Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 154

Fri, 30 Aug 2013

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 14:41:16 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] self defense against rape or assault / stand


On 27/08/2013 9:07 AM, M Cohen wrote:
> I was asked if one halachically allowed to kill an attacker to save
> yourself from being raped or beaten? (rape question is where the
> victim is not married and the posukim of na?arah m?orasah don?t
> apply)

In the original case of ba bamachteres, the burglar's immediate intention
is *not* to kill the residents.  All he wants is to steal whatever he can
find in the home, and he would prefer that the residents sleep through the
whole thing and suffer no injury.  So why is one allowed to kill him?
Because he knows that *if* the householder wakes up and discovers him he
is likely to resist, and he is likely to be prepared to anticipate such
resistance with deadly force.  He will have planned this in advance, and
will have provided himself with the means to kill if necessary.  Now of
course this is not true in all cases, but the Torah tells us that it's
common enough that a householder who surprises a burglar is entitled to
*assume* the burglar is now a deadly danger, unless it's clear as day that
he is not.

It seems to me that the same is true of one who sets out to beat or rape
someone; he must have known in advance that his victim is likely to resist,
and to have planned what to do in the case of such resistance.   And in at
least a large number of cases, his plan will be to respond with deadly force,
so one should assume this is the case of any assaulter or rapist unless it's
clear as day that this specific one is not.

In addition to the above, perhaps one can draw an analogy from hilchos
Shabbos, where it's permitted to break Shabbos not only to literally save
ones life but also to save a significant body part (hatzolas eiver).  By
the same principle, it should be permitted to kill someone in order to
prevent him from inflicting sakanas eiver, not just sakanas nefashos.
(Bear in mind that in the ranking of averos, chilul Shabbos is a worse sin
than murder.)

In the case of an attempt to rape an unmarried woman, who is not a niddah,
by a man unrelated to her, perhaps one can draw an analogy from this case
mechon-mamre.org/i/1105.htm#12  Since he is expected to be moser nefesh
rather than commit this avera, perhaps the same reasoning entitles her to
defend herself at the cost of his life.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan



Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 19:41:38 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] kibud av ve-am


R' Eli Turkel wrote (and others wrote similarly):
> The problem is the kids asking for something from the parents
> that makes them into a "shaliach"
> i.e. pass the salt or for an Israeli "bring us something from
> the States"

I'd like to suggest that this is a good example of how halacha gets distorted by not having the focus in the right place.

Hashem does not want us to suffer by eating tasteless bread. Rather, He
wants us to aspire to the level where we don't want to bother our parents,
even for trivial requests, and certainly not for big requests. "Yes, I
would like that thing. But asking my parent for it is too high a price to
pay. I really do not want it *that* much."

The key is SINCERITY. This will not work if the child harbors even a
mashehu of resentment, because (if) the parent senses it, and then the
parent will feel bad because he was the cause of his child's pain. But if
the child can GENUINELY want to not bother the parent, that is real Kibud
Av.

[This post does NOT address the situation of a child who is not yet on such a level, and *would* harbor resentment.]

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Weird Trick
Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/521d01437950e143061dst01vuc



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Joseph Kaplan" <jkap...@tenzerlunin.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 15:51:06 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] kibud av ve-am


"The problem is the kids asking for something from the parents that makes
them into a "shaliach"

i.e. pass the salt or for an Israeli "bring us something from the States.""

 

I've always assumed, and still assume, that seichel has at least some role
to play in halacha.  As long as my kids say "please," they can ask me to
pass them anything.  In fact, they can ask me to do anything as long as they
do so politely.  I, of course, always have the option to say "no" (politely
too, of course).  Who could possibly think that this type of normal
communication and interaction between parents and children are an indication
of a lack of kavod for their parents?

 

Joseph 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20130827/8070c8ca/attachment.html>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:52:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] kibud av ve-am


I see people here answering the opposite question I would.

Yes, one has to do what's sane rather than apply textual halakhah to
the detriment of raising one's child to be an observant Jew and having
a managable household.

But what about the reverse? Since the texts couldn't possibly be mandating
a home structure that would neither work day-to-day nor produce good
chinukh, what /do/ they mean?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:14:14 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 04:08:28AM +0000, shalomy...@comcast.net wrote:
: In Mishneh Torah Melachim uMilchamot 11, the Rambam writes that if a
: ruler arises and he isn't successful in building the mikdash and
: gathering the exiles, or he dies, then he isn't the Moshiach, and
: "HKB"H caused him to arise only to test the many".

