Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 40

Mon, 08 Feb 2010

• 1. Re: Habituation (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Henry Topas)
• 5. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Davening Outside (was davening in public) (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (Micha Berger)
• 11. Kosher Sushi (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Hilchta Lmishicha (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Looking for sources about Chazal's Ruach Hakodesh (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Halacha vs. Policy - Poll re: Who To Marry (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Mikvah for Geirus/Nidah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 18. Re: Habituation (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

Michael:
> Arukh ha-Shulhan derive a principle of married women specifically
> being required? I'm honestly confused. According to what I've seen,
> the only heter that UN-married women have,is a hergel one. Were it not
> for habituation, unmarried women would have exactly the same requirement
> to cover their hair as married women. Shouldn't hergel apply to married
> women just the same as unmarried women, given that the Gemara and Rambam
> don't distinguish between married and unmarried women?)

I'm fairly certain this was covered in a Das Moshe vs. Das Yehudah thread
many years ago

Simply put -
There are absolute erva's and relative erva's

AIUI - "ufara es Roshah" creates an absolute erva WRT to married [Jewish]
women's hair, with other women - it's subject to hergel.

Reductio ad absurdum

Would we say that a nudist colony - since due to hergel lacks any hirhur -
therefore has
zero laws of tz'nius?
I think not!

What Michael is Saying makes sense in those areas that are based upon
societal norms. But there is an absolute component to erva, too

So AIUI - during qri'as Sh'ma - even tz'nius kol isha is assur. Outside
that context, hergel, dress, inuendo, would be relative factors whether
kol isha is assur or not.

My 2 cents
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 



From:  Zev Sero _zev@sero.name_ (mailto:z...@sero.name) 

> Still,  minhag Yisrael is to daven outside when necessary. I would be
>  surprised to learn no heter exists for the rest of the planet.

The  heter is very simple.  The issur applies only when there is a
safe  house ready to hand in which to daven.   The Magen Avraham  says
"*uposhut* she'ovrei drochim mispalelim basodeh".

-- 
Zev  Sero                       


>>>>>
 
I know we don't pasken from Chumash but at least a supporting pasuk  would 
be "Vayeitzei Yitzchak lasuach basadeh."
 
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100208/106ec5ef/attachment-0001.htm>

 

From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
To: "Daniel Eidensohn"  <yadmo...@012.net.il>,   


> The truth is not this  way. Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 12:7-8)
> states that even though  sexual relations with a non-Jewish maidservant
> is only a rabbinic  prohibition he rules that, "this sin even though
> it is not punished by  capital punishment from the court should not be
> viewed lightly. That is  because there is a loss associated with sexual
> relations with a nonJew  which you don't find in the violation of all
> the other prohibited sexual  relations. [--RDE citing Rambam]

>> My question -- which is  essentially academic -- is this a meta-Halachic
consideration or straight  basic Halachah? <<


KT
RRW 



>>>>>
I do not believe this can possibly be a halachic teshuvah -- IOW it MUST be 
 meta-halachic -- because no true halachic shailah can ever be couched in 
these  terms:  "Rabbi, I have absolutely made up my mind to sin and I want 
you to  tell me which sin to commit, sin A or sin B."  No halachic teshuvah 
could  ever be rendered to any such phoney shailah.  No posek could ever 
pasken  that a Jew should commit a sin.  (He could give advice, but not a  psak.)
 
(A completely different case would be one where a person says, "If I have  
to take a sick child to the hospital on Shabbos, should I do this or should 
I do  that?"  Because there, there is no actual chillul Shabbos since the 
halacha  itself says that pikuach nefesh comes first, and so even if it is 
preferable,  say, to take a taxi rather than drive your own car, the actual 
shailah is not  "What sin should I commit?")
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100208/38ca8efe/attachment-0001.htm>

If a woman enters the mikvah l'tzorech geirus and such t'vilah coincides
with the timing that would normally be required l'tzorech taharas
hamishpocha,  can the same t'vilah serve for both?

 

Cantor Henry Topas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100208/1f3a994b/attachment-0001.htm>

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> I know we don't pasken from Chumash but at least a supporting pasuk 
> would be "Vayeitzei Yitzchak lasuach basadeh."

