Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 154

Mon, 02 Aug 2010

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Ira Tick <itick1...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 06:58:57 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] toras hachasiddus


The notion of success as a measure of the validity of Chassidic
hashkafa/halacha is something I've heard often in Chabad circles.

And yes, its quite an interesting method of reasoning.

I would disagree that it is the same means by which Sephardim or Ashkenazim
consider their particular pesika binding on their communities, because I see
the lack of possible dissention arising from theological fidelity to
Chassidus as opposed to fidelity to an academic style or tradition of psak,
or fidelity to a geographical domain.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100801/c70dfdcb/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: ben Simpleton <ben.simple...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 23:23:13 +1000
Subject:
[Avodah] Names of God in foreign languages


Hello

I was learning Hilkhot Sanhedrin 26:3 where the Rambam writes:
"Since cursing by any of the attributes entails the penalty of flogging, it
follows that if one curses by the Names (of God) in any language, he is
subject to flogging, for the name by which the Gentiles refer to God belong
to the category of attributes."

I do not have the Shut Achiezer. Could anyone share with me the reason
the Shut Achiezer considers the Names of God in foreign languages as Names
and not attributes?

Signed,
ben Simpleton.
http://bensimpleton.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100801/2a1ee12e/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:58:50 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19 Letters


The following is from page 66 of Rabbi Eliyahu Klugman's Biography of RSRH.

More than a century after its publication, Reb Shraga Feivel 
Mendlowitz, the first great Torah educator in America, told his 
students, "I cannot understand  how it is possible for an American 
yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100801/79307d22/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: "Chanoch (Ken) Bloom" <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:48:04 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, hashgacha pratit, and


On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 16:01 -0400, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:00:04AM -0500, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
> :> The problem you hit WRT the amendation to Chullin 7b "No one bruises
> :> (or even lifts) a finger down below unless a proclamation is issued from
> :> above" is one I hit chasing a few of RIS's quotes.
> 
> : After looking more extensively into the hebrew word used here "nogef",
> : it seems that the best English translation of this is "strike" (rather
> : than "bruise") which suggests two possible modes of injury. In one mode,
> : an object moves to be in the path of the finger, and the finger hits it.
> : This one clearly comes from Hashem...
> 
> Unless you follow the Rambam, and the person's yedi'ah is insufficient
> to get such levels of HP (hashgachah peratis). But since I don't know
> too many people today who hold like the Rambam on this, I would
> agree. (Just not use the word "clearly".)

Remember, I'm trying to backread Bilvavi's position into the gemara, and
I'm ignoring the Kuzari and Rambam who apparently disagree (and whom
Bilvavi doesn't quote).

> :                                     In the other, it seems that the
> : person is careless and strikes his finger becuase he wasn't paying
> : attention to where it was going. Can we say this is truly under the
> : person's control? If we are to take the Gemara to its logical extreme,
> : perhaps we must say that Hashem takes over and decides where his finger
> : should go when he isn't moving it intentionally.
> 
> This touches on R' Dessler's position that only decisions that require
> a conscious battle are included in bechirah chafshi. Thus, unconscious
> decisions about where one's finger is aren't part of bechirah.

I had understood R' Dessler as placing events involving a person into 3
categories:
      * Bechira
      * Acclimation (which would seem to cover just about anything a
        person's body does that doesn't meet R' Dessler's threshold for
        Bechira.)
      * Hashgacha (things that come from outside the person's body).
I guess I'll have to work on that more.

> To get back to my problem... None of this is actually muchrach from
> the gemara, and we're backreading the position we're associating with
> the Bilvavi back into shas. That's still not what the sefer itself is
> doing -- using the gemara as a proof for the position as though the
> gemara itself were incontravertably saying what he was.

Yes, I admit that I'm backreading (what seems to be) Bilvavi's position
back into the gemara. But AIUI, that's not such an uncommon way to learn
a gemara when you're trying to figure out how a particular rishon or
acharon understands it.

