Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 052

Wednesday, December 3 2003

• telling the truth
• Re: Tachanun or not
• Re: Differences between Sechel and Da'at
• Re: Tachanun or not
• RE: Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?
• Re: Tachanun or not (apology)
• Re: Wives of Tannaim and Amoraim
• Re: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos
• Mike wants to know, what about Yalta? (gemara wives)
• Re: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos
• Re: nursing and what fathers can do
• Re: Halachic definition of liquid
• REED and the Bechirah Point
• halev immo
• Re: Where there's a Halachic will... ais la'asos
• Re: Molad Marcheshvan
• Re: Musaf
• Re: Avos, Imahos, and Terach
• Re: Islam, Xianity, and Us
• Re: Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?
• Wives of Tannaim and Amoraim
• Re: Avos, Imahos, and Terach
• Berachos 47a
• Re: Do Listerine PocketPaks need a brocho?
• Re: Hashgacha on Milk

In parshat Toldot Yaakov tells his father that he is Esau. Rashi re-interprets
the pasuk so that it is not a lie.

Question - Is Rashi claiming that this is "pshat" in the pasuk or is this
a derash?

On eparsha page I saw uses this as an example that the Torah tells the
lives of the avot as it happened without whitewashing. That in fact Yaakov
was punished by being decieved by Lavan and also his own children about
Yosef. Furthermore, Rivkah was punished by essentially never being mentioned
again. The death of Devorah is mentioned but not that of Rivkah.

Another page claimed Rashi was giving a dieved - if one had to lie than one
should phrase it in a way that could be intrepreted as the truth.

However, both make clear that halachically one could not so such a thing
and use Rashi as a defense in court. Do other's take Rashi as pshat?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

In a message dated 11/28/03 8:47:59 AM EST, zsero@free-market.net writes:
> In any case, you have yet to find a source for supposing that R"Ch has
> `already started' from the molad. I have shown that the M"A is not such
> a source.

Without getting into an argument, we are talking WRT Tachnun, I pointed
to the Taamei Haminhogim who was aware of such a Minhag, so even if
he disagrees with it, it doesn't change the Minhag, it is also obvious
from his quoting of the M"A that some might wnat to understand that as a
source, which he disagrees with, which is exactly my reason for quoting
the M"A and then the Taamei Haminhogim.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

For quite a while, I gazed over at the greener grass of nusach Sephard
when it came to the berachah of Chonen Hada'at. The triad of Chochmah,
Binah and Da'at is classic, expounded variously by the mefarshim, and
finds its "definitive" explication in Tanya. What are we to do with
De'ah Bina v'Haskel?

Upon further investigation, I stumbled upon an explication of the
structure and the terms of the berachah as it is formulated in nusach
Ashkenaz which, to my mind, is equally powerful: albeit it is a drash,
but one that, to my mind, verges on pshat. Here it is:

Adam and Enosh are invoked, both of them having committed serious
transgressions involving misapplication of mind. Adam ate from the tree of
Da'at Tov v'Ra, and Rambam implicates Enosh as well as his generation in
the critical mental error which paves the way for full-blown idolatory.
It's as though the first part of the berachah could also be read as
a lament: You graciously gave Adam Da'at (and look what he did with
it), and you taught Enosh understanding (yet he failed tragically to
understand). In other words, the beginning of human history has those
individuals whose names are used interchangeably for "human being"
(differing nuances not withstanding) fumbling the very gifts which mark
us in the image of Hashem.

