Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 12

Sat, 03 Feb 2007

• 1. Androgynous (Dr. Josh Backon)
• 2. Re: Kosher Swiss Cheese (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 3. Makor: Melted Parmesan (Jeffrey Saks)
• 4. Re: Makor: Melted Parmesan (menucha)
• 5. Re: Minimization of the Heter Mechirah (Arie Folger)
• 6. Ani Hamihapech...nikra rasha (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Honey spoils? (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: Honey spoils? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Honey spoils? (Michael Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Minimization of the Heter Mechirah (menucha)
• 11. Re: Honey spoils? (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: RYBS TEEM Musings (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: RYBS TEEM Musings (Micha Berger)

There are 4 opinions in the gemara on the status of the androgynous:

a) doubtful male and doubtful female [Tana Kama in Mishna Bikkurim 4;
R. Yosi in the mishna in Yevamot 81a and Resh Lakish in the gemara there]

b) a *birya* [creation] unto itself and its status has not been determined
[Braita in Yevamot 83a; Ramban in last section of Yevamot and in his
Hilchot Bechorot Chapter 6; ROSH Bechorot Chapter 6 Siman 8]

c) partially male and partially female [Tosfot Yevamot 83a; RAAVAD on Rambam
Hilchot Shofar 2:12 and in Hilchot Terumot 7:16]

d) definite male [R. Elizer in the Mishna Yevamot 81a]

Most poskim have ruled as per #1 (doubtful male and doubtful
female) [RIF in Yevamot; Rambam Hilchot Mila 3:6; Rambam Hilchot Ishut
2:24; TUR Orach Chaim 331 # 5; TUR Yoreh Deah 194; BACH in TUR Yoreh
Deah 265; GRA Even haEzer 172 s"k 18].

The androgynous is required to observe all mitzvot (even "she'hazmna gerama").
Many of the laws are detailed in the Encylopedia Talmudit under *androgynous*.

PLASTIC SURGERY: by halacha it is forbidden to perform plastic surgery
to change the sex to female even if chromosomal tests indicate female gender
[Tzitz Eliezer Chelek XI Siman 78]. Many reasons are given for this
prohibition. See also the article in ASSIA (Volume 1 pg. 142) by Rav Moshe
Steinberg. The Nishmat Avraham [Even ha'Ezer 44 #3] however, indicates
that *if* all internal reproductory organs are female then one may perform
plastic surgery [as per Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach]. This was the case
too in the Tzitz Eliezer  XI 78 when he in fact permitted surgery when all
organs were female.

KT

Josh

R' Daniel Israel wrote to Areivim:
> My experience is that Parmesan is almost invariably eaten either
> melted, or very finely ground, or both, and my understanding is
> that this would obviate the halachic requirement for waiting.

R' Micha Berger asked:
> Could you provide a mar'eh maqom?

ArtScroll's "The Laws of Kashrus" by Rabbi Binyomin Forst, page 209, 
says, "One who eats 'hard' cheese that has been melted into food 
(e.g., lasagna) need not wait six hours."

His footnote says, "Yad Yehuda 89:30k. It would seem that this 
applies only to cheese melted *into* food, but if the cheese is 
melted *onto* food (i.e., it is still visible as a separate entity), 
it retains its status. Thus, one who eats Swiss cheese melted onto 
toast or a cheese omelette made with hard cheese is required to wait 
six hours before eating meat."

The question of whether RDI's case (where parmesan cheese is finely 
ground and mixed into a salad) is more similar to lasagna or more 
similar to an omelette, is left as an exercise for the reader.

Akiva Miller

The notion that otherwise "Gevina Kasha" eaten in a melted form (in a lasagna, e.g.) does NOT require waiting before dairy -- exempting it from the Ramo's chumra/minhag (YD 89:2) to wait -- appears first in the Yad Yehuda (89:30). 
Note: The Yad Yehuda is talking about melted, not "finely graound" as mentioned in the original post. (What consitutes "hard cheese" these days is a matter of dispute, but all seem to agree Parmesan = hard cheese).

