Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 15

Thu, 05 Apr 2012

• 1. Re: Taam Matza vs Zerizin Makdimin (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Zev Sero)
• 3. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach: Is Tap Water Chametz On Pesach? (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Korban Pesach and Kashrut (Lisa Liel)
• 5. Re: Korban Pesach and Kashrut (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Stopping saying V'sain Tal Umattar (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: ret: costa concordia - and Specialization (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: hilchot Pesach (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: torah and mada conference (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Taamei haMitzvos (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Theoretical and Real Shiurim (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Taamei haMitzvos (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: ret: costa concordia - and Specialization (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: ret: costa concordia - and Specialization (Micha Berger)

On 4/04/2012 11:53 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> Does anyone know where I can find a discussion on why we have to have the /taam korban pesach/ stay with us at the end of the /seder/?

While we're at it, can someone explain how we still have taam matzah,
and must not drink so as not to wash it away, after we've drunk two
more kosos.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 4/04/2012 11:15 AM, Micha Berger wrote [quoting RDBannet from Apr 2000
-micha]:
>      I have lived through an era of change. I remember when the kazayit
>      was given as 1/3 of a machine matza. A few years later it was up to
>      1/2 matza. Today, or rather the last few times I heard, it seems to
>      have stabilized at one whole machine matza.

Unstated assumption: that the size and thickness of machine matzos
has not gone down in that time.  That may be a fair assumption, but
it should be stated.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

Please see http://revach.net/article.php?id=3561

I came across this video of a school demonstrating Korban Pesach for the 
students.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfew7q8Fd8k

And it made me wonder.  If I understand correctly, the chavurah has to 
get together with an animal prior to Pesach.  So what happens if they 
schect the animal and it isn't kosher?  Are they allowed to have backup 
animals?  Do they just miss Korban Pesach that year?  How would this 
work in practice?

Thanks,
Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120404/26986115/attachment-0001.htm>

If a Pesach was lost, it is replaced during the 4 days. The Y-mi says one
was able to buy an animal the seller had kept an eye on since the 11th.

If the original is found after the replacement was huqdash but before it
is slaughtered, the original is left to graze until it gets a mum, and
then it is sold to by a shelamim. If the original wasn't found until
after shechitah, it is offered as a shelamim (afer formal aqira). That
last bit is the same halakhah for a pesach that was missed during the
hullaballoo of the day, and not found until after sunset.

The subject of temuras pesach is found in Pesachim 96b-97a.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

RLK writes:

>> In Israel, we start saying Mashiv Haruach 2 weeks after Shmini Atzeret to
give the people who made Aliya laRegel an opportunity to return to their
homes.
Why don't we stop saying Mashiv Haruach 2 weeks before Pesach for the same
reason? <<

I changed the title to reflect the question properly.  RSZA  was asked this
when he was a child. His answer (Halichos Shlomo Tefillah 8 footnote
69):  The people returning on Succos had their summer clothes on, and the
people coming for Pesach had their winter clothes handy at home if needed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120405/c11db5c1/attachment-0001.htm>

First, the disclaimer... Recall that I don't think determining the
historical size of the kezayis can create qulos.

We can approximate the volume of Chazal's kezayis from the length of an
ammah as implied by Chizkiyahu's Tunnel and Har haBayis. As I wrote 2
years ago <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n116.shtml#05>, the
tunnel yields 43.75 - 44.4 cm, and markings on Har haBayis at regular
intervals implies an ammah of 43.25cm.

A kezayis is a third of a revi'is, which is 2x2x2.7 etzba'os (10.8 cubic
etzba'os), and each etzba is 1/24 ammah.

Let's take a ballpark number of the amah of an even 44cm, yielding an
etzba of 1.83 cm, or a revi'is of 20 ml. (Given the approximation from
the data, I'm rounding.) A kezayis would be 6.6 cc.

Given the remains of olives found in Masada, and from trees that old
which still bear fruit today, we know that the middle sized breeds of
olive eaten in those days were the suri 2.5-3.5 cc, and the nabali 4-6 cc.

