[Avodah] abayudaya

[David Eisen]

AFAIK, the gemara is found in Masekhet Shabbat (Pereq Bameh Madliqin) on
Daf 32.

On Jan 10, 2008 7:20 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says
that
> one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of
communal
> gathering rather than avodat Hashem, but googling "beth Am" gives the
> following: " Results 1 - 10 of about 944,000 for beth Am. ( 0.21
seconds)
> " What is sad is not that that many congregations voted to name their
shuls
> by a name explicitely assur in the Gemarrah, but that none of their
Rabbi's
> actually learned (or cared about) the first tractate of Shas to know
it's
> forbidden at all.
> ~Liron

B'virkat HaTorah,
David Eisen

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org
[mailto:avodah-request at lists.aishdas.org] 
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 1:23 PM
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 21

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah at 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 at lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner at lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Seeing the Alps (Daniel Israel)
   2. Re: manipulating bodily energies (kennethgmiller at juno.com)
   3. Re: The Burning of the Golden Calf (Joshua Meisner)
   4.  Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm
      (Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts)
   5. "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this? (Richard Wolberg)
   6. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Zev Sero)
   7. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Micha Berger)
   8. Re: Isaac Leeser (Simon Montagu)
   9. Re: Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm
      (Richard Wolpoe)
  10. Re: manipulating bodily energies (Richard Wolpoe)
  11. Re: [Areivim] abayudaya (Richard Wolpoe)
  12. Re: Seeing the Alps (Richard Wolpoe)


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

Message: 1
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:55:06 -0700
From: Daniel Israel <dmi1 at hushmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Seeing the Alps
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID: <478A96CA.1040808 at hushmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
> But ditto in the opposite direction as well. Many years ago, we had a
> thread --- wow, I just went to look it up. It was in 1999, Avodah
> volume 3, approx. issues 143-154, under subjects like "Wagner's
> Music" and "Is all music value-neutral?" Back then I felt, and I
> still feel today, that while wordless music can give a person a very
> basic emotional feeling such as calmness or frenzy, I do not see how
> it can bring one to a higher-lever emotion such as love or hate, and
> even more so, I do not see how wordless music can inspire one to
> something like deveykus to Hashem. --- Unless, of course, one has
> reason to associate that particular niggun with some particular
> lyrics, in which case it is not really a wordless niggun.

I don't remember that discussion.  So let me just say, listening to some

of my favorite orchestral music can inspire me (in terms of the 
emotional effect) exactly the same way as seeing the Alps.  (Well, I 
haven't seen the Alps, except maybe from an airplane window, but 
substitute some other relevant natural wonder.)

I'm not sure if that is consistent or inconsistent with what you write 
above.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1 at cornell.edu



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

Message: 2
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 23:11:07 GMT
From: "kennethgmiller at juno.com" <kennethgmiller at juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] manipulating bodily energies
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <20080113.181107.24751.0 at webmail22.vgs.untd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> But nowadays there seem to be many types of Jews who accept
> ol Mitzvos but have chas vshalom rejected Monotheism...
> Examples: Praying to avos at kever Avos
> Praying to malachim
> etc.

R' Zev Sero responded:
> I believe in Yiddishkeit - if you choose describe it as
> monotheistic, then so be it, I'm a monotheist; but if you
> then change the definition of monotheism so that
> Yiddishkeit no longer fits it, then fine, I'm not a
> monotheist.

This discussion will not make any progress unless and until we get a
working definition of the word "monotheism".

I am very tempted to offer my views on this topic. However, since RZS
has accused RRW of changing the definition, I would suggest that RZS
should expand on his post, and explain what he thinks the original
definition was, and what he thinks RRW changed the definition to.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click now and enhance your business with great email newsletters.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3nBDMPaQl0U6JAVF7VL4PG
Zfr4p11nRiZO876DUv35m7tTxY/




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

Message: 3
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:27:54 -0500
From: "Joshua Meisner" <jmeisner at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Burning of the Golden Calf
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<995929200801131727w511b2cf9wca052ce045705c75 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> That said, I'm not sure that the Ibn Ezra's words work with this.
Quote (Ibn
> Ezra Ha'aruch, from MHK's Toras Chaim Chumash): Ki Yeish Davar
She'yusam
> B'eish Im HaZahav U'm'yad Y'sareif V'yi'yeh Shachor Ul'olam Lo Yashuv
Zahav.
> The first part sounds like it is something that happens either
> instantaneously or close to it, and the last phrase makes it sound
that this
> causes some reaction in the whole piece

The only way that a metal can undergo a chemical change (as opposed to
a physical phase change such as melting) is if something comes in
contact with the metal atoms to make them react.  In order for
interior atoms to change, therefore, either they have to be brought to
the surface or the reacting molecule (e.g., sulfur) has to be brought
to them.  Although it is possible for sulfur to diffuse through solid
metal, it would take a *long* time - and possibly even longer to
dissolve through a layer of copper sulfide.  You bring a good point,
though, that the passuk implies that grinding was not an essential
part of the burning. So... I don't know.

