Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 102

Wed, 09 May 2007

• 1. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. chumrot of sefardim (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Regarding the Mitzvah to hate evil (was RE: How violent to be) (Samuel Svarc)
• 4. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (mkopinsky@gmail.com)
• 5. Davening Netz vs. Minyan (Michael Kopinsky)
• 6. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Galsaba@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Yebamoth and Megillath Ruth (Yisrael Herczeg)
• 8. Ahavat Yisrael (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 9. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (Daniel Israel)
• 10. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to soCIETY (Zvi Lampel)

This post was monstrously long, so although I hate splitting up a post, I
think I will have to answer it in a series of posts.

>From: Chana Luntz [mailto:chana@kolsassoon.org.uk]
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Torah Study vs. other contributions to society
>
>MSS wrote:
>
>> Well, lets see what Chazal say about this--the Gemara in
>> Megilla that Gadol Talmud Torah MeHatzalas Nefashos. It would
>> appear that they felt it's better to seat in that ivory tower.
>>
>
>This aspect of the discussion just gets us back to the previous one we
>had regarding doing other mitzvos instead of talmud torah.  It is clear
>from the Shulchan Aruch that I brought in that discussion that one is in
>fact commanded to take time out from talmud torah to perform other
>mitzvos, unless they are delegatable to others.(If you remember in
>particular the discussion focussed on burying people and being a member
>of a chevra kadisha).
>
>It seems pretty clear from the sources that if there is nobody else
>around to bury, then one is commanded to stop and bury - and that
>statements such as gadol talmud torah and talmud torah kneged kulam
>cannot be understood to mean that, for example, corpses should end up
>being left unburied because nobody has got together a chevra kadisha.
>(Not to mention the sameach chatan v'kala etc requirements).

No one ever suggested this, and what you are talking about (the above
mentioned SA) does not at all speak to the original question, namely: If one
has the opportunity to learn practical, life-saving medicine or one can
utilize that time to learn Torah, which of those two alternatives is the
preferred choice? The fact that one is supposed to *interrupt* Torah study
for other mitzvos does not take away from the clear decision by Chazal that
'Gadol Talmud Torah M'hatzolas Nifoshas'. So if one can choose an
alternative that halachically lessens the chances of those *interruptions*
that is the preferred choice.

>This is not a TUM versus Torah only discussion, and I am sorry if I
>seemed to suggest that is was.  It is about something even more
>fundamental.  Should members of our society be taking time out to form a
>Zaka, or should we all shrug our shoulders when there is nobody around
>to do that kind of work because everybody has been commanded to be in
>yeshiva all the time, and this takes out of yeshiva time.  Should there
>be anybody out there protecting graves in Eastern Europe, why are they
>not in yeshiva? Etc etc etc.

You're making a fundamental error. Assuredly one interrupts Torah study for
those mitzvos, and just as assuredly Torah study is preferred over those
mitzvos, so if one can lessen the chances of those interruptions that is the
best alternative.  

>Now if you answer that indeed some people ought to be out there being a
>Zaka or protecting graves, then surely the same answer must be, some
>people need to be out there being a medic.  Now are those people
>protecting graves or being involved in Zaka second class citizens?  I
>think most people would say not,  that they are indeed doing what Hashem
>commanded them to do.  Should the Gra be one of those people?  I think
>most people would agree that the Gra should not be, that there are other
>people to do that work, and yet other people cannot manage the level of
>chiddush of the Gra, and therefore, the correct division of labour is to
>have the Gra in yeshiva and certain other people out of it.

For some reason, which I cannot fathom, you are including chiddush as a
relevant criteria. This is mistaken, as chiddush is not part of the criteria
in the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah. If one has the choice to either join Zaka or
to fulfill the Mitzvah of Talmud Torah, it is preferred to learn. Regardless
of this person's level of learning, as long as it can be called Torah, which
does *not* require chiddush, (someone who learns and understands Gemara
fulfills this, without any chiddushim necessary), this learning is preferred
over his joining Zaka.

>The more
>difficult question becomes how many, and who?  What should Mr ordinary
>do?  Should he assume that maybe he is a Gra, or that if it is good
>enough for the Gra it is good enough for him, or should he be open to
>the possibility that maybe *his* skills are best applied outside the
>yeshiva.

One's abilities do not have to approach the Gra's, so this is a moot
question.

If the choice is between learning and training to save lives, learning is
preferred. If OTOH, someone who is not planning on learning (for whatever
reason; be it parnassah, lack of interest, etc.) and the choice is between x
and training to save lives (TTSL), then TTSL is preferred.  

>So let us agree that in regard to this aspect, we are not talking about
>a Gra. We are talking about a Mr Ordinary, or somewhat above ordinary
>but well short of a Gra level of ability.  The question for Mr Ordinary
>is, should he stay in yeshiva all his life, and not explore to see
>whether a) his skills are better served outside it (maybe he is not an
>Ordinary as a medic) or b) explore whether the world needs more medics,
>so that even if he is only ordinary as a medic, if there is a shortage,
>maybe that is where he ought to be.