"Daniel Israel" wrote to Areivim:
> My experience is that Parmesan is almost invariably eaten either
> melted, or very finely ground, or both, and my understanding is
> that this would obviate the halachic requirement for waiting.
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Could you provide a mar'eh maqom? Because I've been waiting 5+ hours after
food sprinked with Parmesan cheese, and would (in theory, if I enjoyed the
taste) after Swiss cheese as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070201/ce1d8f07/attachment.html 

Thank you!  For this alone it was worth all of Areivim and Avodah.  
There's an article of the definition of these cheeses with modern 
process at http://www.kashrut-tnuva.co.il/articles.php?actions=show&;id=125
menucha

Jeffrey Saks wrote:

> The notion that otherwise "Gevina Kasha" eaten in a melted form (in a 
> lasagna, e.g.) does NOT require waiting before dairy -- exempting it 
> from the Ramo's chumra/minhag (YD 89:2) to wait -- appears first in 
> the Yad Yehuda (89:30).
>
>  
>
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070201/19f803a4/attachment-0001.htm 

> RSBA pointed us on Areivim to
> <http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=12057>:
> : Chief Rabbinate to Reduce Use of Special 7th-Year Dispensation
> :
> : The Chief Rabbinate plans to reduce its reliance on the controversial
> : "land sale dispensation" for the upcoming Shemittah "year of fallow."

RMB wrote:
> I think this is consistent with RAYK's original intent. The heter was to
> keep the yishuv viable. I do not know if there was ever a thought that the
> heter mechirah would be used when (1) EY economy isn't as agrarian and (2)
> even the farmers have other fiscal options.
>
> I'm posting this to Avodah as a means of asking whether someone has meqoros
> from the period that would indicate one way or the other. I'm simply
> repeating what I heard 12th hand or so.

In his biography of Rav Ovadyah Yossef, RDBenny Lau writes that ROY held the 
heter mekhirah to be lekhat'hilah, as shittah bizman hazeh deRabbanan. I was 
surprised and would like to hear the 'hevrah's take on this.

RMB: thanks for posting this on Avodah.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

The issue (often labeled as hasagat gvul) is discussed on Kiddushin 59
and brought down in C"M 237.
No one I have seen requires a condition of one being an ani for this
nikra rasha to take effect.  Since the phrasing seems not based on an
actual case, why mention ani if it applies to anyone?
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-aishdas.org/attachments/20070201/7328c663/attachment-0001.html 

Just saw in Rashi Bava Metzia(38a) that honey sours and spoils. A 
quickcheck on the internet indicates that honey does not spoil. Any 
explanations?



??"? ??? ????? ?? ??/?
?????? - ??? ??? ??????, ??????, ?????"? ???? (??????) (???? ??) ???? 
?????? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? (???? ??) ????? ?????? 
??????:


??"? ??????? ?? ??/?
????? - ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????:


Daniel Eidensohn

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Just saw in Rashi Bava Metzia(38a) that honey sours and spoils. A 
> quickcheck on the internet indicates that honey does not spoil.

That would be bee honey.  What about date honey?  Maybe that spoils.


> ??"? ??????? ?? ??/?
> ????? - ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??????:

Well, honey will certainly crystalise.  That seems the opposite of
"tzalul", but maybe it's a clue.


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

On 2/2/07, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> wrote:
>
> Just saw in Rashi Bava Metzia(38a) that honey sours and spoils. A
> quickcheck on the internet indicates that honey does not spoil. Any
> explanations?

Could it be the gemara is talking about date honey and not bee honey?  I
don't know if date honey was commonly used during the days of the Tannaim.

Rav Lior was asked about the Heter Mechira for the former Gush Katif 
farmers 
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/ask/search_ask.asp?q=????%20?????%20????? who 
are restarting. 
the answer here is that it is not simple but it seems that they will 
require the heter mechira.
menucha

>RMB wrote:
>  
>
>>I think this is consistent with RAYK's original intent. The heter was to
>>keep the yishuv viable. I do not know if there was ever a thought that the
>>heter mechirah would be used when (1) EY economy isn't as agrarian and (2)
>>even the farmers have other fiscal options.
>>    
>>

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

> Just saw in Rashi Bava Metzia(38a) that honey sours and spoils. A
> quickcheck on the internet indicates that honey does not spoil. Any
> explanations?

It doesn't spoil because it is so "dry" that it sucks the water out of 
bacteria and kills them.  Mix it with water and it will spoil.

David Riceman 

On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer quoted
[R?] Daniel Rhynhold:
:> The basic point in Part 1 is that' man may be the most developed form 
:> of life on the continuum of plant-animal-man, but the ontic essence 
:> remains identical' (47). Indeed, in his account of the famous biblical 
:> idea that man is made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) he 
:> explicitly rejects what he takes to be the metaphysical and 
:> transcendental Christian reading of the term tzelem. Instead, in a 
:> description that surpasses even the strongly scientific elucidation of 
:> the term in 1965's The Lonely Man of Faith, Soloveitchik insists that 
:> tzelem 'signifies man's awareness of himself as a biological being and 
:> the state of being informed of his natural drives' (75-76).