So, both the archeological evidence of the amah and the more
straightforward way of looking at olives, are in the same kind of
ball park, which is a shade larger than R' Chaim Volozhiner's 3 cc,
but much smaller than the next (in size) on RDBannett's list, the
CI's lemaaseh (as per R' Chaim Kanievsky) of 17 cc. RACNaeh at 27cc
is WAY WAY larger.


But to return to my theme:

I really think that the argument has to be halachic, or else we need
to be machmir anyway so as not to violate minhag Yisrael on the range
of accepted pesaqim. No? Accepted halakhah (nispasheit lekhol Yisrael)
creates legal authority. If we could prove that following the pesaq
creates halakhic problems, eg requiring a ciliac to stretch the limits
of his tolerance, or relying on a mistakenly large kezayis for akhilah
on YK, we would have a different discussion.

This question of error in history is much like our discussion of the
alleged abiogenesis of maggots in meat, an error in science. We have
those who explain the din in new terms, who decide the science isn't
what they were really talking about, or the Gra's and RAYKook's shitah
that eliminating one reason to be machmir doesn't prove we eliminated
all the reasons to do so. All lines of reasoning that allows changes
in our understanding of the metzi'us to change halakhah only allow it
lechumerah. Even the saving on Shabbos of a premature baby born in the
8th month follows the general rule to be machmir on piquach nefesh rather
than other dinim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:42:46PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> As is clear from Chazal's uses of both idioms, the notion that it means
>> "do it to save future lives" doesn't fit. So regardless of how you like
>> my answer to your question or not, this understanding is muchrakh.

>> See also the Yad -- Melakhim 10:12

> "Darkei shalom"; what has that got to do with "mishum eivah"?

I said "both idioms".

You also don't mention the bulk of my post... both idioms are used
in contexts in which fear of retribution is unrealistic, eg within a
marriage, father to son, etc...

It's about avoiding hatred because hatred is something to be avoided,
and pursuing peace because peace is a primary value.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:46:11PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> As I've said before, I don't think this is a problem at all, just as I
>>> don't think there's a problem with eating in the queue at the supermarket,
>>> since there is a very strong umdena that the owner doesn't mind. But I
>>> also don't see the problem with adding an explicit stipulation to the
>>> contract, which would surely resolve any safek.

>> Shemirat Shabbat Kehilchato doesnt seem to agree (he gives a case of
>> the Goy giving a present).

> Argument from authority?!  Tell me one reason why it should be a problem.

While we here can only discuss halakhah velo lemaaseh, do to the
limitations of the venue and of many of us, I reiterate what I thought
was obvious last time we reached this point -- Yes, the authority of a
pesaq rests on the acknowledged authority of the poseiq.

Besides if the SSK doesn't seem to agree, isn't the normal response to
check that the SSK seems to be saying the same to you, and if so, to try
to capture why his opinion differs? You're sitting behind a keyboard,
without RSN's beqius, and you think that what seems obvious to you is
necessarily correct? Could you picture me doing the same on-list in
contradicting the LR's position on some point in Qabbalah?

If you wish, however, to simply reframe the thread back to the theoretical
discussion rather than a battle of poseqim, *that* I could understand.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 01:11:02PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Moshe Koppel spoke about his work on finding authors of books - was tested
: first on known works
...
: 6. Dividing the torah into 2 parts yieldedstandard academic  Priest vs
: non-Priest diivision except for the first perek of Beresshit
:     dividing into 3 parts gave Devarim as a a separate author
:     dividing into 4 parts gave no known division

IOW, all they proved was that had the Torah been written by two authors,
that's where it would split. Which is unsurprising, the academics
weren't being arbitrary. Also RMK told me that a certain percentage of
the split between P and E+J is simply due to narrative vs law. It's only
the exceptions to the rule (stories assigned to P and laws assigned to
E or J) that are interesting.

: problems with the method - one needs to specify in advance how many authors
: R. Breuer would explain that G-d speaks in several voices

Why do you need to invoke RMBreuer? Chazal already said the same about
stories that use sheim Havayah vs those that use sheim E-lokus. And that
Devarim is HQBH's version of Moshe Rabbeinu's last teachings, and thus
of a different voice.

I suggested to RMK the reverse experiment -- do the sefarim assigned
to Shemuel or to Ezra or peraqim of Tehillim attibuted to David haMelekh
resemble eachother more than not? When you try to split them, do you
get anything meaningful, or does it end up pretty arbitrary?