>- if it were just tarnish then why would he say that it never becomes
gold again?

Barring methods such as that described by RMM to chemically remove
tarnish, it does never become gold again.  Physically rubbing a
tarnished object doesn't change it back to metal, it merely removes
the outer layer, something that would not be possible if we're dealing
with a fine powder (unless one grinds it moreso).

R' Mikha'el Makovi wrote:

> A strong acid would just dissolve the gold into a salty solution. By
salt I
> don't mean table salt, but rather salt in the sense of a metal and
nonmetal
> ionically bonded.
>
> For example:
>
> Sulfuric acid + gold
> H2SO4(aq = water) + 2Au
> H2SO4(s = solid) + H2O + 2Au
> SO4 (-2 charge) + 2H(+1 charge) + H2O + 2Au
> SO4 (-2) + H2 (gas) + H2O + 2Au(+2 charge)
> Au2So4 (aq) + H2 (gas)

No, it wouldn't (That's what led me to suggest that it must be
something else in the eigel that was doing the reacting).  Gold is so
resistant to chemical attack that even H2SO4 won't do it.  A reagent
commonly used to dissolve gold is aqua regia, a solution of
concentrated nitric acid and hydrochloric acid, in which (acc. to
Wikipedia) the nitric acid produces a very small number of gold ions
which react with the chlorine ions from the hydrochloric acid to
produce chloraurate ions, so that little by little, the system is
thermodynamically driven towards a dissolution of the gold.  Sodium or
potassium cyanide also works.  Either way, though, the dissolution of
gold requires truly vicious chemicals that were not likely to have
been utilized more than a few centuries ago - and at any rate, would
produce only a clear solution, not a scorched solid, as you mentioned.

Joshua Meisner


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

Message: 4
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 21:48:36 -0500
From: "Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts"
	<contact at jewishbrevard.com>
Subject: [Avodah]  Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please Confirm
To: <avodah at aishdas.org>
Cc: micha at aishdas.org
Message-ID: <014901c85657$f91beec0$0201a8c0 at RABBI>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

The Rebbe stood up for him twice, the first time in 5725 Vov Tishrei
when R. Soloveitchik came to be Menachem Avel the Rebbe (this as per the
account of R' Sholom Kovalski who drove him there - see the following
video clips of the interviews online of Rav Kovalski & Rav Hershel
Schacter)
the second time was when R. Schechter drove R.S. to the Rebbe's
Farbrengen (10th shvat 1980), the Rebbe got up for him when  he was
leaving the Farbrengen. 
about godol Hador I don't remember seeing or hearing this
??? ????? ??? ????
Here's the link for the interviews:
www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/529496/jewish/A-Relationship-fro
m-Berlin-to-New-York.htm

>
I was told - and have beenacknowledged of flsit - that when RYDS
visisted
the Rebbe to be menachem Avel the Rebe stood and said we must stand for
the
"gadol hador". Any confirmation of this story?


Rabbi Zvi Konikov
Chabad of the Space & Treasure Coasts
1190 Highway A1A
Satellite Beach, FL 32937
(321) 777 2770
contact at jewishbrevard.com
www.jewishbrevard.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
13/e104950c/attachment.html 

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

Message: 5
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:04:48 -0500
From: Richard Wolberg <cantorwolberg at cox.net>
Subject: [Avodah] "Blei Gissen" should we believe in this?
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <B98D3052-EBA1-4386-8F1D-7B9D66EF72A5 at cox.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

> I don't know how someone can state with a straight face that the  
> Amoraim did not believe
> in or use segulot and amulets.  One can argue with the Rambam that  
> they
> were mistaken in so doing, but to deny that they did so in the first  
> place?


Let's not forget the placebo effect. One can even say that HaShem may  
choose to use the placebo effect as one modality of influence.
ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
13/8b1604b5/attachment.htm 

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

Message: 6
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:58:24 -0500
From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] manipulating bodily energies
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID: <478ADDE0.6080803 at sero.name>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

kennethgmiller at juno.com wrote:
> R' Zev Sero responded:
>> I believe in Yiddishkeit - if you choose describe it as
>> monotheistic, then so be it, I'm a monotheist; but if you
>> then change the definition of monotheism so that
>> Yiddishkeit no longer fits it, then fine, I'm not a
>> monotheist.
> 
> This discussion will not make any progress unless and until we get a
> working definition of the word "monotheism".
> 
> I am very tempted to offer my views on this topic. However, since RZS
> has accused RRW of changing the definition, I would suggest that RZS
> should expand on his post, and explain what he thinks the original
> definition was, and what he thinks RRW changed the definition to.