: Fascinating take on "Tzelem Elokim." One wonders what the zayde (in this 
: case, R' Chaim *Volozhiner* would have had to say about this. Is there 
: any precedent in earlier Jewish sources for this definition?

I understand TLMF as saying that tzelem E-lokim is self awareness. And of
what is one self aware? What exists at a plane "below" that awareness? His
biology and its drives.

Self awareness is the flipside of bechirah. One can only consciously
choose if one is conscious of the process of choosing. And so, RYBS's
position as I understood it isn't that far from the Meshekh Chokhmah
(although not the same), who identifies tzelem E-lokim with bechirah.

:> With the naturalistic context in place, Part 2 turns to the emergence 
:> of ethical man. Firstly, in order to experience the ethical norm, 
:> external divine intervention is necessary. Only through the divine 
:> command can man transcend his natural biological self and experience 
:> the ethical....
:> thinking, God is naturally the source of value. Yet Soloveitchik 
:> insists on retaining his naturalism at the human level, concluding 
:> Part 2 by saying that 'the ethical personality is not transcendent. It 
:> only reconsiders its own status in a normative light, conceiving the 
:> natural law as identical with the moral law' (144). So man remains a 
:> biological rather than metaphysical being, but man's unique ethical 
:> perspective emerges through his encounter with the divine imperative.

: "Natural law" sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  human 
: beings are "naturally" ethical?

I believe so... That HQBH created us with a yeitzer hatov.

:                                 It seems that he is saying more than 
: that: That to be ethical is also not connected to being transcendent - 
: viz., a person who attempts to transcend this world is a priori 
: "unethical."

However, I think this is a misunderstanding born of the reviewer's
confusion of RYBS's defining the spiritual as being beyond the natural
qualitatively with understanding him as saying the difference is more
quantitative.

:              Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding Chassidim/Mekubalim?

Well, it would be any of the Litvisher schools that put qabbalah aside
for a rationalist here-and-now focus in Yahdus.

:> What is most important about this divine imperative is its role as a 
:> condition of the freedom necessary for the emergence of the ethical 
:> personality....

Freedom comes from having the choice between moral and physical drives.
Again, this feeds my understanding that this is a YhT vs YhR discussion.

:> Soloveitchik goes on in Part 2 to give an account of 'the Fall' and 
:> consistent with the naturalism of Part I, 'Man's sin consisted in 
:> betraying nature.... Naturalness is moral, unnaturalness is sin' ...

: Olam hafuch ra'isi. Shouldn't that be: "Morality is natural, sin is 
: unnatural?" What is the different connotation of RYBS's formulation?

No, I think that misses RYBS's point about the eitz hada's. Adam qodem
hacheit was moral. Thus, morality is natural; or was.

:>        A close reading of the Genesis text yields for Soloveitchik the 
:> idea that sin arose as a result of the seduction of humanity by 
:> pleasure, causing a split in a once harmonious personality.

Now, human nature has that unnatural split. So that our normal state
is the unnatural one.

:> It is in Part 3 of the book, probably its most original section for 
:> those familiar with Soloveitchik's writings, that we find him return 
:> to a more typological approach in his account of the rehabilitation of 
:> the ethical personality through 'charismatic man'. The 'charismatic 
:> personality' achieves the restoration of the human personality to its 
:> original unity through realizing the covenant with God in history.
...

: Charisma: *cha?ris?ma*   (k?-ri(z'm?) n.   /pl./ *cha?ris?ma?ta* (-m?-t?)
...
: How does this definition fit with RYBS's usage? Surely he means 
: something else by "charisma." But what?

I think he was trying to derfine chein, not chareisma.

:> As a number of writers have noted, this 'this-worldly' emphasis in 
:> Soloveitchik's work meant that he did not pay much attention to 
:> eschatological questions....

: Is man's drive to immortality then primarily the drive to enter history? 
: This might actually link up RYBS with Dr. Isaac Breuer - no coincedence, 
: considering the common influences on their thought.