...
: Four challenges of Mada to Torah in order of difficulty
...
: 4. Free will, is rain deterministic- prayers for lack of rain and thanks
: for appropriate rain, beracha on eclipse, prayer in general

I don't know how mada touches any of these. IOW, what's the problem to
address?

...
: 2. Re-interpret the Torah - This was the approach of Rambam.

It frustrates me when people say this. The Rambam holds that the two
cannot contradict, that we would never have to REinterpret the Torah. He
instead picks maamarei Chazal, often ones we don't normally see, but
existing interpretations.

:     A modern attempt - murderer has no free will he is punished to save
: society not a  punishment

Again, I don't understand your #4. Who says murderers have no free will?
Or are we talking about punishing a shoteh or a tinoq shenishba?

: Prof. Koslovsky of head of  Psychology at Bar Ilan
: 
: New area of psychology is the impact of brain research -
: effect of drugs on free will
: difference between "mind" and the brain - do actions start with the mind
: telling the brain or does the brain tell the mind what it is doing

Or is the relationship something other than causal? Maybe two different
consequences of the same phenomenon? IOW, the soul is a "beam" of "Or" --
the slice at the "plane" of olam hayetzirah is what we call mind, and the
"slice" at olam ha'asiyah is brain. Now the soul "changes shape". Did the
mind cause a change in the brain, or a brain cause a change in the mind?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For those with faith there are no questions.
mi...@aishdas.org        For those who lack faith there are no answers.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Rav Yaakov of Radzimin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:08:35PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> They [presumably the audience] or mochi lei -- if it's HLMS, what is
>> this talk about not tearing, and if it's so that the seifer Torah doesn't
>> ch"v tear, why is it HLMS? (No answer, the Y-mi moves on to list more
>> halakhos LMS about making sifrei Torah.)

>> So, every HLMS must be a choq?

> See http://3x4.7u.sl.pt

Which lacks real sources. The wiki author only cites maamarei chazal from
which he deduces his points.

But he appears to be saying something quite logical -- we wouldn't call it
HLMS if we could derive it from a pasuq or sevara. It has to do with the
definition of the idiom HLMS, not with taamei hamitzvos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On 5/04/2012 3:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Let's take a ballpark number of the amah of an even 44cm, yielding an
> etzba of 1.83 cm, or a revi'is of 20 ml. (Given the approximation from
> the data, I'm rounding.) A kezayis would be 6.6 cc.

Um, something's gone terribly wrong with that calculation.  An amah
of 44 cm gives a revi'is of 66.55 ml, and thus a beitza of 44.37 cm^3
and a kezayis of either 22.18 cm^3 or 14.79 cm^3, depending on whether
you use 1/2 or a 1/3.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 4/5/2012 2:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> First, the disclaimer... Recall that I don't think determining the
> historical size of the kezayis can create qulos.
>    
 >snip<
> But to return to my theme:
>
> I really think that the argument has to be halachic, or else we need
> to be machmir anyway so as not to violate minhag Yisrael on the range
> of accepted pesaqim. No? Accepted halakhah (nispasheit lekhol Yisrael)
> creates legal authority.
See, I can't agree with that.  Not when it's clearly a mistake.  Not 
when there was clearly a lack of knowledge and a chumra was created for 
the purpose of being super-extra-positively-safe.

If we -- today -- had never seen an olive and were simply using the term 
k'zayit because that's what it says in the Gemara, we'd have to make a 
WAG as to the size of an olive.  Erring on the side of bigger, of 
course.  But we'd do so, as reasonably rational people, knowing and 
expecting that if and when the day came that we were able to establish 
the reality of the situation, that reality would take the place of our 
WAG.  We certainly wouldn't have any kavana to replace the reality with 
our WAG simply because we were, for geographic or economic reasons, 
unable to determine that reality.  Not even if it became the generally 
accepted shiur over time.

Furthermore, there is no universally accepted shiur.  There are 
different shitot.  So how can any of them, or even all of them in the 
aggregate, replace the reality?

If I understand you, you're concerned that changing this thing based on 
real physical evidence could undermine rabbinic authority in general.  
But I think that people are reasonably rational enough to make a 
distinction and to understand that olives simply weren't accessible at 
the time of Rashi.