Tosfos already dealt with that, by saying that even though it was
*called* "sodeh" it wasn't really an open field but Har Hamoriah, which
was an enclosed space.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Henry Topas wrote:
> If a woman enters the mikvah l?tzorech geirus and such t?vilah coincides 
> with the timing that would normally be required l?tzorech taharas 
> hamishpocha,  can the same t?vilah serve for both?

Tevilah doesn't have to be lishmah; if a tamei person falls into a mikveh,
they come out tahor.  She's been in a mikveh, therefore she is not tamei,
therefore she needs do nothing more.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:13:43AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Tevilah doesn't have to be lishmah; if a tamei person falls into a mikveh,
: they come out tahor.  She's been in a mikveh, therefore she is not tamei,
: therefore she needs do nothing more.

Just to fill in the missing words... tevillah for taharah doesn't have
to be lishmah, including tevilah for a nidah. Tevilah for geirus does.
So, if she dunks lesheim geirus, she would be tehorah as well.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 01:11:33AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I do not believe this can possibly be a halachic teshuvah -- IOW it MUST be 
:  meta-halachic -- because no true halachic shailah can ever be couched in 
: these  terms:  "Rabbi, I have absolutely made up my mind to sin and I want 
: you to  tell me which sin to commit, sin A or sin B."  No halachic teshuvah 
: could  ever be rendered to any such phoney shailah...

Isn't that the gemara's concept of "halakhah ve'ein morin kein"? We
do decide which is the less offensive sin, but since we don't want the
decision to lose the aura of "lesser evil" and be accepted by the masses
as appropriate, the LOR tells the person facing this decision quietly.

In the past, I drew a parallel from this to the gap between C's "driving
responsum" and the poseqim who allow people to invite mechallelei Shabbos
to a religious activities even though you know they'll be driving. C
promulgated a public ruling, and the rank and file lost all sense that
driving to synagogue was intended only as a lesser evil to never showing
up at all. Whereas if you make it clear from an unwillingness to discuss
driving that this is a stop-gap temporary measure until hopefully someday
they will choose to observe Shabbos, there are posqim who permit.


Similar to the initial choice between a niddah and a nakhriah, how
about this case:

Someone survives a plane crash in the frozen heights of a mountain. He
has to eat in order to survive. The only available protein is either
pork or those of his passangers who didn't make it. Which should he eat,
lehalakhah? The pork is definitely assur deOraisa, cannibalism is more
complicated.

The Ramban, Raavad, Rashba, Nemuqei Yoseif say that once the blood is
removed, there is no kashrus issue. Perhaps kavod hameis. The blood is
assur derabbanan. The Rosh says the flesh is too. Still, a more minor
issur than the issur deOraisa of a beheimah temei'ah, or the bitul asei
of not burying the meis. The Rambam adds a second bitul aseif of earing
only kosher anmials (Maakhalos Asuros 2:3,3:4). The Rama is the only
one who says it's assur deOraisa (YD 79:1), AFAIK. (The above research
was RGS's <http://www.torah.org/linkedlists/torah-forum/fu/0210.html>.)

Still, would that mean that a true Halakhic Man, whose emotions are
perfectly molded by halakhah, would choose cannibalism over eating pork?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 07:54:08AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: Tosfos already dealt with that, by saying that even though it was
: *called* "sodeh" it wasn't really an open field but Har Hamoriah, which
: was an enclosed space.

Medrash Rabba discusses it as well. Moriah is called a har when Avraham
davens there, a sadeh when Yitzchaq does, and Yaaqov declares it a
bayis.

Clearly the sadeh has more to do with how Yitzchaq related to the place
than the place itself.

I describe RYAAMSKrieger's take on this Medrash (from Divrei Yisrael I)
at http://www.aishdas.org/asp/vayeitzei.shtml :

    ... To Avraham, it was like climbing a mountain. Not everyone can
    climb a mountain, and even then you need favorable conditions --
    rain can wash away the trail, wind can cause landslides. As King
    David wrote, "Who can climb onto the Har of G-d?" Avraham's encounter
    at Moriah was during the akeidah the last of ten challenges he faced
    to get to this point. He had to climb from an environment ignorant
    of G-d, and struggle until he reached the pinacle.

    Yitzchak was able to build from that platform. He didn't need to
    struggle go to some remote inaccessible place. He davened in the
    middle of the sadeh. With no borders, allowing the holiness to
    radiate to the rest of the world.