On the contrary, I'm not interested in discussing and refining the
definition of "monotheism" because I don't think it matters in the
least.  My point is that I'm not at all attached to the word
"monotheist".
If the definition you happen to be using matches Yiddishkeit as I
understand it then I'm happy to be called a monotheist; If you choose
to define it in a way that excludes my religion, then I'm equally happy
not to be one.  So attacking my religion on the grounds that it's not
monotheistic doesn't impress me.  I think what RRW has done is go from
a concrete to an abstract, become attached to that abstraction,
analysed it, and then used it to criticise the original.



-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this
Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas


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

Message: 7
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:47:19 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] manipulating bodily energies
To: avodah at lists.aishdas.org
Message-ID: <20080114104718.GA16922 at aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 10:58:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
:                                   I think what RRW has done is go from
: a concrete to an abstract, become attached to that abstraction,
: analysed it, and then used it to criticise the original.

On the contrary. I read RRW as asserting the Rambam's version of the
5th ikkar (the one about not praying to anyone or anything but Hashem,
not to introduce a middleman between oneself and the Borei). The Gra too
had much objection to the distance from that version taken by Chassidim.

And yes, many of the masses certainly do cross the line. Think how
precise one's kavanos at a qever have to be in order to be mutar. How
many people are aware of capable of towing that line?

The comparison to R is heavy handed to the point of falsity, though. One
misteaches the concept of mitzvah and aveirah, and leads people astray.
The other is people unable to understand a subtle philosophical
distinction.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
micha at aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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

Message: 8
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 06:59:30 +0200
From: "Simon Montagu" <simon.montagu at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Isaac Leeser
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<580f9f600801132059p68bf9d72q4cbba8d37e9402c0 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Jan 13, 2008 5:17 AM, Richard Wolpoe <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
wrote:
> And AIUI re: the the portuguese pronunciation is that the NG in ShmaNG
is
> like shma with a suffix of the sound of NI in onion  or the first na
in
> manana [n~]

It's more like the ng in bang. One can hear it in the recordings at
http://www.chazzanut-esnoga.org/ or R Avraham Lopez Cardozo's
recordings at the Piyut site:
http://www.piyut.org.il/cgi-bin/search.pl?Expression=%E0%E1%F8%E4%ED+%EC
%E5%F4%E6+%F7%F8%E3%E5%E6%E5&x=0&y=0
"El Nora Ngalila" at
http://www.piyut.org.il/tradition/263.html?currPerformance=295 is a
good example.


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

Message: 9
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:08:04 -0500
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Did L. Reebe Call RYDS Gaol Hador? Please
	Confirm
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<f6b170190801132108j67f30705s269d50969362052a at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Jan 13, 2008 4:43 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:

> There is a HUGE chiluq whether RMMS said "the gadol hador" or "a gadol
> hador". Given the role in Chabad thought of the yechidah kelalis, I
> really doubt RMMS could give a non-Chabad rav the title of the
> generation's greatest.
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
>
As  I heard it, the Rebbe exhorted his Hassidim to stand up and honor
the
"gadol hador."  It could be he said A gadol Hador but then why ask
Hassidim
to rise?


FWIW I don't know WHERE I read it but I remember it was around 1999 give
or
take a year.

I also pointed this out to a Habad Hasid who was an Avodah member and he
did
NOT deny it.

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/dceeec2f/attachment.html 

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

Message: 10
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:28:14 -0500
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] manipulating bodily energies
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<f6b170190801132128i3b903cfcs736e766e89ab99b1 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Jan 13, 2008 11:18 AM, <T613K at aol.com> wrote:

>
>
>  >>>>>
> Are you seriously trying to claim that davening at Kever Rochel or
singing
> Sholom Aleichem is the same as the egel or the A'Z temple of Yeravam?!
>

Sometimes a subtle indisious Avodah Zoro is more dangerous than the
obvious
bowing down to a wooden statute!

I find it ironic that some frum someJjews can be so machmir re: e.g.
kashrus
and so  easygoing about issues bordering AZ.



> That is quite a stretch.  If the debate here is over normative
Judaism, it
> is certainly RRW and not RZS who is taking the radical position.
>

How so?  What is your evidence?


