Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 5

Sun, 11 Jan 2015

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Rich, Joel
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 19:44:23 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi




From http://tinyurl.com/l5fylat

<http://hybrid-web.global.bl
ackspider.com/urlwrap/?q=AXicY2Rl0JnHwKAKxEU5lQZG6XrFRWV6uYmZOcn5eSVF-Tl6yf
m5DCUGFn4hZf5lBsbGxgYWDFlFmckZDsWp6YlAVWAFGSUlBVb6-iWZeZWlRWA9-jmmaZU5iSUME
AAAhgUfzQ&;Z>Davening for a sick person on Shabbos?

May one daven for a sick person on Shabbos?

Not a simple matter. Recall that we don't say the regular, weekday Shmoneh Esrei, which contains a prayer to heal our sick, on that day.

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


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-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20150108/cd93f15f/attachment.html>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: David Riceman
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 10:42:39 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] measurement error


> On Jan 8, 2015, at 8:38 AM, Rich, Joel <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:
>> My point is that, if we replace a conceptual definition with a 
>> measurable definition, we may lose the original concept, and, over time, 
>> we may get the halacha wrong.  

> Unless you understand the halachic process in such a way that the
> measurable definition now in fact becomes the halachic definition as
> part of the halachic process so the halacha is not "wrong". Using the
> conceptual definition may have its own issues - e.g. yad soledet -can
> 2 people heat something on shabbat to the same temperature and one be
> chayav and one patur depending on their individual heat sensitivity?
> How do you determine mishakir on a foggy morning?....

> IMHO this is related to societal changes similar to why miyut hamatzui
> was never defined percentage wise until the 1800s IITC

Assuming the truth of my claim that Bertie Woosters exist as a coherent
group, do you claim that "the halachic process" is capable of being
mafkia the kiyum d'oraysa of saying k"sh at 10 AM? What's the mechanism
that enables it to do this?

[Email #2. -micha]

Another way of asking this: if you were a rishon writing in medieval
Hebrew, what term would you use for "the halachic process"? Can you give
us some examples of its use by a rishon?

DR
Sent from my iPad



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: via Avodah
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 23:08:27 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah




 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

>>  Still, if a sofer were to  fill a press with kosher diyo and put kelaf
on the press bed, held down the  switch while having the right kavanos --
saying the traditional "hareini  koseiv..." even -- then sews the kelafim
together kehalakhah, are you sure  the result is pasul?

It's not a great koach gavra, but as RET noted in  the original post,
those who perform the mitzvah of leil haseider with  machine matzah do
rely on the parallel. <<

Micha  Berger       

 
 
>>>>>
 
They rely on the ruling that a machine matza can fulfill the mitzva;  they 
do not rely on a "parallel" between the making of matza and the making  of a 
sefer Torah, a parallel that no one ever thought of until yesterday.
 
If someone tomorrow makes a Sefer Torah using a machine and claims that he  
following the precedent set by machine matza, then you can say "those who  
perform mitzva x rely on the parallel with mitzva y."  But that is never  
going to happen.  
 
The most obvious (to me) reason that there is no real parallel between  the 
two mitzvos is this: In the case of the ST, when the gavra has  finished 
his work -- when he has finished applying ink to parchment -- the Sefer  Torah 
is finished.  In the case of a matza, when the gavra has finished his  work 
-- kneading the dough, rolling it out, poking holes in it -- there is still 
 not a matza.  He still has to put the dough into the oven, and it  is the 
oven that completes the work.  A machine (an  oven) unavoidably comes 
between the gavra and the finished product,  and the matza is nevertheless 
considered to have been produced  by koach gavra.   I can see making a case that if 
a machine  not only bakes the dough, but also kneads and shapes it first, 
that is  still koach gavra, as long as a person did something --- put the 
flour and water  into the kneading machine, maybe.
 
But in reality a lot of people don't use machine matzas for the seder, even 
 if they do use machine matza the rest of Pesach.
 

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


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


------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150108/1a7bd006/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Micha Berger
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:27:06 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah


On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 11:08:27PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: The most obvious (to me) reason that there is no real parallel between  the 
: two mitzvos is this: In the case of the ST, when the gavra has  finished 
: his work -- when he has finished applying ink to parchment -- the Sefer  Torah 
: is finished.  In the case of a matza, when the gavra has finished his  work 
: -- kneading the dough, rolling it out, poking holes in it -- there is still 
:  not a matza.  He still has to put the dough into the oven, and it  is the 
: oven that completes the work.  A machine (an  oven) unavoidably comes 
: between the gavra and the finished product,  and the matza is nevertheless 
: considered to have been produced  by koach gavra...