> : Look one chapter earlier, to the Ramchal's introduction, and you will
> : see that lists deveikut as part of a list of other goals that we are
> : able to accomplish in our lifetime.
> 
> And in this paragraph that you quoted "nishtadel lidvoq bo". But that's
> saying that part of a program of sheleimus is trying to cleave to the
> A-lmighty. Not that "all we have in this world" is such closeness. Just
> your words "as part of a list of other goals" is enough to contradict
> the Bilvavi's interpretation.
> 
> Which is why I am not clear on the reason for your whole detour into
> exactly what deveiqus means. It's not so much what is deveiqus as
> much as whether he sees this life's goal in terms of wholeness or
> in terms of closeness (keeping that vague) to Hashem.
> 
> If in a situation where you're forced to choose between davening bekavanah
> or davening earlier but before you have the yishuv hadaas for kavanah,
> would the Ramchal choose connecting to the Almighty, or developing the
> middah of zerizus? We saw this become a pragmatic difference between
> chassidim and misnagdim.
> 
> The Bilvavi portrays the MY as one who would tell you to go for the
> kavanah. The MY himself doesn't look like that to me.

You raise an interesting question here, but it's not the same question
as you asked in your previous message which was  "how can Bilvavi base
himself on MY and say one should strive for deveikut when MY says
deveikut is something that can only be achieved in Olam haBa?" My detour
into what deveikut means is to clarify that the MY says deveikut is
something that can be achieved in Olah haZeh.

But your questions now are worthwhile, specifically:
      * How can Bilvavi say that deveikut is our only goal in Olam
        haZeh, when the Ramchal lists a whole bunch of other things that
        we must work to achieve?
      * If we take it for granted that Bilvavi and MY agree that
        deveikut is our only goal in Olam haZeh, then what does Bilvavi
        find lacking in MY's derech that he has to propose his own
        derech (and present it specifically as the ikkar) to accomplish
        that goal?

(Certainly, however, the use of the techniques Bilvavi describes is not
contradicted by MY, nor by Derech Hashem, since they all agree that
Ahavat Hashem and Yirat Hashem are appropriate goals as part of their
program.)



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 13:39:58 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism"


I have been silent on this so far, hoping that with enough repetition I might figure out what RMB means, but I give up. So I will ask.

R' Micha Berger writes:

> Level 1: Feeling pain. Pain is an input to an animal's psyche.
> It's not an input to a stalk of celery's psyche, because there
> isn't even a psyche to talk about.
>
> Level 2: Feeling the fact that it's feeling pain. This requires
> self-awareness, which in turn is a property of free will. With
> free will, people have their thoughts as inputs to our psyches,
> so that we can adjust our thoughts and decisions. But animals
> don't have free will, they don't have self awareness, so it
> doesn't go to level 2.
>
> There is no level 3. Level 2, self-awareness, is the ability to
> look at oneself. ...
> An animal's pain doesn't rise to a level of suffering. Our needs
> are therefore qualitatively different than theirs.

Here is my understanding of what you claim:

Celery can be injured, but it cannot feel pain. It never thinks, "Ow, that
hurts," because it cannot think. An animal can feel pain and think, "Ow,
that hurts." But it is not self-aware, and cannot think, "I am in pain", or
"I like it better when I am not in pain", or "I hope someone will help me."
The most it can do is find the source of the pain and try to remove it.

Am I correct? If so, what do you mean by "An animal's pain doesn't rise to a level of suffering." Why doesn't "That hurts" meet your definition of "suffering"?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:59:58 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism"


On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 01:39:58PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: > Level 1: Feeling pain. Pain is an input to an animal's psyche.
: > It's not an input to a stalk of celery's psyche, because there
: > isn't even a psyche to talk about.

: > Level 2: Feeling the fact that it's feeling pain. This requires
: > self-awareness, which in turn is a property of free will. With
: > free will, people have their thoughts as inputs to our psyches,
: > so that we can adjust our thoughts and decisions. But animals
: > don't have free will, they don't have self awareness, so it
: > doesn't go to level 2.
...
: Here is my understanding of what you claim:

: Celery can be injured, but it cannot feel pain. It never thinks, "Ow,
: that hurts," because it cannot think. An animal can feel pain and think,
: "Ow, that hurts." But it is not self-aware, and cannot think, "I am in
: pain", or "I like it better when I am not in pain", or "I hope someone
: will help me." The most it can do is find the source of the pain and
: try to remove it.

: Am I correct? If so, what do you mean by "An animal's pain doesn't rise
: to a level of suffering." Why doesn't "That hurts" meet your definition of
: "suffering"?

I used the word suffering for the level 2 experience just to have "pain"
and "suffering" as distinct terms.

Someone could be asleep and avoid a source of pain. Pain doesn't require
consciousness. Suffering does.