Again, even given the fact that people like Rashi were miles above us in 
Torah knowledge, that doesn't mean that they were miles above us in all 
knowledge.

Lisa

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 04:13:27PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 5/04/2012 3:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Let's take a ballpark number of the amah of an even 44cm, yielding an
>> etzba of 1.83 cm, or a revi'is of 20 ml. (Given the approximation from
>> the data, I'm rounding.) A kezayis would be 6.6 cc.
>
> Um, something's gone terribly wrong with that calculation.  An amah
> of 44 cm gives a revi'is of 66.55 ml, and thus a beitza of 44.37 cm^3
> and a kezayis of either 22.18 cm^3 or 14.79 cm^3, depending on whether
> you use 1/2 or a 1/3.

Let me do it stepwise:

44 cm/ammah / 24 etzba/amah = 1.3 cm / etzbah
2 x 2 x 2.7 etzbah = 3.67 x 3.67 x 4.95 cm = 19.8 cc
19.8 cc/reviis / 3 reviis/kezayis = 6.6 cc/kezayis.

No, it checks.



On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 03:10:05PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> I really think that the argument has to be halachic, or else we need
>> to be machmir anyway so as not to violate minhag Yisrael on the range
>> of accepted pesaqim. No? Accepted halakhah (nispasheit lekhol Yisrael)
>> creates legal authority.

> See, I can't agree with that.  Not when it's clearly a mistake.  Not  
> when there was clearly a lack of knowledge and a chumra was created for  
> the purpose of being super-extra-positively-safe.

G-d Himself stuck up for R' Eliezer's pesaq on tanur shel achnai. Being
right didn't make his opinion law. Legal process does -- acharei rabim
lehatos.

Notice that this error in understanding what a keli is created an
unnecessary chumerah. Much like erring on the side of overly large
zeisim -- when speaking of a minimum.

...
> Furthermore, there is no universally accepted shiur.  There are  
> different shitot.  So how can any of them, or even all of them in the  
> aggregate, replace the reality?

Halakhah is a legal system. Its predicates are about laws, not reality.

As I wrote in reply to R' David ben Haim's article, "Torah as Real as
It Gets" (sometimes titled, "Kzayit: Rashi Almost Never Saw an Olive")
in The Jewish Press
<http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/kzayit-torah-as-real-as-it-get
s/2012/03/29>:

    Halakhah is not "as real as it gets". There is a difference in kind
    between trying to describe reality, and between defining law. We
    have other cases where law was based on things we currently do not
    believe about reality. E.g. The notion that maggots found within
    meat are kosher because they are produced abiogenetically from the
    meat. Or that one may kill lice on Shabbos, because they too are not
    born through sexual reproduction. Or that one may violate Shabbos
    to save a baby born prematurely in the 7th month, but one born in
    the 8th month isn't going to survive anyway the gemara tells you
    not to violate Shabbos to save it.

    And there are numerous approaches to how to deal with those
    issues. Some reexplain the law using today's understanding. Perhaps
    because the difference between our sages' notion of reality and
    what's really there isn't halachically significant. Others, such as
    the Vilna Gaon and Rav Kook, allow the new scientific knowledge to
    cause new stringency, but not new leniency. But none allow dismissing
    established and accepted law. Simply because generations of widespread
    acceptance creates legal authority.

    Technical knowledge about the size of olives in the classical period
    similarly would have little impact on binding law. Undoing law
    requires proving it is illegal. Not simply that it is superfluous
    or without a meaningful cause. So, for someone for whom more
    than a minimum of matzah would be dangerous (ciliac or other
    gluten intolerance, diabetes), who would thereby be violating laws
    about preserving health, now have grounds for leniency rather than
    stretching their medical limits. Similarly when the error in olive
    size means overestimating how rapidly a sick person would eat on Yom
    Kippur, we may be forced to adjust the top limit. In those cases,
    the error leads to legal flaws.

    The Oral Law is just that oral. Drift was built into the system. We
    aren't preserving facts, we are working a legal process. The issue
    isn't empirical accuracy but legal authority.