Here we are now, then, in the midst of historical time, blessed with
gifts we are almost cursed to misuse. Therefore, we ask Hashem: Graciously
give us FROM YOURSELF Deah, Binah and Haskel. Deah is an allusion to the
verse, "for the earth shall be filled with the knowing (deah) of Hashem
as water covers the sea(basin)" (Yeshayahu 11:9). Of course, this verse
is brought to describe our state of mind (literally) in the end of days.
Haskel, for its part, is an allusion to Yirmiyahu 9:22-23 - Let not the
wise man vaunt himself in his wisdom, nor the mighty man vaunt himself
in his might, nor the rich man vaunt himself in his riches; rather in
this shall one who vaunts himself vaunt himself: Comprehending (haskel -
I'm not satisfied with this translation, but it's late) and Knowing ME
(says Hashem). While the context of this verse is not messianic, the
vision of the person who would achieve such a perfected state is one
which dovetails nicely with the explicit end-of-days scenario around DEAH.
Both the word HASKEL and DEAH are unusual forms of their respective roots,
and the verses I claim they evoke are well-know to practicing Jews with
a basic Jewish education.

Thus, the berachah contain a sweeping vision of the human state of mind:
initial promise wasted and even perverted by characters who are on one
hand transgressors and on the other, those closest to Hashem (there is
a dual attitude toward Enosh - see the mefarshim on Az Huchal, Bereshit
4:26). We, the heirs of endowment of mind so "tzelem elokim"-like in
their initial promise yet so wretched in their application, stand in
the crossroads and beseech Hashem: take our blemished classic mental
endowments and transform them so that they will be at once the tools for
bringing the geulah and the repositories of that light accessed thereby.

And Binah? Not a clue. My scheme above seems to take it as a constant.
Evidently, I've got some some mind-perfecting of my own to do!!

Rav Berachot,
Yehoshua Kahan

In a message dated 12/1/03 4:24:27 PM EST, zsero@free-market.net writes:
> We'd already established that the minhag `exists', i.e. at least one
> person behaves like that, and thinks others should, to the point of
> correcting a chazzan who didn't.  The question is whether it's a
> `valid' minhag, i.e. one with a solid basis, or a minhag shtus.
> So Taamei Haminhagim citing it and saying, in effect, that it is a
> minhag shtus, is not a support for it.  

Saach Hakol the Ta"Ha is a Milakeit this too he is quotes from the
Sefer Dvorim Nechmodim. This does not mean that there are others who
might disagree.

> However he does says ...Nohagin biKtzas Mikomos and hence a little bit more 
> then what you continue saying...
> All it shows is that the zeide of the nudnik who tried to drei (I forget
> who is was; Carl, perhaps?) a kop, tried the same thing on the author
> of T"Hm.

But in any case this approach is one that I wilI not even bother to debate.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

Just another opinion.

The fact that you take them orally is no reason to make a brachah as
there is no hannas grono nor hanaas me'o. It is merely another sort of
mouthwash where the active ingredient dissolves into your saliva. It
would be comparable to any mouth-wash where a trace of the mouth-wash
remains in your mouth although you are spitting out the majority.

I apologize to RZS for not realizing that the previous post that I responded 
to was private.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 22:43:03 GMT remt@juno.com writes:
> Wasn't Yalta the wife of R. Nachman?

Correct, my omission, it was mentioned (including by me when I was
first asked).

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Micha Berger wrote:
>R' Moshe holds that (1) a classroom, being a gathering, requires a
>mechitzah; and yet (2) the subway does not. VIDC?

A classroom is a gathering. The subway is not a gathering but a group of
individuals traveling on the same train.

Gil Student

In a message dated 12/1/2003 5:29:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, T613K writes:
> Rachel wife of Rabbi Akiva (virtually none of the men get this one!)

I guess I am not a virtual man.  What happened to Yalta, I forget whose wife 
she was.

On 28 Nov 2003 at 15:20, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Moshe holds that (1) a classroom, being a gathering, requires a
> mechitzah; and yet (2) the subway does not. VIDC?

 From what I recall, the last time we discussed this, we understood it
based upon the Gemara in Psachim 25-26 regarding (lo) efshar v'(lo)
ka'mechavein. We understood Rav Moshe as saying that the subway was
a necessity to get around and therefore it was "lo efshar" not to use
it. If it's "lo efshar v'lo ka'mechavein" for hana'a, I believe most
poskim would hold that it's mutar.