For an animl, there is no "I". We can't really picture what it's like to
think like an animal does. "That hurts, so I should get away from it"
is a possible thought, but "I am hurting" is not. They are somewhere
between a sleeping person and one who is conscious. Recall that I am
saying that a lack of free will implies they feel pain, but they are not
conscious of feeling pain -- that in fact the entire concept of animal
consciousness isn't what you or I experience.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:09:56 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


R' YL:
The following is from page 66 of Rabbi Eliyahu Klugman's Biography of RSRH. 

More than a century after its publication, Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, the
first great Torah educator in America, told his students, "I cannot
understand how it is possible for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish
without The Nineteen Letters."
-------------


Nineteen Letters to be Jewish; he was saying that he didn't understand _how_
they remained Jewish even though they didn't read the Nineteen letters. That
they _did_ stay Jewish, even though they did not read that estimable work,
was not in question. In RSFM son's and son-in-law's Yeshiva, TTBOMK, the
Nineteen Letters were not studied (certainly not in my years there), nor
were any other of R' SRH's works.

KT,
MYG




Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 04:12:52 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


At 08:09 PM 8/1/2010, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
>R' SFM wasn't saying that every American Yeshiva student needs to read the
>Nineteen Letters to be Jewish; he was saying that he didn't understand _how_
>they remained Jewish even though they didn't read the Nineteen letters. That
>they _did_ stay Jewish, even though they did not read that estimable work,
>was not in question. In RSFM son's and son-in-law's Yeshiva, TTBOMK, the
>Nineteen Letters were not studied (certainly not in my years there), nor
>were any other of R' SRH's works.

First of all, what does TTBOMK stand for? Secondly, it appears that
his son and son-in-law did not follow in his derech! The following is
from his bio, pages 37-38:

He was alive to every facet of genuine Torah expression. "Some souls,"
he used to say, "drink from Tanya. Others from the Ramchal. Still others
from Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch. I drink from all of them, though at any
given time, I might drink from one in particular." He had the genius
to draw from every strand of authentic Jewish thought, to place those
various strands in relation to one another, and to see each of them as
simply another path to knowledge and service of the Divine. Who else could
have used the works of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to explain a difficult
passage in a classic chassidic work such as Tanya, or vice versa.

Having concluded that a comprehensive grounding in traditional Jewish
thought was an indispensable weapon in his upcoming battle, Reb Shraga
Feivel did not study the classic texts in isolation. His analytic mind
probed the differences in terminology and presentation between the
various presentations of Torah Judaism, which sometimes obscured the
much larger areas of agreement.

For the impending battle, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch became the
model. Rabbi Hirsch's success in arresting the rush to Reform in Germany
served as an example of what one man could do. Rabbi Hirsch's ability to
speak the language of modem man - the product of the Enlightenment and
the scientific worldview - while remaining entirely rooted in classic
Jewish sources and thought, was something Reb Shraga Feivel explicitly
sought to emulate. Rabbi Hirsch had not been intimidated by 19th-century
thought or the rapid advance of science in his day, and neither would Reb
Shraga Feivel shy away from the challenges of the 20th century. Having
identified Rabbi Hirsch as one of the exemplars of what he hoped to
achieve in life, Reb Shraga Feivel pored over his vast corpus of writings.

Yitzchok Levine 



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 13:17:11 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


TTBOMK means to the best of my knowledge and if they didn't follow in their
father's path, that is fine.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
>
> First of all, what does TTBOMK stand for? Secondly, it appears that
> his son and son-in-law did not follow in his derech! The following is
> from his bio, pages 37-38:
>




Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Akiva Blum" <yda...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:11:43 +0300
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


 
> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Prof. Levine
> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 11:13 AM
> 
> At 08:09 PM 8/1/2010, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> In RSFM son's and son-in-law's Yeshiva, 
> TTBOMK, the
> >Nineteen Letters were not studied (certainly not in my years 
> there), nor
> >were any other of R' SRH's works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Secondly, it appears that
> his son and son-in-law did not follow in his derech! 

RSFM may have wished that everyone study these works, and certainly felt that
every individual has an approach that speaks to him more than others. However,
as an educational approach it may not be practical, indeed possible, to give
each student the full range of options.
Did RSFM teach fully all these approaches? Do his son and SIL need to, or can?

Akiva




Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 07:54:11 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


At 07:17 AM 8/2/2010, Ben Waxman wrote:
>TTBOMK means to the best of my knowledge and if they didn't follow in their
>father's path, that is fine.

Really, this is fine!!!!  What happened to mesora? Is it to be 
ignored and simply cast aside?