I think it's "if he didn't succeed [before dying] or if he was killed
[even though he did succeed in everying else]." After all, until his
petirah, we can't rule out his succeeding at leading Jews to Torah and
upholding all its halakhos, fighting Hashem's battles, creating a global
Pax Judeicus, building the bayis shelishi and qibutz goliyos. So that's
the death case, and the other possibility that would rule out a possible
mashiach is "o neherag", not "o meis".

: But what, according to Rambam, is passing the test?

I think it's evidently your third possibility -- following him when
the halakhah says we should assume he's mashiach, and not treating him
as kind when it says we can rule out that assumption.

More on why I conclude that below in my response to Lisa's email.


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:18:43AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I think that's going too far.  I don't think there's anything here about  
> a "claim".  A leader of the Jews is supposed to do certain things.  If  
> he does the first part of those things, *we*, rather than he, determine  
> that those actions made him presumptive Mashiach.  If we don't make that  
> determination...

If I may play logician... The predicate is "he is mashiach". We don't
determine the truth of the predicate "he is bechezqas mashiach", we have
a chazaqah that the predicate "he is mashiach" is true. In the Rambam's
words (Melakhim 11:4), "harei zeh bechazaqas shehu moshiach".

I think this distinction is more than just in wording, which goes to the
original question. It's not that anyone ceased being a "chezqas mashiach"
if he dies with the job incomplete, it's that we change our assumptions
about which halakhos apply to our relationship with him.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar



Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:28:59 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] The Compelling Contrast


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 05:01:57PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: The question has been asked why in the sh'ma, the word "l'vovcho" is
: spelled with two "baises." The correct spelling would be with one "bais."
: The brilliant explanation is that we serve G-d with both the yetzer tov
: and the yetzer (ha)ra.

This works in the siddur in general.

Another example: "Vetheir libeinu" -- one beis -- "beSorasekha, vedabeiq
libeinu" -- again one beis -- "bemitzvosekha." But then "veyacheid
levaveinu" -- the heart that is torn between two yetzarim has two veis'es.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:15:34 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Why does it matter who blows the shofar?


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 02:12:33PM +1000, Joe Slater wrote:
: We need to hear the cry of a child, but it makes a difference whether it's
: our child (or indeed a child at all)...

This is a beautiful pshetl but I don't see the halachic angle to the
argument.

If the shofar is not a decar mitzvah because it's once removed from
the actual mitzvah, which is the qol, then the person blowing is twice
removed...

However, it's not entirely true that the shofar doesn't matter. A cow
horn is invalid for a few reasons, one of which is ein qeteigar na'asah
saneifar. The shofar's /history/ doesn't matter, but the shofar itself
does.


Tangent: The idiom "mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira" doesn't exist in the Y-mi.
Instead the reason why a lulav hagazul is pasul is "shena'asah saneiguro
qateiguro" (Sukkah 3:1, vilna 12a). This nicely addresses one of the
differences between mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira and asei dokheh lav -- the
former is a pesul in the cheftza, the latter is a matir for the pe'ulah.

But here is raises a question.... If mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveira is a kind
of ein qateigor, then why is a shofar that itself was actually stolen
more kosher than a cow horn that just historically relates to the eigel?

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



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 18:28:11 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Chilul Hasheim, Mitzvos and Aveiros


On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 08:18:19AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
:>: No. It has been previously pointed out on one or both of the lists,
:>: that regardless of the revulsion a mitzva causes in either the eyes of
:>: jews/goyim, it can't be a chillul hashem by definition...

:> This was asserted, not proven from sources. By taking it as a given
:> we're presuming our conclusion.

: you make  it  sound like it's an unreasonable assertion.  but how
: could it be anyother way?
: forget chumras...

But I'm saying the assertion is unreasonable BECAUSE it implies we should
include chumeros among the things that could never be a chilul hasheim
by definition!

I would think that if there is a relatively clearechoice between right
and wrong, anyone who thinks less of you for choosing right isn't
being turned off to HQBH and His Torah but are responding /because/
of already-existing disengagement with His values.

Wheread if someone has two ways to pasqen, the fact that choice A means
that people will not quite be saying "berikh shemei deH' E-laka deYisrael"
adds weight to choosing B. By being machmir in some mitzvah maasis he
is meiqil in what is often the far more significant mitzvah. And that
choice of one's own spiritual rite over bringing more people closer to
the "agudah akhas la'asos retzon[o]" could (depending upon the situation)
itself be a perversion of HQBH's Torah and a chilul hasheim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas haOlam



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 01:59:11 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] self defense against rape or assault


R' Mordechai Cohen asked:

>> I was asked if one halachically allowed to kill an attacker to save yourself from being raped or beaten?
>> ...
>> Perhaps this is only theoretical because practically (except for father on child) one can assume that they may try to kill as per Bah b'machteres?

I don't understand why you're distinguishing between theory and practice.
How would it be possible for someone to beat me in a manner which would not
cause me to be justifiably afraid for my life?

I can't imagine this in a rape case either. "Even" if the threat of
violence is "only" psychological, and not physical, (a) the psychological
factors alone might very well be at a Pikuach Nefesh level, and (b) the
degree of control exercised by the rapist is probably severe enough to make
the victim justifiably afraid for his/her life.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Weird Trick
Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/521d59d9d4bae59d93dc5st04vuc



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: "Kenneth Miller" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 14:17:54 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] self defense against rape or assault


I asked:
> How would it be possible for someone to beat me in a manner
> which would not cause me to be justifiably afraid for my life?

I was not clear enough. I'm not talking about a few punches of the sort
that certain people might shrug off as "teasing" or "bullying" (it being
clearly understood that such punches cannot be condoned in any sense).

I was referring to a situation where the attacker shows no signs of
stopping, and the victim is unable to escape. If the thought of using
deadly force even enters the victim's mind, then he is most likely already
past the point where deadly force would be unjustified or inexcusable. The
victim must not be made to waste time calculating the least objectionable
option. Chayecha kodem.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Weird Trick
Could add $1,000s to Your Social Security Checks! See if you Qualify&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/521e06c0450196c03f17st04vuc



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:40:10 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] self defense against rape or assault


On 28/08/2013 10:17 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:

> I was referring to a situation where the attacker shows no signs of
> stopping, and the victim is unable to escape. If the thought of using
> deadly force even enters the victim's mind, then he is most likely
> already past the point where deadly force would be unjustified or
> inexcusable. The victim must not be made to waste time calculating the
> least objectionable option. Chayecha kodem.

I think that's why the question was posed as it was, as more theoretical
than practical.  Suppose one *could* know -- "as clear as  the day" -- that
the beating one is suffering (or about to suffer) would not result in death.
In principle, would one have to submit to it rather than use deadly force
in ones defence, or (as the civil law of the nations among whom most of us
live provides) may one use deadly force to defend oneself even merely from
grievous bodily harm?

Bear in mind that the example Chazal give for the case where the Torah says
one may not kill a burglar is also a remote hypothetical.  What Chazal are
saying is that in practice one may always kill a burglar, but in principle,
if one were to know "as clear as the day" that he would never try to kill
one, then one may not kill him, and if it's not possible to prevent him from
stealing without using deadly force then one must simply let him steal.  So
the question posed here was whether the same applies to a severe beating or
rape rather than theft; in principle, must one submit to these rather than
use deadly force, and the heter for using deadly force in practise is that
one is afraid for ones life, or may one use deadly force even without such a
fear.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: saul newman <newman...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 11:35:11 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


this interesting discussion lends itself to consideration of the
leader/follower  in the last generation about whom messianic  claims
were/are made .  except  i am not sure  where along in the potential
messiah's claim, sufficient evidence has accrued to make it a viable
*possible*  consideration;  or  a point  * in his lifetime* where it
 becomes no longer possible to accord with the RMBM's codified criteria.
 [meaning that once deceased, having not fulfilled all the criteria
required, he has proven his non-messianic status]....

 if we use  rZS 's  example of  bar kochba [where there is no dissent to
the thesis that he is NOT the messiah]  , was there a chiyuv to follow him,
and believe in him; and at what point did that become assur....

i assume that it is somehow required for the Einei Haeidah to be maskim to
his status, and  by eidah i mean of most camps in Klal Yisrael ...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130828/61917bbd/attachment.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:58:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:35:11AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: if we use  rZS 's  example of  bar kochba [where there is no dissent to
: the thesis that he is NOT the messiah]  , was there a chiyuv to follow him,
: and believe in him; and at what point did that become assur....

I am not sure BK actually was a false messiah. After all, who am I to
question R' Aqiva, R Eliezer, R' Yehoshua, R Elazar b Azaria or R' Tarfon?
Nor could I question the opinion of Rabban Gamliel and the majority of
the Sanhedrin. So I'm agnostic.

Still, it's quite possible that the Divine decision that BK was not the
messiah was caused by our behavior during his leadership.

There are theological problems with saying when HQBH decides something.
However, we do assign a time for decisions, or at least when the effects
of Hashem's decisions are felt in the world, in order to preserve free
will. Hashem judges us for what we did; His actions do not reflect what
we *will* do.

In the same sense, one could say that decision that BK wasn't mashiach
wasn't made until about the time R' Aqiva left the cause. (... the effects
of that Divine Concept weren't felt until ...) And at the time he was
king, he actually was the nascent messiah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 17:16:52 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


On 28/08/2013 4:58 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 11:35:11AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
> : if we use  rZS 's  example of  bar kochba [where there is no dissent to
> : the thesis that he is NOT the messiah]  , was there a chiyuv to follow him,
> : and believe in him; and at what point did that become assur....
>
> I am not sure BK actually was a false messiah.

I don't believe there is such a concept in Judaism as "false messiah".
There is only "actual messiah", and "turned out not to be messiah",
of which -- in the Rambam's shita -- BK is the prime example.  I think
the term "false messiah", with its negative implication, was introduced
by the maskilim.

But the topic of this thread is the Rambam's discussion of those who turned
out not to be the Moshiach, and BK is the specific person he had in mind when
he wrote that paragraph, and indeed the whole chapter.


> In the same sense, one could say that decision that BK wasn't mashiach
> wasn't made until about the time R' Aqiva left the cause.

AFAIK the Rambam doesn't hold that this happened.  His shita is that BK
was killed not because of "his sins", but because of "sins", i.e. those
of the generation which meant they didn't deserve him.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:46:33 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 05:16:52PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> I am not sure BK actually was a false messiah.

> I don't believe there is such a concept in Judaism as "false messiah".
> There is only "actual messiah", and "turned out not to be messiah",
> of which -- in the Rambam's shita -- BK is the prime example.  I think
> the term "false messiah", with its negative implication, was introduced
> by the maskilim.

I'm trying to make a distinction between Bar Kokhva, where the decree from
heaven that he isn't the messiah may not have been until well into his
career, and Shabbatai Tzevi, where I don't think anyone asserts he ever
was an candidate in beis din shel ma'alah's plans.

> But the topic of this thread is the Rambam's discussion of those who turned
> out not to be the Moshiach, and BK is the specific person he had in mind when
> he wrote that paragraph, and indeed the whole chapter.

He says as much in 11:3.

And I'm adding the notion that there is a second sort of safeiq going
on here:

1- we don't know if kelapei shamaya galya this king has any chance of
fulfilling the role of mashiach, but we have to rely on the chazaqah
that someone who did what he did would be;
or
2- even if BD shel maalah put a man into the role and is waiting to see
how we respond, since we don't know the future we are besafeiq and have
to rely on a chazaqah.

The phrase "bechezqas shehu mashiach" (11:4) doesn't imply that BD put
him in the role to later decide whether to let him complete it or not,
it's "merely" a rule of birur since we have a safeiq.

But notice that when the Rambam gives R' Aqiva's assessment of Bar
Koziba it's "hu hayah omer eilav shehu melekh hamoshiach". Not that R'
Aqiva thought he was relying on chazaqah. Oddly, the Rambam says "hu
vekhol chakhmei doro", but we know that Rabban Gamliel and the rov of
the Sanhedrin didn't think BK was mashiach. R' Aqiva's toes didn't have
grass growing between them yet.

...
>> In the same sense, one could say that decision that BK wasn't mashiach
>> wasn't made until about the time R' Aqiva left the cause.

> AFAIK the Rambam doesn't hold that this happened.  His shita is that BK
> was killed not because of "his sins", but because of "sins", i.e. those
> of the generation which meant they didn't deserve him.

I don't think one can mine the Rambam's halakhah book for what he
thought HQBH was planning when. Especially since we're speaking bedavqa
of the Rambam, who would focus on how we can't talk about "when HQBH was
planning" in any literal sense rather than the details of this instance
of the figurative sense (when aspects of HQBH's plans are experienced,
which is necessarily after the events caused by human bechirah that made
those aspacts appropriate).

The above reluctance to use the word chazaqah MIGHT indicate that the
Rambam did think BK was put into the role by the RBSO. But the Rambam
was at least convinced R' Akiva thought BK was.

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



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:54:39 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rambam on False Messiahs


On 28/08/2013 6:46 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

>>>In the same sense, one could say that decision that BK wasn't mashiach
>>>wasn't made until about the time R' Aqiva left the cause.

>> AFAIK the Rambam doesn't hold that this happened.  His shita is that BK
>> was killed not because of "his sins", but because of "sins", i.e. those
>> of the generation which meant they didn't deserve him.

> I don't think one can mine the Rambam's halakhah book for what he
> thought HQBH was planning when.

What I meant was that AFAIK the Rambam doesn't hold that R Akiva ever left
the cause.  He doesn't hold of the whole story that BK sinned.  In his
version BK died a tzadik, "like all the whole and fit kings of the House of
David who died".  The entire story that we have in our gemara, of BK straying
and the Chachamim abandoning his cause, never happened according to him.  

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, 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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)


< Previous Next >