Therefore, some people wanted to be machmir to understand RMF as saying
not to use the subway unless there was a purpose which would bring into
"lo efshar," i.e. the use was unavoidable. I suppose we could argue about
where to draw the line regarding what use is sufficiently necessary to
bring about "lo efshar" to do without it. Obviously, parnassa would be
such a use, and probably going l'dvar mitzva would be such a use. But
stam for social reasons - now you're getting into a gray area.

As to classrooms, I think it's often possible to arrange in advance
for them not to be mixed - it's not a chance meeting - especially when
there are no goyim present. That's different from the subway, where
you only know that some members of the opposite sex will be present,
but you never know who or why.

-- Carl

On 27 Nov 2003 at 16:27, T613K@aol.com wrote:
> Sleeping in separate rooms is certainly not required; how many people
> in past generations even HAD extra bedrooms they could sleep in if
> they wanted to?

True. OTOH, AIUI the old Sfardi minhag was that the couple had only 
one bed and during nidus the husband slept on the floor! 

-- 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. 

My uneducated and off-the-cuff assumption is that liquids are generally
defined as "tofei'ach al menas le-hatpi'ach" - dripping. If this is
correct, and I'm not sure that it is, then some yogurts would be a solid
and others would be a liquid.

If I spill a La Yogurt on my table it will go all over the place. 
Dannon's will stay in one place, more or less.

Gil Student

The following is an excerpt of something I wrote for a non-O forum.

Rav Dessler notes that many decisions are made preconsciously. The
thief doesn't think about whether or not he ought to steal. If the
need is sufficient, and the risk low, he'll steal. There is no
conscious thought. It's therefore not the subject of bechirah
chafshis, free will (lit: free choice).

Similarly, the virtuous person wouldn't have to consciously fight over
whether or not he ought to take something. The thought would never
cross his mind.

On the subject of ownership and theft, these two people have very
different bechirah points. Very different places at which they would
have to make a conscious decision as to what to do.

Rav Dessler writes that with each decision, the bechirah point shifts.
As the mishnah says, "one mitzvah draws along the next mitzvah; one
sin draws along the next sin". People are shaped by their actions. The
action moves the bechirah point. If today the thief decides not to act
on his desire to have it, it will become easier the next time. The
bechirah point moved somewhat toward the respect for property.

This is consistant with what I wrote last week. Habit shapes middos.
This is because repeated action shifts the bechirah point.

I'm commenting because I couldn't leave Alan's line "The thief is a
thief and that's that" alone without further elaboration. Rav Dessler
isn't assuming that repentence and self-improvement is impossible for
the thief. Rather, that at this moment, the act is so habitual that he
will never stop to think long enough for a repentent thought to hit
him.

If I may go off on a tangent for a moment. Rav Eliyahu E Dessler was a
product of Kelm. Kelm was the first major mussar yeshiva. It stressed
equinimity, perseverance, and the need for slow, steady, meticulous
work toward a goal. The Alter of Kelm, R Simcha Zisl Ziv, said "Yes,
the work is hard. That's why you were given an entire lifetime in
which to do it."

This concept of bechirah point stresses the need for slow and steady
growth. After all, radical change is being portrayed as unlikely,
calling for action in a domain where we aren't likely to make
conscious choices.

I couldn't see it being the product of a student of Novorodok.
Novorodok, while noting the importance of steady gradual change, also
teaches the criticalness of making radical commitments.

Ad kan. On a more lema'aseh note, I replied to a different comment:

> For instance, I might think I watch too much TV
> when I would be better off working.
...
> If I recognize that the inclination to take a TV break
> requires Zero Tolerance I might still have a problem in
> that I have to get myself to tolerate working when I don't
> enjoy it.

> Inotherwords, I have to make the decision to work, not once,
> but over and over again. And when that is necessary, I'm
> bound to fail.