When the printing press or robot finishes the page of kelaf, it's still
not a sefer Torah. Someone has to sow the kelafim together. (I think
atzei chaim are also me'aqvin, but either way, the writing isn't last
step either.

I also think of the oven, which a person puts into and takes out of,
more like a pen, a tool by which the gavra does the job, rather than
a machine. But the whole matzah heter is based on the idea that there
is no tool vs machine.

And last, we need kavanah for matzos mitzvah. If you say the baking itself
doesn't because it's done by an oven, then you're just limiting the
chiyuv of kavanah to the other steps. And those steps are being done
by machine.

...
: But in reality a lot of people don't use machine matzas for the seder, even 
: if they do use machine matza the rest of Pesach.

... but I do not know if they hold one /can't/ or if it's an issue of
either chumerah (in lishmah while not valuing the chumerah of being more
catuious about chimutz than halakhah requires), or of nostalgia.

My guess is that Hungarians who follow the Chasam Sofer and Chassidim
are the "only" ones who actually would consider machine matzah to be
unusable for the seder.

But would everyone else be force to conclude that me'iqar hadin the
machine-made sefer Torah would be kosher?


When I mentioned the comparison to the silk screened Torah, I implied
a different distinction that I want to make sure I spell out: A sefer
Torah must be made through kesivah. Dripped ink isn't kesivah, even if
it's the sofer who dripped it. I do not know of similar restrictions on
the pe'ulah leven with matzah baking.

Nir'aeh li, one would have to prove not that the robot's action is
kesivah, but that pushing the button qalifies. I find that a challenge.

:-)BBii!
-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: 5
From: via Avodah
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 11:25:21 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah


In a message dated 1/9/2015 10:27:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
mi...@aishdas.org writes:
 
But  would everyone else be force to conclude that me'iqar hadin  the
machine-made sefer Torah would be kosher?

 
>>>>>
 
 
 
I do not believe there is a single posek anywhere who would consider a  
machine-made sefer Torah to be a kosher sefer Torah.  The technology to  make 
such a sefer Torah has been around for hundreds of years -- since  Gutenberg. 
 If it was not accepted in the past it is not going to be  accepted now.
 
--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============




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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150109/43bcc9a2/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 13:55:31 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] robot writing sefer torah


R"n Toby Katz wrote a post explaining ways in which a machine shumra matza
is different from a machine-written Sefer Torah. A major part of her
argument seemed to be:

> He still has to put the dough into the oven, and it is the
> oven that completes the work.

If I understand her correctly, her point is that a human does not really
make the matza - the *oven* is what changes the dough into matza. In her
view, this makes a Sefer Torah very different, because a person *can* do
all the steps of making a Sefer Torah, whereas a matza is inherently
something that a person can only make partially. And so, in her view, even
a portion of the work could suffice for a matza, but the Sefer Torah must
be made entirely by the person.

I will repeat my first line from above: "If I understand her correctly, her
point is that a human does not really make the matza - the *oven* is what
changes the dough into matza." But according to that logic, if I put the
dough into the oven ON SHABBOS, then it is the oven which bakes the matza,
not me. But that's absurd. If I put dough into an oven on Shabbos, it is
not merely a psik reisha that the dough will get baked. It is also not a
grama that I am merely "causing" the dough to be baked. Rather, in Hilchos
Shabbos, when I put dough into the oven, then I am actually and actively
baking it myself. And I would guess that the same applies to Matzos Mitzva.

(I consider the above to be NOT nitpicky. If I wanted to nitpick, I'd
mention two more points: (a) Is the sofer doing the actual writing, or does
he merely guide the quill? (b) I don't know if cutting the hides into pages
needs to be lishma, but if it does, then perhaps it should be torn by hand,
rather than have a knife do the cutting.)

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 17:30:48 GMT
Subject:
[Avodah] Machine Matza


Pesach is only a few months away, so I figured I'd spin this off to a new thread. In the thread "robot writing sefer torah", R"n Toby Katz wrote:

> But in reality a lot of people don't use machine matzas
> for the seder, even if they do use machine matza the rest
> of Pesach.