And here I thought that Yahadus was based on following one's mesora.  YL


>Ben
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
> >
> > First of all, what does TTBOMK stand for? Secondly, it appears that
> > his son and son-in-law did not follow in his derech! The following is
> > from his bio, pages 37-38:
> >

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100802/2033e047/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:10:05 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


We aren't robots. Yes we have mesorah, but what is someone to do when he
sees that his father's ways don't do it for him, and at the same time, he
is attracted to a different path?

In addition we have a long tradition of sons rejecting their father's mesorah and no one questioned their right to do so.

Ben


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prof. Levine 


  Really, this is fine!!!!  What happened to mesora? Is it to be ignored and simply cast aside?

  And here I thought that Yahadus was based on following one's mesora.  YL 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100802/4d3ab728/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 09:29:22 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


At 09:10 AM 8/2/2010, Ben Waxman wrote:
>We aren't robots. Yes we have mesorah, but what is someone to do 
>when he sees that his father's ways don't do it for him, and at the 
>same time, he is attracted to a different path?


I believe the Reb Moshe has a teshuva in which he says that one can 
switch from Nusach Sefard (not the oriental Sefard, but the Sefard 
that the Chassidim introduced) to Ashkenaz, because virtually 
everyone in Europe davened Ashkenaz originally until the advent of 
Chassidus.  I am not sure, but I doubt that he would approve of 
someone who davens Ashkenaz switching to Sefard.

Rabbi B. Hamburger gave a talk in which he emphasized the importance 
of putting tefillin on during Chol Moed. This is the Ashkenaz minhag.

So it seems to me that one cannot cavalierly switch.

Anyway, we are talking here of studying the writings of RSRH. How can 
anyone be against this or say that this does not "do it for him"?

>
>In addition we have a long tradition of sons rejecting their 
>father's mesorah and no one questioned their right to do so.

This statement is not, IMO, true. When the Chassidim rejected the 
mesora of their fathers, they were strongly criticized by many 
gedolim. Indeed, one of the reasons why they were put in Charem was 
because they changed from the Nusach of their fathers.

>
>Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100802/6fe93f82/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:00:10 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


I never said "cavalierly switch" and I have no reason to believe that Rav
Mendlowitz's sons changed their path without putting thought into it.

Anyway, there is a difference between switching minhag and switching
hashkafa.

There are some texts, like Rashi on the Torah, which really have to be
learned by everyone. I don't think that that applies to Rav Hirsch's books.

Ben

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Prof. Levine



So it seems to me that one cannot cavalierly switch.

Anyway, we are talking here of studying the writings of RSRH. How can anyone
be against this or say that this does not "do it for him"?




Go to top.

Message: 15
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 11:15:49 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19




I believe the Reb Moshe has a teshuva in which he says that one can switch
from Nusach Sefard (not the oriental Sefard, but the Sefard that the
Chassidim introduced) to Ashkenaz, because virtually everyone in Europe
davened Ashkenaz originally until the advent of Chassidus.  I am not sure,
but I doubt that he would approve of someone who davens Ashkenaz switching
to Sefard.

 ================
And R'OY has a tshuva that allows a one way switch the other way.
Go figure.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100802/ddf8d873/attachment.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 16
From: "Prof. Levine" <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:26:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


At 12:00 PM 8/2/2010, Ben Waxman wrote:
>There are some texts, like Rashi on the Torah, which really have to be
>learned by everyone. I don't think that that applies to Rav Hirsch's books.

Well, here is my opinion, for what it is worth. If one wants to 
understand what Yahadus is really about, then one should study the 
writings of RSRH. I have met people who know a great deal of gemara, 
halacha, etc. but do not have an in depth understanding of 
Yahadus.  IMO it is because they have not studied RSRH's Collected 
Writings, commentary on the Chumash, on Tehillim, etc.

YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100802/a700bd9e/attachment.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:30:21 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Reb Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz on RSRH's 19


And there are those who say the exact words regarding Tanya, Rav Kook, the writings of Rav Wasserman, etc. 

The disccussion very quickly dissolves into one of "al ta'am v'reiach, ein l'hitvakeiach".

Ben
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Prof. Levine 


  Well, here is my opinion, for what it is worth. If one wants to
  understand what Yahadus is really about, then one should study the
  writings of RSRH. I have met people who know a great deal of gemara,
  halacha, etc. but do not have an in depth understanding of Yahadus.  IMO
  it is because they have not studied RSRH's Collected Writings, commentary
  on the Chumash, on Tehillim, etc. 

  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100802/217ff49d/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 154
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >