Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 2

Tue, 06 Jan 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:21:23 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tanaim [was: Zmanim app]




 

From: Kenneth Miller via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

On a side point, RSZ also  wrote:

> Sura, Pumbedisa, and Sinai are irrelevant; the Tana'im  didn't
> live there, so why would they be talking about those  places?

Regarding Sura and Pumbedisa: Please forgive my ignorance. Where  do you 
say the Tana'im lived?

Akiva Miller

 
 
>>>>
Rav Micha supplied a lengthy and detailed answer to this question but I  
would like to give a much simpler answer, for the sake of people who may come  
across this public forum and not know this:  The Mishna was written in  
Eretz Yisrael, in Hebrew, and sealed around 200 CE.  The chachamim of  the 
Mishna are the Tannaim, by definition, and although some of them came from  
Bavel (e.g., Hillel Habavli), they lived and wrote in E'Y.  Bavel was not  yet 
the major center of Torah learning it later became.  
 
There are two Gemaras but only one Mishna.  The Gemaras were written  
mainly in Aramaic.  One Gemara was written in E'Y, the other in Bavel,  hence we 
have the Talmud Yerushalmi and the Talmud Bavli, but as I said, only  one 
Mishna.  Mishna + Gemara = Talmud.  The chachamim of the Gemara  are the 
Amoraim, and there were, obviously, Amoraim in two countries, E'Y and  Bavel.  
 
The Talmud Yerushalmi was sealed around 400 CE.  The Talmud Bavli was  
sealed around 500 CE.  Sura and Pumbedisa were cities in Bavel (today's  Iraq).
 
 
PS If anyone knows which modern-day cities in Iraq are the sites of Sura  
and Pumbedisa (and Nehardea), I would be very interested to know.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150101/96ce7638/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:50:24 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Tanaim [was: Zmanim app]


On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 04:21:23PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: PS If anyone knows which modern-day cities in Iraq are the sites of Sura  
: and Pumbedisa (and Nehardea), I would be very interested to know.

I blogged about Pumpedisa once, back when it was in the news
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/falluja Nehardea was in a flood plane, where
the Euphrates would often jump its banks. Pumbedisa (today's Fallujah)
is in the region, one of the places the urban life would move to when
the Euphrates winded such that it was on the river.

    Now that the US's role in Iraq has formally changed, I want to mention
    something about the city of Falluja. During the early years of US
    presence in Iraq, we heard a lot about violence there. E.g. four
    contractors were dragged from their cars, beaten and set on fire --
    and then their bodies were dragged through the streets and hung off
    the bridge.

    Well, Falluja is well known to those of us who learned gemara,
    but under its Aramaic name, Pumbedisa, which was a borough of the
    larger area of Nehardea.

    Shemuel (a 1st generation amora) had already established a school
    in Nehardea, but it didn't really survive his death. His and Rav's
    student (thus 2nd generation), Rav Yehudah [ben Yechzqeil] (220-299
    CE), re-established the school in Pumbedisa, which already boasted
    a large Jewish population. Pumbedisa was the home of one of the two
    Babylonian academies that gave us the Talmud. (The other was in Sura.)

I then segued into R' Yehudah's and Pumbedisa's style.

Sura (and its suburb Mata Mechasia / Mechuza which sometimes housed the
yeshiva) was further down the Euphrates compared to Pumbedisa, also to
its west.

As I posted here Chanukah 2010, in a discussion of what was Jewish life
like in Bavel during Bayis Sheini:

Learning in Sura began with a beis medrash established by Yechezqeil.
When Rav got there, 700 years later, he went to Sura because there
already was some learning there. It would be less accurate to say Rava
founded Yeshivas Sura as much as upgraded it to amora caliber.

As R' Wein (admittedly not the most critical historian) would often note,
there was a Yeshiva in Baghdad called Yeshiva Sura that claimed to be
the direct continuation of THE Sura. It was closed by the Baath Party
in 1958. At over 2600 years duration, that would make it the longest
functioning institution in human history.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You want to know how to paint a perfect
mi...@aishdas.org        painting?  It's easy.
http://www.aishdas.org   Make yourself perfect and then just paint
Fax: (270) 514-1507      naturally.              -Robert Pirsig



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Micha Berger
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 19:01:03 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah


On Thu, Jan 01, 2015 at 06:40:38PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:> Could the scroll written by this robot be used in a synagogue? The answer,
:> alas, is no.
...
: Thus the main question
: "the process has to be filled with meaning.??? The scribe says prayers as he
: writes it. "

: BTW does the sofer really say prayers while writing ?