> (The question of davening to the Rebbe /instead of/ davening to Hashem
is
> a far more serious problem, and on that point RRW may well be
> correct.)   But saying at a tzaddik's kever "Please be a meilitz
yosher for
> us" is /not/ A'Z.
>

See kitzur Shulchan Aruch about asking Meisim to helop out. It is an
issur
d'orrasios doreach el hameisim.  Kitzur is VERY careful about visitng
kevarim before RH to make this disclaimer?   Why?  AFAIK less man
depalig




> "Kol beramah nishma, Rochel mevaka al baneha" establishes the
principle
> that tzaddikim can ask Hashem for rachamim for their children -- even
after
> said tzaddikim have left this world.  Asking them, "Go to Father and
plead
> for us" is not A'Z.
>

No it is doreish el hameisim, which is probably abizraihu d'AZ and a
yeihareig v'al ya'avor



> Asking the malachim to give you a bracha is likewise not A'Z, any more
> than asking any person for a bracha is A'Z.
>

But would violate 13 Ikkarim of Rambam and according to R. Yehudah
Parness
puts you beyond the pale. IOW a prospective Ger would be rejectd for
doing
this.



> "Al tehi birchas hedyot kal be'einecha" means ordinary people can
bentsh
> other people, and certainly malachim can.
>

Adressing Malachim presupposes they have their own will. See Rambam.
Imagine iof you address a Kings' arm or leg or some inferior body part.
And
BTW, Uriah hachitti was hayyav missa for saying "adoni Avishai" in front
of
David.  Addrssing a Mlachi infron of Hashem is tantamount to ignoring
HKBH
and talkiing to an infeiror being instead.



> If a person can bentsh another person, what is to say you can't
actually
> ask for a bracha?    It is still up to Hashem to fulfill the bracha.
>

If Presdient Bush was in fron of you and you aske Condy Rice to
helpIsrael
would that be OK because it is STILL Bush'sdecision? Or would you be
violating protocal?


>
> PS Despite the thread subject, I do not believe in kinesiology,
iridology,
> homeopathy et al.  They may not be A'Z but it is a separate mitzva,
very
> well known, for a Jew to have seichel.
> **
> *--Toby Katz
> =============*
>
>
>
Bottom line, just because the other kids on the block do it does not
make it
OK. Minhaggim are OK and even holy when they enhance Torah. When they
promote AZ I cannot imagine a bigger abuse of Minhag or Moreshes!   Just
because Mitechila ovdeai AZ  hayu avoseinu does not mean we should
emulate
THAT morasha!

Avraham Avinu violated Kibbud Av in order to rebel against AZ.  THAT is
our
Morasha!

I'm not Melech Yisroel but if they made me king some of the first things
I
WOULD do would be:

   1. Abolish all iconography
   2. Abolish all images in shuls except for p'sukkim [iow Shiviss or Da
   lifnei is OK with me]I


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/6197f6d9/attachment.htm 

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

Message: 11
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:31:15 -0500
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] [Areivim] abayudaya
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<f6b170190801132131u1bc35c34o7b71f8b24324995e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Jan 10, 2008 7:20 PM, Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopinsky at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> On a similar but sad note, there is a Gemarrah in Brachot which says
that
> one cannot name a shul "Beth Am" because it connotes a place of
communal
> gathering rather than avodat Hashem, but googling "beth Am" gives the
> following: " Results 1 - 10 of about 944,000 for beth Am. ( 0.21
seconds)
> " What is sad is not that that many congregations voted to name their
shuls
> by a name explicitely assur in the Gemarrah, but that none of their
Rabbi's
> actually learned (or cared about) the first tractate of Shas to know
it's
> forbidden at all.
> ~Liron
>

How can we call a month Tammuz when it is the name of a Baylonian Deity
-
sholudn't "sheim elohim acheirim lo sazkiru" make that assur
mid'orraisso?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/85f07ea2/attachment.html 

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

Message: 12
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 00:34:14 -0500
From: "Richard Wolpoe" <rabbirichwolpoe at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Seeing the Alps
To: "A High-Level Torah Discussion Group" <avodah at lists.aishdas.org>
Message-ID:
	<f6b170190801132134g4439a04bvc1da92930eae2f5a at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

On Jan 13, 2008 4:33 PM, kennethgmiller at juno.com
<kennethgmiller at juno.com>
wrote:

>
>
> But the niggun is a human creation, and the Alps are a Divine
creation. To
> me, that is gigantic distinction.

We are talking about what inspires an individual





>
> > If a drunk has booze it is a physical pleasure. if a ehrlihcer
> > hassid has a schnappes it is a spiritual event.  Simple - no?
>
> No. Not unless that schnappes helped that hassid to some sort of
chiddush
> in learning, or in dveykus, or whatever.


For Hassidim alcohol reduces the inhibitrions of approaching HKBH call
that
dveikus if you will but I would simply say imbibing spirits is inspiring
and
spiritual for those who are so inclinded



> Which I freely admit that alcohol *can* help do. But the drinking
alone is
> *not* a spiritual event. And woe to those who think it is.


the points is the attitude with which preceeds the process, not the
process
itself. I'm not sure if you are getting my point here.


>
>
> Akiva Miller
> _


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe at Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/200801
14/17dc97e7/attachment.htm 

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

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah at lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 21
**************************************