You are no longer discussing the question of whether Torah study or TTSL is
preferable, but have gone on to a totally different question. Should someone
learn all his life?

The short answer is: If he can, he should. There is nothing more preferable
for him to do. Nothing. Not even TTSL.

The long answer is: Not everyone is capable of this, for a variety of
reasons, so these make the previous "If he can..." to "he can't". Once
someone is not learning, there is a myriad of factors on how to decide on
what to do; from personal inclination (some people like different
occupations better), to ruchnistikah reasons. 

>Ie should we assume as a basic that everybody is commanded by Hashem to
>be in yeshiva full time, and that it is only those people who
>demonstrate that they cannot cope who have therefore demonstrated that
>they should be in a Zaka or doing other things, or should we assume that
>some people who may be able to cope with yeshiva, but are really only
>ordinary, might actually do better if they were using other skills out
>of it, eg as a medic, and that in fact that is really what Hashem
>commanded that particular person to do.

Well, there is a Mitzvah of Talmud Torah and nowhere do we find a criteria
of "if the person has greater talents doing something besides for learning".
The Torah makes it clear that Mitzvah of Talmud Torah is what should be
done, when one *can do* it. Nowhere do we find the criteria of "would I be
better at something else?". So yes, all those who can, should learn, whether
in a yeshiva or not is immaterial. All those who can't should do what they
need to do. 

KT,
MSS

In his teshuva ROY states explicitly that as a guest one either requests the
host to provide non-sweetened challot or else brings ones own. The same
for visiting an ashkenazi who does not eat glatt meat. ROY says the same
thing for wine and he says that most Ashkenazi wines (he singles out
Eda HaCharedit) are not porei pri gafen according to Ashkenazim.
I assume that means that according to him a Sefardi who hears kiddush
friday night from an Ashkenazi is not yotzeh with most wines and grape
juices
on the market.

I have not gone over the halachot recently but from memory (?) there are
differences
between the glatt of ashkenazim (piskei Ramah and lechumrah) and that of
sefardim (Mechaber). In that case even if it is glatt one would have to make
sure it is glatt according to all the shitot

On 5/9/07, MPoppers@kayescholer.com <MPoppers@kayescholer.com> wrote:
>
> In Avodah Digest V23#98, RET asked:
> > Again the major question for me is what do sefardim in practice when
> they are invited out? <
> Why assume that a guest in someone's home isn't permitted to follow the
> practices of his host, assuming those practices are Halachically legitimate?
> More than that he is permitted, I would think he is *mandated* to follow
> them unless his host explicitly allows or makes allowance for him to "do his
> own thing."
>
> All the best from
> --Michael Poppers via RIM pager
>



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070509/f6dd5cf3/attachment.htm 

Upon the request of the moderators, this thread was moved from Areivim to
Avodah. To summarize the Areivim discussion...

In Areivim Digest, Vol 23, Issue 396, I had written, regarding those people
who can hate things that are real to them, such as terrorism, but for things
that feel ethereal, like religion, it's hard to hate its desecraters, "The
solution for this is not to accept it and to be upset when someone protests
against wrongdoing, but rather to sensitize oneself so that it hurts when
people desecrate Torah and mitzvos."

Rn' Boublil then asked, in Areivim Digest, Vol 23, Issue 399:

"But where does it say that being sensitive to Chilul Shem Shamayim and the 
desecration of Torah and Mitzvot equals "hating"?

I still haven't found the Mitzva to Hate listed in the Taryag Mitzvot.

Could you enlighten me as to what number it is?  I must have missed it.

And if so, I would love to learn all about it.

Does it include people who Oveir on d'oraita only -- or also D'rabbanan?

And which current Poseik's decrees in the year 2007 are those that qualify 
the transgressors to be hated?"

The following is my response:

>But where does it say that being sensitive to Chilul Shem Shamayim and 
>the desecration of Torah and Mitzvot equals "hating"?

Pesachim 113b. "...Rav Nachman bar Yitzchock omar, "Mitzvah Lisnosoy -
Shnemar "Yiras Hashem, Sinas Rah" " "

>I still haven't found the Mitzva to Hate listed in the Taryag Mitzvot.
>
>Could you enlighten me as to what number it is?  I must have missed it.

Sure, look at Sefer HaMitzvos Hakotzer by the Chofetz Chaim, Mitzva Lo-SaSei
78. "Avol im rohi sh'oveir aveirah, v'hisru bo v'lo chozor, harei zeh
mitzvah lisno oyso"   

And while we are on the subject of Taryag Mitzvos, could you enlighten me to
the number for Yishuv Eretz Yisroel (YEY)? I missed that one in the Rambam,
Sefer Hamitzvos Hakotzer, etc. It should be clear to those who hold that YEY
is a Mitzvah, that being included in the actual Taryag (according most of
the monim, YEY is not part of Taryag) is not a relevant criteria for being
considered a Mitzvah. This, as well, is the opinion of most of the monim,
who found many more mitzvos then Taryag, and had to "shoehorn" many mitzvos
into one of the taryag. Be all that as it may, *this* mitzvah happens to
actually be one of the Taryag.