Well,  he doesn't need to say a prayer, but we do make him speak out his
kavanah orally: Hareini koseiv lesheim qedushas seifer Torah.

I don't think its absence would pasl the ST, though.

: As to kavanah and le-shma is it any different then machine shmura matzah...

There is also an issue that came up when we discussed R' Abadi's silk screen.

When the gemara says that ink spilled to form a letter would not make a
sefer Torah, what is the problem? Is it that spilling isn't sufficiently
koach gavra, in which case the silk screen isn't in the saem category?
Or is it that the act must fit the word "kesivah", requiring that the ink
be drawn with a pen, and thus excluding silk-screen?

If the problem is koach gavra, operating the soferbot is more iffy than
the silkscreen. If the problem is that kesivah only includes drawing
with a pen, then it's clear-cut no good.

Matzah requires daas and kavanah, not koach gavra nor any specific verb.
So it's far simpler.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The worst thing that can happen to a
mi...@aishdas.org        person is to remain asleep and untamed."
http://www.aishdas.org          - Rabbi Simcha Zissel Ziv, Alter of Kelm
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 15:31:20 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah


On 01/01/2015 11:40 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
> " it has to be written with a goose feather" [...]

> Using a pen instead of a quill is a technical problem. I would guess
> that if they really wanted they could change the program to use a
> quill instead of a pen.

There is no requirement for a quill of any kind, let alone davka
goose.   Sefardi sofrim write with reeds.  A pen would be perfectly
kosher, except that ideally it shouldn't be metal.  

> BTW does the sofer really say prayers while writing ?

No.

> As to kavanah and le-shma is it any different then machine shmura
> matzah where pushing the button is considered as having "shem
> mitzvat matzah"

If you pasken that way.

The main problem, though, is that you need maaseh kesivah.
I think it would take a major posek to decide that pushing
the button constitutes a maaseh kesivah.



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2015 16:07:10 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Rashi as a citatory


Every once in a blue moon Rashi on the gemara  will tell you where a pasuk
quoted in the gemara comes from in nach. Anyone heard of an algorithm which
explains when he chooses to do this? I always assumed it was based on his
estimation of his audience's knowledge of nach.
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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150101/f150e606/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2015 19:14:45 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Rashi as a citatory


On 01/01/2015 04:07 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Every once in a blue moon Rashi on the gemara  will tell you where a
> pasuk quoted in the gemara comes from in nach. Anyone heard of an
> algorithm which explains when he chooses to do this? I always assumed
> it was based on his estimation of his audience?s knowledge of nach.

My assumption is that he does this when it's not clear from the
context of the gemara that it *is* a pasuk, and the student might
not realise this, so Rashi informs us that it is a pasuk, and
by the way in which sefer.  (He doesn't give chapter and verse for
the obvious reason that these didn't exist in his day.)




Go to top.

Message: 7
From: David Cohen
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 12:39:09 +0200
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Zmanim app


In the discussion of what location the shiur of 3/4 mil was given for, R,
Micha Berger wrote that Rabba and Rav Yosef were trying to interpret the
statement of R' Yehuda in the beraisa, and that:
>> I also don't think Rabba and R Yosef would have been speaking in
different
>> terms than the tanna they're trying to understand. I would think we just
>> need to deal with the uncertainty between Yavneh and Usha.

However, Rabbi Yehuda doesn't mention 3/4 mil at all.  In the beraisa as
originally quoted, as well as in Rabba and Rav Yosef's versions of it,
Rabbi Yehuda talks about the degree of light in the upper and lower
portions of the sky.

Rabba and Rav Yosef each quote Rav Yehuda (the amora) in the name of Shmuel
when they give an actual amount of time (in units of "mahalach mil").
While Shmuel was, in fact, speaking about the bein hashemashos of Rabbi
Yehuda, it would seem that he was the first to address the question "how
long does that take" in units of time, and that Rabba and Rav Yosef are
just each quoting their versions of Shmuel's statement.  I see no reason to
assume that Shmuel would be answering the question "how long does it take
to get that dark in Yavneh or Usha) rather than "how long have *I* observed
that it takes to get that dark."  Thus, if we're going to attempt to
identify the location on which the shiur of 3/4 mil is based as the
location which it was originally stated, I would go with Nehardea (latitude
33.4 degrees North).