But is such failure total? Just as you note that a continual battle
necessitates that any victory is only partial, isn't the same true of
any failure?

Yes, one's bechirah point may drift back and forth like the line of
scrimmage during a football game.

It will require a strategic decision. The concept of perishus
(separation) is avoiding that which you feel you're too likely to use
destructively. However, that shifts the battle to an all-or-nothing plain.

You need to know for yourself whether catastrophic failure or gradual
failure is more likely for you on this subject, and which is more likely
to cause you to give up. It's easier with a good group of mussar friends,
people who can give you honest help with this kind of decision -- and
from whom you won't take offense when they do.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

<http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BR/bswbbr1906f2.html> in the parrallel
universe that bible scholars live in, a reinterpretation of halev immo
as helev immo, that was rejected by chazal as the author points out.....

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Moshe holds that (1) a classroom, being a gathering, requires a
> mechitzah; and yet (2) the subway does not. VIDC?

Regarding public transportation or walking in public areas See Igros 
Moshe EH I #56 page 143-144; EH II #14 pagge 326; OH I #40 page 100

Concerning men and women  at a meeting YD II #109 page 180, Mixed 
classes at college YD IV #36.15 page 334; social dating EH IV #60 page 119

Problem of women working in office with men OH IV #117 page 208

Regarding separate classroom YD  I # 137 page 277; YD III #78 page 325

The prohibition of the classrooms is apparently initially entirely from 
the din of Chinuch. At older ages additional issues concerning hirhur 
etc arise. There are additional distinctions whether the gatherings are 
because of parnossa or some other necessity or for fun. Problems of 
yichud increase with increased familiarity between male and female 
workers. The issues are not simple and there definitely is change over 
time. For example I heard about 10 years ago in the name of Rav 
Scheinberg that here in Jerusalem single men and women should not be 
invited to the same Shabbos table but that it wasn't such a problem for 
Americans since they were used to talking to women. [could be he has 
since retracted this]  On the other hand I have heard rulings that 
allowed great leniencies in America regarding socializing of singles to 
promote marriage etc.

                Daniel Eidensohn

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 04:12:46PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
..
: If I'm correct in that, the reference seems to have been to note 189:7,
: which is located on pages 8a-8b there. That whole note is about how [RYE]
: rejects the idea that the phases of the moon might somehow influence a
: woman's biology, but he also mentions that even if it *would* have an
: influence, it would be based on the moon's phases as it appears in the
: woman's location, not the moon's phases as it appears elsewhere.

What does that mean? The molad is a single moment, when the moon is
opposite the sun. The discussion is what clock should be used for stating
when that moment is. But its not like the molad is at different moments
based on where the woman is. (We just give the moment different names.)

: In particular, on 8a, four lines from the bottom in my edition, he says
: "The whole calculation of establishing our months and molados is according
: to Eretz Yisrael, because from there comes Torah and establishment of
: the months."

The easternmost point that the Jewish settlement including EY reached
was Alexandria. Which is why I thought it was Alexandria in particular.

...
: Regarding Alexandria: Mah inyan Alexandria etzel Har Sinai? The molados
: can be easily counted back to 8:00:00 AM on Friday of the Creation week.

Now that Seder Olam's dating is commonly accepted, someone calculated
molad tohu based upon some known molad, and therefore we can compute
from that. It's reverse engineered. No details about ma'aseh bereishis
can really be made from molad tohu.

Three reasons for that claim:

1- It's "hachodesh hazeh lakhem". HQBH gave us the starting molad of
that particular Nissan.

2- If molad tohu were the molad given miSinai, Seder Olam could have
taken a huge shortcut in calculating the time between ma'aseh bereishis
and matan Torah.

3- If it were min haShamaim, then how could there be a machloqes tana'im
as to which month ma'aseh bereishis occured within?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 12:50:01PM -0500, Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
: Not BTW. I looked up the Rokeach who says why we mention Mizbeiach on R"C
: is because on R"C the Reshoim are turned over in the fire of Geihinom,
: the Mizbeiach is Michapeir on the fire of Geihinom.