    Yaacov came to Moriah, and found a bayis. While a sadeh does not
    require that kind of struggle, it is still open to the elements. A
    bayis protects those who enter it.

    We can find these same three kinds of relationships looking at the
    three Batei Mikdosh.

    When Yehoshuah came to the land, after 40 years in the desert, he
    had to conquer it. We went through the struggles of that era, the
    Shoftim, and Shaul before we were ready to build the First Beis
    Hamikdosh. It was the top of the har, high and glorious, but hard to
    reach.

    The problem with the trail up the har is that if you veer even a bit
    from the road of halacha, you are no longer at the peak. ... When we
    couldn't maintain that spiritual height, we plummeted into exile.

    Zerubavel, Yeishua, Nechemia and Ezra regroup to rebuild the Second
    Beis Hamikdosh. ... The elders who saw the second bayis remembered
    the first and cried, only the youth rejoiced. It was a sadeh, not
    as lofty, but there was no struggle to climb.

    As the Jews lost grounding, other nations, the Hellenes, the Romans,
    entered the sadeh. It has no border, no protection... After a while,
    Rome -- whose ancestor Eisav was called in last week's parashah a
    'man of the sadeh', destroyed the Temple, and scattered us.

    The Third Temple, however, will be in Yaacov's mode. It will be a
    bayis, a home, protecting us from the elements... "For My bayis will
    be called a beis tephillah, a house of prayer for all the nations."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:48:46PM -0500, hankman wrote:
: To go off on a slight tangent, I would like to get a clearer idea of
: what exactly constitutes "ideas acquired thru ruach hakodesh"? There seems
: to be an entire continuum of ideas that may come to a person through
: nevuah (chesyon), a malach, bas kol, gilui Eliyahu, ruach hakodesh,
: chalom, sod HaShem el yerai'ov, seyata DiShemaya, and finally "one's
: own" ideas...

The Rambam famously says -- and admittedly most rishonim actively
reject -- that any time we hear of someone seeing a mal'akh, the pasuq
is describing a chazon of nevu'ah.

I would think that even the Ramban et al would consider a conversation
with a mal'akh to be nevu'ah, as in Manoach's words after he and his
wife saw a mal'akh, "mos namus, ki E-lokim ra'inu" (Shofetim 13:22)
Also, the seneh starts out with the call of a mal'akh, and turns into
a conversation with HQBH a pasuaq later.

I would like to propose this chiluq between nevu'ah and ruach haqodesh.

The gemara says that how do we know that Megillas Esther was written
beruach haqodesh (be-RhQ)? The tannaim list things the author couldn't
otherwise have known -- "Vayomer Haman belibo" 6:6, Mordechai knowing
Bigson veSeresh's plot 2:22, that not a single Jew took shalal 9:10
or that literally everyone liked Esther 2:15, qiymu veqiblu -- qiymu
lemaalah mah sheqiblu lematah (9:27) or statements about the eternity
of Purim 9:28. (If you find some of these weak, so did Rava.)

IOW, ruach haqodesh is obtaining knowledge. There is nothing there about
a conscious experience of receiving it. Just that the author wrote
megillas Esther, and post facto it's obvious s/he described things s/he
couldn't have otherwise known.

Unlike nevu'ah which also involves an experience in which the person
has a vision, hears a voice, etc....

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

 From http://www.crcweb.org/kosher_articles/kosher_sushi.php

Kosher Sushi, Not Your Bubby's Gefilte Fish!

By: Rabbi Sholem Fishbane

For the reasons explained above, and the additional reason of Mar'as 
'Ayin (whereby eating kosher food in a non-kosher restaurant, one can 
cause an outsider to believe that it is fine to eat anything in the 
restaurant), one may not eat sushi in a non-kosher restaurant.

See the above URL for the entire article.  YL 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100208/0008d7e2/attachment-0001.htm>

Zev Sero wrote:

> Tevilah doesn't have to be lishmah; if a tamei person falls into a mikveh,
> they come out tahor.  She's been in a mikveh, therefore she is not tamei,
> therefore she needs do nothing more.

PS: Yes, I know, for kodshim it's not like that.  Midrabanan, tevilah
for kodshim requires specific intent.  But AFAIK nidah has no such
requirement; there is no requirement for kedusha, but rather that she
not be tamei, and she isn't.  In any case, even for kodshim, e.g. if the
BHMK were to be built and she needs to bring a korban gerus, there is
no reason to have two separate tevilos; she can have both in mind at
the same time.
 