"I do not want to acheive immortality through my work,
I want to acheive immortality through not dying."
                         - Woody Allen

RYBS has a "this worldly" focus. IOW, he doesn't see life as being
about olam haba, but about olam hazeh. From his existential perspective,
this makes sense. Ontologically, olam haba is the banquet and this is
just the entryway. But if we adopt that view pragmatically, our shemiras
hamitzvos comes about reward.

Thus, one can't assume that his silence about immortality in the
eschatological sense means anything. That's just not an area of Torah
central to what he taught.



On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:52:13PM -0500, dfinch847@aol.com wrote:
:> 'Natural law' [as the book review ascribes to Berger's description of 
:> RYBS's thinking] sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  
:> human beings are "naturally" ethical? It seems that he is saying more 
:> than that: That to be ethical is also not connected to being 
:> transcendent - 'unethical.' Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding 
:> Chassidim/Mekubalim?"

: RYBS's thoughts reflect more of the Hegel and Kierkegaard than they do 
: of Rousseau. RYBS mirrors Rambam in believing that G-d's creations, 
: including man, are inherently moral, although man can descend from 
: morality into sin through the exercise of action through free will. 

As implied by my answer to RYBS, above, I'm not as sure that RYBS is
saying that man is naturally good. Rather, that man has a natural drive
to be good; but this is not his only drive. And, due to his eating of
the eitz hada'as, man is no longer in the state where all the drives
are harmonious. Now there is a split between the moral drives and the
physical ones.

: Much of Chassidus is devoted to stripping away the temporality of 
: action and rationalism in order to connect transcendentally with this 
: original morality. RYBS rejected this approach, believing that man can 
: approach original morality *only* through the discipline of halachic 
: action and thought. Rousseau and Chassidus are romantic: You are what 
: you feel, and refined feeling brings you closer to your natural state 
: (or to G-d). RYBS was existentialist: You are what you do, and by 
: perfecting your action and thought, you will approach (and begin 
: spirtually to comprehend) natural morality. For RYBS, this natural 
: morality was a state of enlightenment more powerful than mere devekus.

Thank you for this.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer quoted
[R?] Daniel Rhynhold:
:> The basic point in Part 1 is that' man may be the most developed form 
:> of life on the continuum of plant-animal-man, but the ontic essence 
:> remains identical' (47). Indeed, in his account of the famous biblical 
:> idea that man is made in the image of God (tzelem elohim) he 
:> explicitly rejects what he takes to be the metaphysical and 
:> transcendental Christian reading of the term tzelem. Instead, in a 
:> description that surpasses even the strongly scientific elucidation of 
:> the term in 1965's The Lonely Man of Faith, Soloveitchik insists that 
:> tzelem 'signifies man's awareness of himself as a biological being and 
:> the state of being informed of his natural drives' (75-76).

: Fascinating take on "Tzelem Elokim." One wonders what the zayde (in this 
: case, R' Chaim *Volozhiner* would have had to say about this. Is there 
: any precedent in earlier Jewish sources for this definition?

I understand TLMF as saying that tzelem E-lokim is self awareness. And of
what is one self aware? What exists at a plane "below" that awareness? His
biology and its drives.

Self awareness is the flipside of bechirah. One can only consciously
choose if one is conscious of the process of choosing. And so, RYBS's
position as I understood it isn't that far from the Meshekh Chokhmah
(although not the same), who identifies tzelem E-lokim with bechirah.

:> With the naturalistic context in place, Part 2 turns to the emergence 
:> of ethical man. Firstly, in order to experience the ethical norm, 
:> external divine intervention is necessary. Only through the divine 
:> command can man transcend his natural biological self and experience 
:> the ethical....
:> thinking, God is naturally the source of value. Yet Soloveitchik 
:> insists on retaining his naturalism at the human level, concluding 
:> Part 2 by saying that 'the ethical personality is not transcendent. It 
:> only reconsiders its own status in a normative light, conceiving the 
:> natural law as identical with the moral law' (144). So man remains a 
:> biological rather than metaphysical being, but man's unique ethical 
:> perspective emerges through his encounter with the divine imperative.

: "Natural law" sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  human 
: beings are "naturally" ethical?

I believe so... That HQBH created us with a yeitzer hatov.

:                                 It seems that he is saying more than 
: that: That to be ethical is also not connected to being transcendent - 
: viz., a person who attempts to transcend this world is a priori 
: "unethical."

However, I think this is a misunderstanding born of the reviewer's
confusion of RYBS's defining the spiritual as being beyond the natural
qualitatively with understanding him as saying the difference is more
quantitative.