So what you're saying is that a lot of *other* people DO use machine matza for the seder.

And not just ordinary people, but some gedolim too. I've seen several
sources which say that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ate ONLY machine matza on
Pesach, and I presume that means for the seder as well. (Though I'm sure it
was machine *shmura*.)

(In case anyone is curious, at my home we serve only shmura matza at the
seder (though we don't mind serving peshuta to those who want it during
Shulchan Orech). This is mostly because of the shitos that on this night,
one gets a mitzvah not only for the first kezayis, but for all the matza
one eats, similar to spending all of one's time in the sukkah. Many years
ago, we used to buy one box of machine shmura to offer our guests, but
hardly anyone bothered with it, so we stopped buying it, and so by default,
we're using the *hand* shmura.)

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Apple&#39;s Crazy New Gizmo
Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product leaked. &#40;see picture&#41;
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54b010693a3931069739cst02vuc



Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:25:48 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] measurement error


On 01/07/2015 02:38 PM, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
> The mishna says that one can say Krias Shma until (standardized) 9 AM, 
> because princes get up at 9....

> I had previously pointed out that nowadays there are groups of people 
> who get up even later (exemplified by fictional characters like Auntie 
> Mame and Bertie Wooster).  I found two things puzzling: is a person 
> yotzei K"Sh later than 9 AM shekein derech Bertie Wooster ...?, and 
> why do the poskim cite 9 AM as definitive? Is it only because they 
> predate electric lights?

I could not resist answering an email that cited two of my favorite 
fictional characters.

I think that b'davka those two characters are proof to the contrary, as 
their late rising was intrinsic to their characters, specifically that - 
as opposed to the princes, who were considered to be getting up at the 
limit of the normal time span - they were personifying a typology of 
risers that were beyond the realm of the normal.

That being said, I believe the Rambam in the teshuvos says that vasikin 
is an approximation, not a precise time on the clock (how could it have 
been?) which makes the current practice in certain communities of being 
medakdek to the second dubious.

KT,
YGB




Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Kenneth Miller
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 02:37:03 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] measurement error


R' Joel Rich asked a question. He probably meant it as a tangential
sidepoint to the conceptual problems in this thread, but also it happens
to be a specific question that has been bothering me lately. He asked:

> How do you determine mishakir on a foggy morning?

This is a very relevant question, especially in the winter, when many
must choose between an optimal shacharis or getting to work on time.

I suppose it is simple to argue that Hanetz is defined by astronomy:
If clouds in the east prevent one from actually seeing the sun rise, I
can nevertheless easily imagine poskim who would say that other phenomena
(shadows, rays through the clouds) can testify to the sun's having risen.

But to me, Alos Hashachar and Misheyakir are both in a totally different
class. Both of these appear on calculated charts, and we are told
how to calculate them, in terms of a certain amount of time prior to
sunrise. But I've never heard a discussion of how valid this might be
on a less-than-typically-clear day. On the contrary, both of these are
defined by how much light I can see, and *not* by the relative positions
of the sun and earth.

Here's a very low-tech version of what I mean by "astronomy" and
"calculations" in this post: I recall once seeing a Mishne Brurah (which
unfortunately I cannot find) which said that if one has an accurate
clock, and he knows when sunrise occurred yesterday, then even if it is
cloudy today, he can rely on that clock to daven shacharis k'vatikin. My
question is whether he can use that same procedure for halachos relating
to Alos and Misheyakir.

The halacha tells me that I can be yotzay Krias Shma if there is enough
light to recognize from 4 amos away. My friends, I tell you that there
have been some very cloudy mornings, when the clock told me that there
was only 15-20 minutes to sunrise, yet the sky seemed as dark as 45-60
minutes before sunrise on a regular day. The zmanim charts tell me that
if the clouds would disperse, there would be quite enough light to be
yotzay Shma. But in actual fact, the clouds have *not* dispersed, and it
is *very* dark out, and I *cannot* recognize from 4 amos away. I can't
even tell whether there is any light on the eastern horizon, and that
makes me wonder whether one is yotzay his Shmoneh Esreh, even b'dieved.

Anyone else have a clue?


[Email #2. -micha]

R' David Riceman asked:

> Assuming the truth of my claim that Bertie Woosters exist as a
> coherent group, do you claim that "the halachic process" is
> capable of being mafkia the kiyum d'oraysa of saying k"sh at 10
> AM? What's the mechanism that enables it to do this?