On that note, I have difficulty understanding those who say that for the
sake of simplicity, Chazal gave a fixed shiur of 3/4 mil, for all seasons
and all latitudes.  Rabbi Yehuda clearly spoke about the degree of darkness
of the sky, implying that this is what defines bein hashemashos and laila.
Shmuel was attempting to explain him and give a sign, by saying that "the
degree of darkness that he was talking about was the way the sky appears to
me 3/4 mil after sunset" (on the day of the equinox, we assume).  But if we
take Shmuel's 3/4 mil to be the very definition of laila, then we have to
say that Rabbi Yehuda (the tanna, whom Shmuel is ostensibly explaining) is
the one who was merely giving a sign that was relevant for one particular
date and latitude, and this seems to me like an unlikely reading of the
gemara.

Furthermore, while Chazal did sometimes give technically imprecise shiurim
to use in halacha l'maaseh for the sake of simplicity, we should remember
that "3/4 mil" or "16.875 minutes" (or 13.5 minutes, if you will) seems
more simple to us moderns who are walking around with watches, but in the
world of Chazal, looking at the sky probably seemed a lot more simple than
measuring out a fixed unit of time.


R' Zev Sero wrote:
>> People usually assume that sunrise and sunset
>> are to be measured at sea level.  Some say they should be measured
>> at the person's own altitude.  And the Alter Rebbe says they should
>> be measured at the altitude of "the high mountains of Eretz Yisrael."


Along the same lines as what I wrote above...  I have a hard time
understanding those who say that sunset -- as the starting point of the 3/4
mil -- should be measured "at the person's own altitude," since while the
time one will see the sun set certainly varies with altitude, the degree of
darkness of the sky overall does not.  Thus, if one maintains that the
shiur of 3/4 mil was stated for the altitude of the "high mountains" and
that laila comes (on the day of the equinox) ~17 minutes after sunset in
Jerusalem, one needs to say that it comes ~21 minutes after sunset in Tel
Aviv.  If one assumes the shiur was stated for sea level and that laila
comes ~17 minutes after sunset in Tel Aviv, that means that it comes ~13
minutes after sunset in Jerusalem.


>> If you want to run the algorithm on a computer, you need to input
>> a latitude, but the Tana'im didn't do that, and they didn't tell you
>> to do that.

True, but we live in a society that runs by the clock. so we have to.  When
I prepare a shul schedule and determine what time maariv should be, I use a
(macro-enabled) spreadsheet that makes certain assumptions about what
latitude, what day of the year, and what altitude the shiur of 3/4 mil is
calibrated to.  Somebody else might make slightly different assumptions and
come to the conclusion that maariv could be a few minutes earlier or ought
to be a few minutes later, and I wouldn't claim that I am right and he is
wrong.  But I have no choice but to pick which exact numbers to plug into
the algorithm.

If we lived in a society where we could say, "maariv will start when the
sky looks *this* dark out," that would be fine.  But we don't.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150102/32aeea62/attachment.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 12:03:39 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Zmanim app


R' David Cohen wrote:
> Furthermore, while Chazal did sometimes give technically
> imprecise shiurim to use in halacha l'maaseh for the sake of
> simplicity, we should remember that "3/4 mil" or "16.875
> minutes" (or 13.5 minutes, if you will) seems more simple to
> us moderns who are walking around with watches, but in the
> world of Chazal, looking at the sky probably seemed a lot
> more simple than measuring out a fixed unit of time.

I would add: ... especially given the state of time-measurement technology of that era. We're talking about a part of the day when even sundials were useless!

> I have a hard time understanding those who say that sunset -- as
> the starting point of the 3/4 mil -- should be measured "at the
> person's own altitude," since while the time one will see the sun
> set certainly varies with altitude, the degree of darkness of the
> sky overall does not. Thus, if one maintains that the shiur of
> 3/4 mil was stated for the altitude of the "high mountains" and
> that laila comes (on the day of the equinox) ~17 minutes after
> sunset in Jerusalem, one needs to say that it comes ~21 minutes
> after sunset in Tel Aviv. If one assumes the shiur was stated for
> sea level and that laila comes ~17 minutes after sunset in Tel
> Aviv, that means that it comes ~13 minutes after sunset in
> Jerusalem.

Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 1:97 discusses this very point. I am not sure of
his exact conclusions, but he does make one thing very clear, and that is
that altitude affects Shkiah and Tzeis very differently. Shkiah depends on
whether or not the sun is visible, and that (in MY mind) will easily be
affected by the altitude (both at my location and at the horizon).

Tzeis, however, has nothing to with seeing the sun; it depends ONLY on the
darkness of the sky. Specifically, tzeis depends on the darkness of the sky
*overhead*, regardless of whether or not any bits of light can be seen on
the eastern or western horizon, In MY mind, this is a function of latitude
-- or, in other words, the sun's position relative an imaginary horizontal
line from my location, regardless of where the actual horizon is, or where
the mountains are.

I must repeat that while it is clear to me that Rav Moshe does treat the
mountains differently for Shkia and for Tzeis, I am NOT clear on what is
halacha l'maaseh conclusions are. I see four distinct questions:

Does my altitude affect shkiah?
Does my altitude affect tzeis?
Do mountains to the west affect shkiah?
Do mountains to the west affect tzeis?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Heavy rains mean flooding
Anywhere it rains it can flood. Learn your risk. Get flood insurance.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54a92c4150b3e2c410a28st04vuc



Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2015 18:35:20 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Vayechi and EY


From a dvar Torah on parshat Vayechi by Rav Weitman (Gush site)

Kli Yakar on Vayigash

This whole verse is an indictment of *Bnei Yisrael*, for the Holy One,
blessed be He, had decreed for them, ?Your descendants will be strangers?,?
  but they sought to become resident citizens in a place where foreignness
had been decreed upon them? The verse condemns them for this dwelling, in
which they sought a possession in a land that was not their own. Had they
not said to Pharaoh, ?We have come to sojourn in the land?? This teaches
that originally, they did not come down in order to settle there, but
rather to sojourn, as temporary residents, but now they went back on their
word and became so well settled there that they did not wish to leave Egypt
until the Holy One, blessed be He, was forced to bring them out of there
with a strong hand. And those who did not wish to leave died during the
three days of [the plague of] darkness.

*The Punishment for Permanent Settlement in Egypt*



The Kli Yakar, following the same line of thought, interprets the
verse in *Parashat
Acharei Mot*, "You shall not act according to the actions of the land of
Egypt where you dwelled," as follows:



That act which you did in the land of Egypt? that you sought permanent
residence there? you shall not act in that way again, seeking permanent
residence amongst a rebellious nation that follows a path that is not good.



He goes on to address the next part of the verse, "nor shall you act
according to the actions of the land of Cana'an, into which I bring you:"



In other words, ?According to the way you acted with Eretz Cana'an? that
you despised the land? to the point where the Holy One, blessed be He,
needed to bring them out of there, against their will, ?you shall not act."


In view of the above, we can understand why Yaakov makes Yosef swear and
thereafter commands all of his sons not to bury him in Egypt, but rather to
take him up for burial in Eretz Cana'an, in Ma'arat Ha-Makhpela. Yaakov
identifies the process that his family is undergoing, having moved to Egypt
in order to remain there ? at least so long as Yosef is still ruling the
land ? and he wants to ensure that future generations will know where their
ancestral land is and where they should be striving to return to. He
therefore insists that he must not be buried in Egypt, as this would
represent a permanent bond with that land; rather, he should be buried in
the land that is intended for his descendants


see

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/parsha73/12-73vayechi.htm

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150104/ff704d6d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Micha Berger
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 18:14:39 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission...


On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:04:20PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >The problem I have with Zev's response, though, is sekhar mitzvos behai
: >alma leiqa. Every judgment in olam hazeh is tempered by other concerns by
: >that kind of fate that particular soul needs. What makes times shenitenah
: >reshus lamashchis unique?

: Sechar may be leika, but in ordinary times mitzvos are definitely
: a protection.  We are told that over and over.  Not just tzedaka,
: mezuzah, aliya laregel, and a few others that have special protective
: qualities, but all mitzvos protect from harm.  Yes, they are not the
: *only* factor, but they are a strong one...

Looking around at life, I am not sure they are all that strong a factor.
It's a factor, but the primary one?

I wonder how people can bentch with kavvanah saying "naar hayisi vegam
zaqanti" without serious work making peace between what the pasuq appears
to say, and the number of famous poor tzadiqim.