Do you think this is related to the fact that in Parashas Pinechas
(28:15), HQBH calls the sa'ir of the musaf of R"Ch a "chatos Lashem"
which Reish Lakish (Sanhedrin 60b) tells us is a kaparah (keveyachol)
for His diminishing the moon?

See also <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/pinchas.html>. I connect the sun vs
moon to Esav vs Yisra'el, and therefore why it's bedavka a sa'ir.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Thu, Nov 27, 2003 at 11:08:41AM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: And are we so sure that Avraham was the very first of the Patriarchs?
: Perhaps we should back up one generation.

I applaud your pride in our yichus. However, if Yishma'el and Esav
qualify as pesoles, how can Terach qualify as an av -- or even as a
quasi-av? He was an oveid AZ who had a hand in throwing his son into a
kivshan ha'eish. His aborted trip to Canaan aside, just as Esav's kibud
av va'eim wasn't sufficient to give him av status. Also, Terach was not
a ba'al beris, as opposed to "vezacharti es berisi Avraham, ve'af es
berisi Yitzchaq, ve'af es berisi Ya'aqov ezkor..."

...
: Terach started out towards Canaan, but for some reason never completed
: the trip. That doesn't necessarily make him out to be a no-good-nik...

Still, Chazal do portray him that way.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 10:35:48PM -0500, Kenneth G Miller wrote:
: A few weeks ago, R' Micha Berger wrote <<< Moslems only use one sheim,
: and it's middas hadin. Christians, OTOH, use only one untranslated sheim
: (when they use any), and it's middas harachamim. .>>> and R' Gershon
: Dubin added <<< Interesting also that Moslems come from Yishmael, the
: pesoles of middas harachamim, and Christians from Esav, the pesoles of
: middas hadin. >>>

: Similar ideas (couched in terms of chesed and gevurah) from the Bostoner
: Rebbe appear at <http://www.torah.org/learning/hamaayan/5762/toldos.html>.

Only "similar". It's worth chasing the link as the Bostoner Rebbe goes
much further than I do. He also ties it into Friday vs Sunday (and vs
our Shabbos plus a tosefes of each).

-mi

RGD quoted Daf Hakashrus:
: + There are many popular mouthwashes which contain large amounts of
: glycerin which are certainly not "botul" in the product. These mouthwashes
: are swished around the mouth several times and then ejected. The company
: makes no pretense that the glycerin which is used is Kosher. The first
: Taz in Hilchos Taruvos in Siman jwwm [98 GD], as well as all Poskim,
: prohibit ruxht [issur GD] to be swished around in one's mouth.

Does RYBelsky also require a hechsher on both toothpaste and the polish
your dentist uses?

In any case, I looked up the Ta"z. The first Ta"z on YD 98 is about the
word being "cheilev" not "chalav" in "cheilev shenis'areiv bebasar".
They meant the 2nd. However, there that Ta"z concludes that the need
to have a non-Jew taste meat to determine if it was mal'uach is because
it can only be determined be'achilah mamash. That had it been belashon,
we would be meiqil as we are in O"Ch WRT taanis.

Also, the only consensus I found in that Taz has to do with the grounds
for ne'emanus for the nachri.

The following paragraph is unfair:
: When asked why they do not use a mouthwash which contains no glycerin
: or flavours or one under a reliable Hechsher they respond because they
: have a need to "feel more refreshed". This response clearly indicates
: that the non-certified mouthwash is certainly considered a tasty food
: product which is definitely not [nifsal me'achila GD]

"They respond"? Did the writers of this daf actually survey users?
Me, I use antiseptic mouth wash because my dentist said it was either
that or my gingivitus progressing until ch"v I could suffer bone loss.

It's also not a "tasty food product" since they'll equally tell you
they would never swallow it.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> The tally (in no order):
...

add Yaltha wife of Rav Nachman

Elozor Reich

On 3 Dec 2003 at 1:52, Micha Berger wrote:
>: Terach started out towards Canaan, but for some reason never completed
>: the trip. That doesn't necessarily make him out to be a no-good-nik...

> Still, Chazal do portray him that way.

Until the last sentence, I agreed with everything you wrote. 

But Chazal don't portray him as a 'no-good-nik'. Rashi on "v'Atta 
Tavo El Avosecha b'Shalom" (Breishis 15) says that Terach did tshuva, 
because otherwise this would not have been a bracha. 

-- Carl

The Gemara there quotes a beraisa about 3 kinds of amen: "Chatufa",
"Ketufa", "Yesoma", and ends off with "Ve'al yizrok beracha mipiv."

Why does the beraisa mix the last statement about beracha with the 3
about amen?

Then the beraisa continues by quoting Ben Azai: Someone who says an amen
yesoma will be punished by having his children yesomim. Someone who says
an amen chatufa, yischatfu yamav, an amen katufa, yiskatfu yamav

(side question 1-what's the difference between yischatfu and yiskatfu;
really what does yischatfu yamav mean. I assume yiskatfu means they'll
be cut short)

then, someone who says a long amen will have long years. Here, the
Gemara sticks to talking about amen rather than talking about zorek
beracha mipiv.

Side question 2-Why is the order of improper amanim changed?

My suggestion: the "al yizrok beracha mipiv" refers to a fourth kind
of improper amen, the opposite of which is an amen arucha. I'm not sure
what exactly that is, but it seems that the parallelism between the tana
kama and Ben Azzai requires that.

Any help would be appreciated; here's the amud:
<http://www.e-daf.com/Berachos/47a.gif>

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

<delurking>
RGDubin quoted Rav Belsky as being machmir regarding mouthwashes
containing glycerin. However, the same OU publication
(<http://www.ou.org/pdf/daf/5764/Daf%2012-2.pdf>) which contains a summary
of Rav Belsky's words also (on p. 5) contains a tshuvah from Rav Hershel
Schachter which comes to the opposite conclusion--because there's no
achshivei here. RHS does say that it's praiseworthy to obtain a product
with a hechsher.

The Daf HaKashrus quotes Rav Belsky as saying:
> When asked why they do not use a mouthwash which contains no glycerin
> or flavours or one under a reliable Hechsher they respond because they
> have a need to "feel more refreshed". This response clearly indicates
> that the non-certified mouthwash is certainly considered a tasty food
> product which is definitely not vkhftn kxpb [nifsal me'achila GD]

My own view is that they believe that their mouth will be fresher because
the freshening agents are more active than those found in a frum no-name
brand, not that they consider this a tasty food product. Also, Listerine
Antiseptic mouthwash (<http://www.oral-care.com/conaffairs/listerine.shtml>)
actually kills germs which cause plaque and gingivitis; most mouthwashes
don't do this.

<back to lurk mode>

Kol tuv,
Moshe

bdcohen@optonline.net wrote [to Avreivim, about "chalav hacompanies" -mi]:
<<My question is from a halachic point of view: since there is some
type of plant hashgacha, could there be put in place a simple system
(chemical sampling as I indicated earlier) that would resolve the chalav
hacompanies/chalav yisroel issue? Or are there other factors that would
still require chalav yisrael milk? >>

This is the crux (sorry, R' Micha) of Rav Moshe's teshuva-he held that the
knowledge that the FDA would keep the companies from mixing in nonkosher
milk was sufficient to render it cholov yisrael; say Grade B as compared
to the traditional yisrael ro'ehu.

Those who disagreed (lehalacha, not mishum chumra) held that yisrael
ro'ehu cannot be replaced by any other "knowledge", be it chemical tests
or mirsas of the FDA.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

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


[ 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         ]