I really think that this is *not* a new concept.

Consider the idea that "b'makom XYZ lo gazrinan", that d'rabanans in
general do not apply in cases of illness, or tzaar, or hefsed, or what
have you. Do you think that Moshe Rabenu sat down with his beis din, and
said, "Okay, henceforth, any and all new laws that we legislate will have
the following exemptions..." Or was it more likely done retroactively,
when someone was faced with a certain situation, and he responded,
"They couldn't have intended for the law to apply in this case."

I'm not saying that it *was* done like that, after the fact. I'm just
suggesting it for thought and research.

> Another way of asking this: if you were a rishon writing in
> medieval Hebrew, what term would you use for "the halachic
> process"? Can you give us some examples of its use by a rishon?

The term you are looking for might be "klalim", as in "klalei hapsak" or
"klalei horaah", and a great deal was written on this topic. I have many
memories of seeing such treatises in the back of my gemara or back of
other sefarim, but I cannot find many right now. (What I *have* found
tends to be summaries of the halachos on a given topic, and not about
how to pasken.)

Going back to his first question:

> do you claim that "the halachic process" is capable of being
> mafkia the kiyum d'oraysa of saying k"sh at 10 AM? What's
> the mechanism that enables it to do this?

Yes, it certainly can, IF one has a sufficiently convincing argument. The
mechanism is called "consensus". If you can convince enough people that
you are right, then your view will become mainstream. It may take decades,
or even centuries, but it can happen, and it *has* happened. A very
simple example is the beginning and ending times for Shabbos. Without
getting bogged down in details, I think I can safely say that there was
a time when the vast majority of Shomrei Shabbos not only ended Shabbos
significantly later than most of us do, but - shockingly! - they *began*
Shabbos significantly later as well. They were correct and so are we. What
changed is the way we see things.

Akiva Miller




Go to top.

Message: 10
From: David Riceman
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 09:50:23 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] measurement error



RMB:

<< RAYKook's answer (as we called it in early iterations, later found to 
be the Gra's) is that we do not know if the reason we have is the only 
sevarah; in fact it's nearly guaranteed to just be one line of reasoning 
among many. So, when Chazal's science is an argument lequlah, we now 
have a reason to be machmir. But when we question their scientific basis 
of being machmir, we have to assume that there are other reasons to be 
machmir that still stand. So change is possible, only lechumerah.>>

I don't recall our previous discussion.  I have heard this in the name 
of the Gaon, but only with respect to gezeiros.  Even then I'm not sure 
it wasn't just a middas hassidus for him.  See PhM AZ 2:5 "v'ahar kach 
modi'im es hata'am".  It's certainly not the normative position of those 
of us who are Ashkenazim: Tosafos uses the stated reason of a gezeirah 
as a reason to be meikal quite often, e.g., in the cases of mayim 
aharonim and mayim megulim.

But in any case there's apparently no gezeirah here.  The Mishna is 
explaining that uv'kumecha is a univeral measure and not an 
individualized measure, and explaining that it's to be interpreted as 
leniently as possible.  Notably it goes out of it's way to preclude the 
possibility that it's a gezeirah: "hakorei mikan va'eilach lo hifsid".

<<This, to my mind is a second topic, which is why I'm not sure I agree 
with how RDR framed the problem. This is asking about our ability to 
measure, the modern world's scientific bent and love of measurement, and 
the current texutal emphasis to halachic observance, and how that means 
being more comfortable with objective standard than using how something 
feels as measurement.>>

I don't think it's a second subject.  I cited SZKS as an example 
precisely because it's a clearly delineated Biblical standard, which 
Hazal translate into a different, easily measurable standard.

RJR:

<<Unless you understand the halachic process in such a way that the 
measurable definition now in fact becomes the halachic definition as 
part of the halachic process so the halacha is not "wrong".>>

There are two distinct traditions of rhetoric: that of halachists and 
that of historians of halacha.  The phrase "halachic process" is unique 
to the latter.  But even they use it to motivate analysis: Did the 
author of the Mishna know that he was changing the standard or did he 
think he was giving a simple way to determine the value of the old 
standard? Why is it that the mishna already uses sundial time for SZKS 
but even the SA uses phenomenal time for when to daven ne'ilah?