:              Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding Chassidim/Mekubalim?

Well, it would be any of the Litvisher schools that put qabbalah aside
for a rationalist here-and-now focus in Yahdus.

:> What is most important about this divine imperative is its role as a 
:> condition of the freedom necessary for the emergence of the ethical 
:> personality....

Freedom comes from having the choice between moral and physical drives.
Again, this feeds my understanding that this is a YhT vs YhR discussion.

:> Soloveitchik goes on in Part 2 to give an account of 'the Fall' and 
:> consistent with the naturalism of Part I, 'Man's sin consisted in 
:> betraying nature.... Naturalness is moral, unnaturalness is sin' ...

: Olam hafuch ra'isi. Shouldn't that be: "Morality is natural, sin is 
: unnatural?" What is the different connotation of RYBS's formulation?

No, I think that misses RYBS's point about the eitz hada's. Adam qodem
hacheit was moral. Thus, morality is natural; or was.

:>        A close reading of the Genesis text yields for Soloveitchik the 
:> idea that sin arose as a result of the seduction of humanity by 
:> pleasure, causing a split in a once harmonious personality.

Now, human nature has that unnatural split. So that our normal state
is the unnatural one.

:> It is in Part 3 of the book, probably its most original section for 
:> those familiar with Soloveitchik's writings, that we find him return 
:> to a more typological approach in his account of the rehabilitation of 
:> the ethical personality through 'charismatic man'. The 'charismatic 
:> personality' achieves the restoration of the human personality to its 
:> original unity through realizing the covenant with God in history.
...

: Charisma: *cha?ris?ma*   (k?-ri(z'm?) n.   /pl./ *cha?ris?ma?ta* (-m?-t?)
...
: How does this definition fit with RYBS's usage? Surely he means 
: something else by "charisma." But what?

I think he was trying to derfine chein, not chareisma.

:> As a number of writers have noted, this 'this-worldly' emphasis in 
:> Soloveitchik's work meant that he did not pay much attention to 
:> eschatological questions....

: Is man's drive to immortality then primarily the drive to enter history? 
: This might actually link up RYBS with Dr. Isaac Breuer - no coincedence, 
: considering the common influences on their thought.

"I do not want to acheive immortality through my work,
I want to acheive immortality through not dying."
                         - Woody Allen

RYBS has a "this worldly" focus. IOW, he doesn't see life as being
about olam haba, but about olam hazeh. From his existential perspective,
this makes sense. Ontologically, olam haba is the banquet and this is
just the entryway. But if we adopt that view pragmatically, our shemiras
hamitzvos comes about reward.

Thus, one can't assume that his silence about immortality in the
eschatological sense means anything. That's just not an area of Torah
central to what he taught.



On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 03:52:13PM -0500, dfinch847@aol.com wrote:
:> 'Natural law' [as the book review ascribes to Berger's description of 
:> RYBS's thinking] sounds to me like Rousseau. Is RYBS suggesting that  
:> human beings are "naturally" ethical? It seems that he is saying more 
:> than that: That to be ethical is also not connected to being 
:> transcendent - 'unethical.' Is this Ba'al Mussar's (!!!) deriding 
:> Chassidim/Mekubalim?"

: RYBS's thoughts reflect more of the Hegel and Kierkegaard than they do 
: of Rousseau. RYBS mirrors Rambam in believing that G-d's creations, 
: including man, are inherently moral, although man can descend from 
: morality into sin through the exercise of action through free will. 

As implied by my answer to RYBS, above, I'm not as sure that RYBS is
saying that man is naturally good. Rather, that man has a natural drive
to be good; but this is not his only drive. And, due to his eating of
the eitz hada'as, man is no longer in the state where all the drives
are harmonious. Now there is a split between the moral drives and the
physical ones.

: Much of Chassidus is devoted to stripping away the temporality of 
: action and rationalism in order to connect transcendentally with this 
: original morality. RYBS rejected this approach, believing that man can 
: approach original morality *only* through the discipline of halachic 
: action and thought. Rousseau and Chassidus are romantic: You are what 
: you feel, and refined feeling brings you closer to your natural state 
: (or to G-d). RYBS was existentialist: You are what you do, and by 
: perfecting your action and thought, you will approach (and begin 
: spirtually to comprehend) natural morality. For RYBS, this natural 
: morality was a state of enlightenment more powerful than mere devekus.

Thank you for this.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
micha@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
**************************************

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..."