And:

    I have a problem with the underlying worldview more than that
    conclusion. There is way too much emphasis being put on science and
    technology. The Torah isn't out to describe the world, it's out to
    describe how to be better people. Empirical facts are being placed
    in an overrated role. To use R' Soloveitchik's typologies, Cognitive
    Man is proving so successful in science, even the Man of Faith is
    expected to be toeing that same line. The Man of Faith, though, is
    redeemed through community. Not personal confrontation with physics.

This is of a peice with my recurring theme that halakhah cares more
about first hand perception than reality, under the assumption that
it's experience, not abstract knowledge that shapes personality and thus
(in RYBS terms) leads to redemption.

Adam I might be an empiricist, Adam II is an existentialist.


I already gave some overly rehashed examples of process being binding
despite the facts:

1- Kosher meat maggots

2- Killing lice of a breed that has no (read: microscopic) eggs on Shabbos

3- 8th month newborns

4- Tanur shel achnai

Here's another:

5- Rambam, Hil' Shemitah veYovel 10:5 says the geonim of EY had a broken
mesorah about which year was shemittah (derabbanban), because the didn't
account for shemittah during bayis I and II. Still, he says their ruling
is binding anyway.

> If I understand you, you're concerned that changing this thing based on  
> real physical evidence could undermine rabbinic authority in general.   

No, I'm saying that the law is binding due to that authority. Not that
it "COULD undermine", but that dismissing the pesaq already crosses that
bridge.

> Again, even given the fact that people like Rashi were miles above us in  
> Torah knowledge, that doesn't mean that they were miles above us in all  
> knowledge.

Not an issue for me. I'm discussing legal authority, not notions of
daas Torah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 5/04/2012 4:22 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 02:08:35PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> >>  They [presumably the audience] or mochi lei -- if it's HLMS, what is
>>> >>  this talk about not tearing, and if it's so that the seifer Torah doesn't
>>> >>  ch"v tear, why is it HLMS? (No answer, the Y-mi moves on to list more
>>> >>  halakhos LMS about making sifrei Torah.)
>>> >>  So, every HLMS must be a choq?

>> >  Seehttp://3x4.7u.sl.pt

> Which lacks real sources. The wiki author only cites maamarei chazal from
> which he deduces his points.

Um, that's the Rambam.

[Oops, didn't notice. You brought me to the middle of a page, I thought
wikipedia, not wkisource. In any case, I'm not the first to make that
complaint about the Rambam. <grin>  -micha]

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On 5/04/2012 3:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I said "both idioms".

But only one is used to justify chilul shabbos.  And every posek until
the 19th century ruled that failure to be mechalel shabbos for the sake
of pikuach nefesh of einom yehudim would *not* produce sufficient eivoh
to justify it.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 04:18:07PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 5/04/2012 3:56 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> I said "both idioms".
>
> But only one is used to justify chilul shabbos.  And every posek until
> the 19th century ruled that failure to be mechalel shabbos for the sake
> of pikuach nefesh of einom yehudim would *not* produce sufficient eivoh
> to justify it.

In this reply, you again ignore my thesis. And the email you're replying
to itself was complaining that you ignored it the first time. Mishum
eivah (and darkhei shalom) are used numerous times in cases where
worries about retribution aren't realistic. It's simply not what the
phrase could possibly mean.

Instead you repeat something to which I already responded. Yes, until
Jews had any hope of life without eivah, no one worried about doing things
to avoid eivah. After Napoleon, mishum eivah became a meaningful concern.

I have no idea you insist your theory about change in metzi'us is more
plausible than mine. It doesn't seem so to me: When people would kill
Jews on any irrational pretense, the fact that they wouldn't think twice
about treating us the same way any day of the week wouldn't mean anything
WRT taking offence if Yehudi doctors ignored sick or wounded nachriim
on Shabbot and YT.

But since you're invoking your sevara as proof, I don't need to argue
which sevara is more likely to have been real. To remove your proof,
I just need to show your sevara isn't necessarily so.

Bekhol zos, I just want to hear why you think mishum eivah means "because
of retribution" WRT hilkhos Shabbos, but in every other sugya in which
it appears it's about simply avoiding enmity as an end in itself. That
was the iqar of what you're trying to argue against.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 15
**************************************

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..."