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

RHT
>> If a woman enters the mikvah l?tzorech geirus and such t?vilah 
>> coincides with the timing that would normally be required l?tzorech 
>> taharas hamishpocha,  can the same t?vilah serve for both?
> RZS:
> Tevilah doesn't have to be lishmah; if a tamei person falls into a 
> mikveh,
> they come out tahor.  She's been in a mikveh, therefore she is not tamei,
> therefore she needs do nothing more.
>
I was hesitant to post about this, because it seems to be a practical 
question, but if we're talking theory why should she need to toveil for 
taharas hamishpacha? Non Jews aren't normally assurah mishum nidda (H. 
Issurei Biah 4:4, Tshuvos HaRadbaz 6:2094), and at the time she becomes 
Jewish she's not in a state of nidda ("the timing that would normally be 
required l?tzorech taharas hamishpocha" is after seven clean days).

David Riceman

On Sun, Feb 07, 2010 at 09:59:19AM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
: R' Joel Rich asked about the Talmud's reluctance to pasken on "Hilchta
: Lmishicha."
: I think that this could be related to the issue of whether we "pasken" in
: matters of aggadeta...

I don't think so. Aggadita is about what is -- detemining truth. Pesaq is
about establishing law. I would rather say that without a real question to
deal with, the authority to say that A is law rather than B simply doesn't
exist. Pesaq defines halakhah, discussion of aggadita tries to discover.

I agree with the following:
: In short, this school of thought says that pesak (in the sense of picking
: between multiple legitimate positions) is a "necessary evil."  Really, "eilu
: ve'eilu divrei Elokim Chayim." but when it comes to practical halachah, for
: the sake of uniformity of practice, we are forced to pick a side.  When this
: concern is not relevant...

But I do not agree with your including aggadita among the list of pesaqim
we don't need to make. I would instead say that the concept of "pesaq"
doesn't apply to aggadita altogether. An aggadic position is a theory
about the reality, or a model of reality that the baal mesorah found a
useful approximation of something we don't/can't entirely grasp.


I see a parallel in the discussion of what to hold like when the shu"t
of R' Yosef Caro disagree with the BY or SA.

Do we hold like the BY, with the argument that RYC was still a rishon
when he wrote it, as opposed to the SA being the start of acharonim?

Do we hold like whichever was written later, given we could determine
when the teshuvah was written? After all, if the SA convinced himself
the first position was in error, shouldn't we?

Do we hold like the teshuvah even if it was written before the SA,
because his teshuvos were written in response to an actual question, and
therefor RYC received extra siyata diShmaya compared to a theoretical
work?

Do we give less authority to the teshuvos than to BY and SA because they
were written with a specific case in mind, and the codes were written
without assumptions about a particular situation that we lack -- and in
fact they were written for us to generalize from?


A real question for those of us who wear blue strings in our tzitzis...
Do the statements of the geonim and rishonim qualify as pesaqim, or do
we assume they were speaking hypothetically as hilkhisa lemishicha, and
they don't have the same authority we normally accord rishonim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> I would think that even the Ramban et al would consider a conversation
> with a mal'akh to be nevu'ah, as in Manoach's words after he and his
> wife saw a mal'akh, "mos namus, ki E-lokim ra'inu" (Shofetim 13:22)
No.  He explicitly mentions the angels' conversation with the 
inhabitants of Sodom as a counterexample.

David Riceman

Micha Berger wrote:

> The Ramban, Raavad, Rashba, Nemuqei Yoseif say that once the blood is
> removed, there is no kashrus issue. Perhaps kavod hameis. The blood is
> assur derabbanan. The Rosh says the flesh is too. Still, a more minor
> issur than the issur deOraisa of a beheimah temei'ah, or the bitul asei
> of not burying the meis. The Rambam adds a second bitul asei of eating
> only kosher anmials (Maakhalos Asuros 2:3,3:4). The Rama is the only
> one who says it's assur deOraisa (YD 79:1), AFAIK.

Huh?  The Ramo is just paskening like the Rambam, that it's a violation
of the asei "et zeh tochlu".



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

Yevamos(45b):The slave of R. Hiyya b. Ammi once made a certain 
idolatress bathe for a matrimonial purpose.28 Said R. Joseph: I could 
declare her to be a legitimate Jewess29 and her daughter30 to be of 
legitimate birth.31 In her case, in accordance with the view of R. Assi; 
for R. Assi said, 'Did she not bathe for the purpose of her 
menstruation'?32 In the case of her daughter, because when an idolater 
or a slave has intercourse with a daughter of an Israelite, the child 
[born of such a union] is legitimate.3


Henry Topas wrote:
>
> If a woman enters the mikvah l'tzorech geirus and such t'vilah 
> coincides with the timing that would normally be required l'tzorech 
> taharas hamishpocha,  can the same t'vilah serve for both?
>
>  
>
> Cantor Henry Topas
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100208/32d8e1ec/attachment-0001.htm>

From the lack of restrictions on doctors, I had concluded that the principle of habituation *is* widely accepted.

but R' Zev Sero corrected me:
> And here's where, AIUI, you go wrong: the heter is not
> habituation but distraction.  He is busy with his work, and
> the context makes him see the person before him not as a
> woman but as an anatomical construction that is either
> functioning or not.  Similarly, a photographer sees a female
> subject not as a woman but as an object to be manipulated so
> as to properly integrate into the composition.

and R' Rich Wolpoe gave another example:
> Watching animals mate is assur because it provokes hirhur
> However, a farmer is allowed to physically mate two animals
> mamash with his hands - because due to the work/tirda he is
> simply too occupied to have hirhurim.
> I don't recall the specific daf 

to which R' David Riceman offered:
> BM 91a, EH 23:3.

Thanks very much, all of you. I stand corrected. The physician's habituation is *not* the only factor which allows him to do these things.

But even so, I think it is still fair to say that these examples all prove
that the acts of touching, seeing, or listening to ervah are not
*inherently* assur. They are assur only when they bring one to hirhur or
hanaah. The only difference between my first guess and these responses, is
in the mitigating circumstances which hold the hirhur/hanaah down to the
zero level.

At weddings, Rav Acha used to carry the kallah on his shoulders, explaining
that she was merely like a wooden beam to him. (Kesubos 17a) Was Rav Acha
*distracted* by Mitzvas Simchas Chasan v'Kallah? Or was there simply an
undeniable reality that he was unaffected by this contact? Either way,
**IF** one can be equally sure of being unaffected by [whatever], then
where is the issur?

Isn't this exactly what the Aruch Hashulchan was referring to in his p'sak
(O"C 75:7) about saying brachos in the presence of a married woman's
uncovered hair? His view clearly seems to be that because we can safely
presume that the average man's hirhur/hanaah will be insignificant,
therefore it becomes mutar for him to say brachos there.

Those who disagree with that Aruch Hashulchan seem to hold that it is
inherently assur for a man to say brachos in the presence of a married
woman's uncovered hair, regardless of his not getting any hirhur/hanaah
from it. How do those poskim justify Rav Acha's contact with the kallah?

I want to stress that I am NOT campaigning for any particular act to be
considered mutar or assur. Quite the contrary, it seems to me that *none*
of these acts are inherently assur or inherently mutar -- they must *all*
be evaluated in light of the norms of the society and the sensitivity of
the individual. If it can be safely presumed that no significant
hirhur/hanaah will result, then it is mutar, else it is assur.

A similar thought appears in "Understanding Tzniut" by Rabbi Yehuda Henkin, on page 95, where he writes:

"As opposed to any touching at all between husband and wife when she is in
a state of niddah, which is explicitly forbidden in the Shulchan Aruch
[Yoreh Deah 195:2...], no such sweeping prohibition of all physical contact
is found in relation to other 'arayot. Thus, while the Shulchan Aruch [Even
ha-Ezer 21:1] forbids numerous forms of interaction with 'arayot including
winks and gestures and pleasurable gazing, simple touching without
intention of affect is not one of them."

In other words, Rabbi Henkin is unaware of any *inherent* issurim in this
area. None of these issurim is *always* in effect. They *all* carry the
stipulation of being in effect *only* when they cause some amount of
hirhur/hanaah.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Click to find the latest solutions to enhance your small business.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=LQ_YDXNhocbGhEFbN5X2UAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 40
**************************************

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..."