to mind, when asked how he could hold a specific
>gemara (which dealt with maasim, but his response is based on quite
>other priniciples)
>
>from a letter to rav Pinchas Hadayan ( the shelat edition of igerot
>harambam, vol 2, p 461)
>
>veeyn baze lo divre kabbala, velo asor velo muttar, velo din min hadinin,
>ulephi cach eyn makshin bahen
>
>the criteria for requiring makshin bahen - ie, that one has to understand
>how they conform to other maamre hazal, is quite explicit.
"Eyn makshin bahen?" This proves something? It means that if you have an
allegory you cannot assume that there is precision in the allegory, and
cannot submit it to the same precision and rigor as an Halachic gemara.
This is elementary - and irrelevant. We are not dealing with allegory. Or,
to put it differently, you have yet to prove that we are dealing with allegory.
I need to get back to the 13 Ikkarim here. From your perspective, my
friend, I am bewildered as to the Ikkarim of, say, Hashem's unity or Bi'as
Moshiach or Techiyas ha'Meisim - most of them, in fact - perhaps all
statements in Tanach and Chazal on these topics are "allegorical," just
like the Mabul ;-) ?
>One can also go to the iggeret of the rambam about gzerat hacochavim
>(shelat edition, vol2, p 488)
>
>my translation
>
>and I know that it is possible that you will search and find some
>statements of individual scholars in the talmud and midrashim, that
>their words show that at the hour of a man's birth the stars will
>cause him this and that. This should not cause you any difficulty,
>that it is not appropriate that a man should leave halacha lemaa'se and
>go after different questions and and answers, and similarly it is not
>appropriate for a man to leave the words of reason that were already
>proven by proofs, and shake his hands from them, and rely on a statement
>of one of the chachamim, that it is possible that he forgot something,
>or that there is in those words a hint (remez), or he said that according
>to the hour and an event that was before him. You should know that there
>are several psukim of the holy torah that are not like their pshat, and
>as it was known with the proofs of reason that it was impossible that
>the thing should be like its pshat, the targum (onkelos) translated it
>a translation that is acceptable to reason. A man should never leave
>his reason behind, that the eyes are in front and not in back.
>
>This seems highly explicit (no separation between aggadic stories and
>outright statements). By the way, note that the simple pshat of the
>rambam is that the psukim that onkelos translates not kipshutam were
>not done because of a tradition that they weren't pshat, but that the
>contradiction to reason mandated a different translation - quite radical).
So irrelevant the mind begins to boggle. Chazal often dismiss astrology
themselves. The leap from there to rejecting a Beraisa in Avos and a Gemara
in BB is one across a yawning chasm.
>I would add several things. First, the statement by rav meir, in addition
>to being (IMHO) guzma, is phrased as a bracha - those who do this will be
>zoche to some things. To translate this bracha into a chiyuv, viewing
>the current leaders as one who are zoche to the bracha, and therefore
>the amcha is required to actualize the bracha is quite radical, and goes
>against simple pshat (even if you don't take it as guzma). Furthermore,
>it is one thing to argue that one who has achieved a certain gadlut
>batorah will and should be consulted on some issues - common sense
>dictates that we consult experts on different issues. It is another to
>argue that venehenin etza vetushia requires us to consult them on all
>issues, and that they achieve expertise in all areas.
No one argued that. You are free to tilt at that windmill if you like, but
it ain't mine.
>Does this mean that a gdolim have "greater insight reaching unto the
>heavens", and therefore should be consulted on all difficult issues? no.
I agree with the latter no! But the gedolim do have "greater insight
reaching unto the heavens." The Torah bestows it upon them, and the Heavens
often then submit to what the Gadol advises.
No credible authority would ever postulate otherwise.
Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb
Go to top.
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:52:13 EDT
From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
Subject: Re: Modern gezeiros
In a message dated 10/22/2002 5:47:21 PM EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Rabbeinu Gershom got the same effect as a latter-day gezeirah by
> instituting charamim. I thought it was because even the Me'or haGolah
> didn't have the authority to make new gezeiros.
I'm not clear about the origin of this thread, so please omit if
irrelevant...
Questoin:
Is the Gra's Cherem against Chassidim equally valid? If not - why not?
Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
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 ]