RYGB:

<<I think that b'davka those two characters are proof to the contrary, 
as their late rising was intrinsic to their characters, specifically 
that - as opposed to the princes, who were considered to be getting up 
at the limit of the normal time span - they were personifying a typology 
of risers that were beyond the realm of the normal. >>

I don't understand the distinction between princes as a limiting case 
and BW as "a typology of risers that were beyond the realm of the 
normal".  Certainly there are examples in hilchos Shabbos of things that 
we can do because bnei mlachim do them on weekdays. The modern 
equivalent of BM is "the idle rich", and that's precisely who BW and AM 
personify.

David Riceman



Go to top.

Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:11:50 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] cutting tephillin retzuos


Three weeks ago, on Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 3:23am GMT, R' Akiva Miller wrote:
: While he was writing that (and/or while the post was in Micha's box)
: I was working on my own clarification, on much the same point: The word
: "barzel", which (in the context of Bemidbar 31:22) refers to one specific
: metal, which I've always understood to be iron.

: I just now noticed that the halachos of the Mizbe'ach (such as Rashi on
: Shmos 20:22, Chinuch 40) also refers to "barzel". In this context, it is
: often understood to mean "metal", and that's why the OP's mistranslation
: got past me. For example, this prohibition appears as Mitzvah #40 in the
: Sefer Hachinuch, and in the Feldheim translation (by Charles Wengrov),
: "barzel" is consistently translated as "metal".
...
: However, the halacha seems to be that the stones of the Mizbe'ach MAY be
: cut with a metal other than iron: Torah Temimah #131 there seems to says
: that the Mizbe'ach could be cut with nechoshes (copper? brass? bronze?).

A problem with translating barzel as iron is that the Torah was given in
the Bronze Age. So to understand the prohibition as being limits to
iron and steel would be to believe that HQBH was warning Betzalel's
work crew not to use tools they didn't have the technology to make anyway.

So I fail to see how the TT's peshat would work.

: Another example is the practice of removing the knife from the table
: before Birkas Hamazon. The first of two reasons cited by MB 180:11 is
: that "Barzel shortens a person's life, and it's not right for it to
: be on the table which is compared to the mizbe'ach which lengthens
: a person's life." This is often quoted with "barzel" translated as
: "metal", and indeed, I've never heard of anyone allowing a silver knife
: to remain on the table, on the grounds that silver is not barzel..

I don't know of too many knives where even the blade is silver. Usually
silver knives are silver handles on stainless steel blades. (In order
to get a good workable blade, the antique all-siver knife would tend to
adulterate the silver anyway. So there was't much call.)

My theory above, which admittedly requires ignoring a Torah Temimah,
would mean that the pasuq is saying that metal shortens lives and doesn't
belong on a mizbeach, and thereefore would lead to the din about bentching
referring to knives of any metal.

(BTW, the AhS records a norm of this not applying on Shabbos or YT.)

CC-Lisa, in case I misunderstand about the use of iron in the bronze
age.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
mi...@aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 20:21:30 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi


On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 07:44:23PM -0500, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/l5fylat
:> Davening for a sick person on Shabbos?
...
:> Not a simple matter. Recall that we don't say the regular, weekday
:> Shmoneh Esrei, which contains a prayer to heal our sick, on that day.

But for all our reluctance to make personal baqashos on Shabbos (like
Mi sheBeirakh) this doesn't apply to national baqashos. Look at
Retzeih; Sim Shalom has lists of them.

And if someone Shabbos morning by habit starts the fourth berakhah by
even just saying the one word "Atah", he continues Birkhas haDaas. (Other
parts of Shabbos, it would take two words, as Maariv and Minchah begin
"Atah" on Shabbos too.) Because we omit the middle berakhos largely
due to tirchah, and not nidon didan. There is no inherent problem saying
"Atah Chonein" on Shabbos.

: The misheberach thing has always intrigued me - I chalk it up to the
: tzibbur wanting to do it (to feel comfort that they are doing something
: for a loved one etc.) and Rabbinic leadership choosing not to use their
: limited supply of chits on opposing it. I'd be interested in other views.

RYBS held that one may only make a mi sheBeirakh for a choleh sheyeish bo
saqanah.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is capable of changing the world for the
mi...@aishdas.org        better if possible, and of changing himself for
http://www.aishdas.org   the better if necessary.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning


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



_______________________________________________
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 >