I think of sekhar va'onesh the same way I think of the law of conservation
of momentum. In real life here on earth, where friction (including air
drag) is unavoidable, it never adds up in an obvious way. Doesn't make
the law any less true, just basically useless for setting expectation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 18:26:47 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission...


On 01/05/2015 06:14 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:04:20PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> : >The problem I have with Zev's response, though, is sekhar mitzvos behai
> : >alma leiqa. Every judgment in olam hazeh is tempered by other concerns by
> : >that kind of fate that particular soul needs. What makes times shenitenah
> : >reshus lamashchis unique?
>
> : Sechar may be leika, but in ordinary times mitzvos are definitely
> : a protection.  We are told that over and over.  Not just tzedaka,
> : mezuzah, aliya laregel, and a few others that have special protective
> : qualities, but all mitzvos protect from harm.  Yes, they are not the
> :*only*  factor, but they are a strong one...
>
> Looking around at life, I am not sure they are all that strong a factor.
> It's a factor, but the primary one?

What can we do when Chazal tell us over and over that it's so, and that
every instance where it doesn't appear to have held is a special case?



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Rabbi Meir G. Rabi
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2015 20:01:27 +1100
Subject:
[Avodah] Beris Metzitza Shabbos


I asked if someone could please bring Halachic support for the Torah
obliging us to perform BerisMilah even where there is danger to life? Or
danger to limb Or significant risk.

As proof that Beris is not performed under such conditions I presented that
the Yidden did not perform BerisMilah whilst travelling in the Midbar, and
one may assume this was with the Heskem of Moshe Rabbenu. Was there a
SIGNIFICANT risk in the Midbar? How does one measure SIGNIFICANT?

Anyway the Midbar example seems to quash the argument that proposes that until
recently Milah itself carried a significant risk, and yet the Torah
required us to assume it for the sake of the Mitzvah.

here is a blind mindless argument - If the Torah did not oblige us to
assume this risk, milah would have died out altogether.

and the icing on the cake - we need to wait until 2 siblings have died from
the Beris before we are free of the Mitzvah.
does anyone actually suggest that today if a child is medically diagnosed
to have an illness or condition and faces danger if he has a Beris, is
Halachically compelled to have the Beris just because there are not two
brothers born before him who died?

Is there a rov in this world who rules today that we actually wait until a
family has lost two babies before the risk is deemed to be at a level where
it overrides the requirement for milah?

Did anyone actually read this following statement? even when Milah will be
ALMOST INEVITABLY FATAL we are still obligated to circumcise that baby.
well, I will gladly assume that none of our listmembers bothers to read
that type of outrageous stuff

So I was correct in suggesting that no one will bring a proof because there
is none, and the Halacha actually forbids Metzitza on Shabbos.

So, Metzitza [not MBP] is enforced by the Gemara not as a Halachic
requirement but a medical requirement. Performing Metzitza on Shabbos is
Muttar for no other reason but for the health benefits it provides to the
baby, who without it is at risk of infection. There is evidence today that
Metzitza offgers no health benefit at all.

No one in their responses refuted either of these facts.

Therefore Metzitza should, I think be maintained even today, simply to
retain our tradition. Whether MBP should be maintained in spite of whatever
risks may be associated with it, depends it seems on how holy one considers
our customs and to what extent they ought to be preserved.

But there should be no argument at all that on Shabbos we should only PRETEND
to perform metzitza. Metzitza itself, which is performed to cause the wound
to bleed, is an Issur DeOraysa, and is being performed only to maintain
traditions. This is not Doche Shabbos.

Regarding the flaps of skin that the Mohel or the parent would like to
remove but need not be removed in order for the Mitzvah to be complete
[TziTzin SeEiNon MeAkVin] true cutting off such flaps of skin is actually
Assur on Shabbos and yet the Mohel is permitted to cut them on Shabbos
provided he is still occupied with the Mitzvah of Beris and not yet
completed his job.
This was brought as proof that even non Beris essentials are still part of
the Mitzvah

I dont think this is a proof.

I will write more about this when I have time - but to leave you with
something to think about - when picking fruit on Shabbos for a Choleh do we
permit the picker to continue picking or pulling off additional parts of
the fruit once enough has already been collected - just because he's still
in the middle of his task?


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150106/ece38861/attachment.htm>

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



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


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


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

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 >