>And if so, I would love to learn all about it.

Look at Mishna Berura, Vol 1, Biur Halacha, beginning at the bottom of page
8, where he discusses this L'halacha L'massei. Starting at "apikorsim
hamiskomemim al haTorah...mitzva lisnosom".

>Does it include people who Oveir on d'oraita only -- or also D'rabbanan?

D'rabbanan as well. But this has further qualifications.

>And which current Poseik's decrees in the year 2007 are those that 
>qualify the transgressors to be hated?

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly.

1. If you're asking "Who" can determine this, any competent Poseik can.
Whoever one asks the rest of their shaila's to.

2. If you're asking who has actually determined that this applies in our
era, then we can start with the above mentioned MB. Closer to our times
there are p'sokim from R' Elyashiv yblc't. I just recently discussed this
matter with a prominent TC here in Lakewood called R' Gavriel Finkel, so
there's another Poseik (he is a Rosh BD here). 

KT,
MSS

On 5/8/07, Chana Luntz <chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> > On Friday 04 May 2007 04:01:58 am Eli Turkel wrote:
> > > In past posts people have discussed various kulot of
> > > Sefardim. In his latest halacha yomit ROY paskens that a Sefardi is
> not yotzeh with
> > > sweet chalah for Lechem Mishneh (and its berachah is mezonot).
>
> Of course while this is a chumra for lechem mishna, it could be viewed
> as a kula vis a vis washing and benching (makes it much easier to grab a
> snack of challa).
>
>  He
> > > specifically states that a Sefardi that visits an Ashkenazi for
> > > shabbat meal has to either request chalah without any sugar
> > or else to  bring his own challot.
> > >
> > > I wonder how many edot mizrach actaually do this?
> >
>
> And RKB wrote:
>
> > I do this as much as possible. The sepharadi shuls here are makpid to
> > only serve water challah.
>
> I think there are two aspects to ROY's psak:
>
> A) that if a sephardi is making hamotzei he can only do so on water
> chala;
> B) he cannot be yotzei with an Ashkenazi who is making hamotzei on sweet
> chala.
>
> Even if you hold A) and I think a lot of Sephardim do, that does not
> necessarily mean that you hold B).  If you hold, as my husband (and his
> Rav) does that if one is invited out the correct procedure is to be
> yotzei on the kiddush/hamotzei of the baal habayis on the rov am hadras
> melech principle (which he is quite machpid on) and if one takes the
> view that if it is OK for him, one can rely on his standards, then even
> if one holds A) one is not required to bring one's own challos (unless
> one is late).  Note you can have the same problem with kiddush, as ROY
> and others hold that a lot of the traditional Ashkenazi kiddush wines
> (ie the very sweet ones) take a shehakol - but if you follow the rov am
> hadrash melech approach, and the mutar for him, OK for me approach, then
> it works (BTW if you don't hold a mutar for him, OK for me approach,
> then Ashkenazim can have problems eating at a Sephardi home on shabbas,
> if the food has been warmed up by doing chazara which is permitted for
> Sephardim and forbidden according to most Ashkenazim, but I don't know
> anybody who won't permit that).  Of course, there may be issues
> regarding benching - but since you are clearly being koveah seuda, it is
> hard to see any basis on which one would be able to say al hamicha
> rather than bench.
>
You are discussing a few different cases here, and I think it is
worthwhile to discuss each of these issues individually, as the issues are
not identical.  I don't think there is any blanket rule of "good for you,
good for me". (Except perhaps for hechsherim :-), v'hameivin yavin.)

1) Chazara- in most (all?) cases, chazara, especially if done by another
person, does not make food assur to eat. (ie, even w/o the factor of
"muttar for them" to do, the food is probably not assur for you to eat.)
When it was actually muttar for them to reheat the food based on their
poskim, there is even more leniency, since the problem eating food
cooked/reheated on shabbos is based on the fact that it was done b'issur,
and if they were permitted, this factor doesn't exist.

2) Kiddush - Note that to be yotzei kiddush, there is NO need for anyone
but the mevareich to drink.  Kiddush does, however, need to be made on
what is halachically called wine.  I believe that the requirements for
wine for kiddush are more stringent than those for it to be hagafen.  For
example, according to Ashkenazi psak (correct when/if I err), a drink of
40% grape juice and 60% pear/apple juice is hagafen, but is not good for
kiddush or havdalah.  I think ROY requires 5/6 wine to be good for
kiddush.  I don't know to what extend the "good for you, good for me" rule
would apply re: being yotzei kiddush.  In terms of being yotzei the
hagafen and being allowed to drink a shehakol drink (soda for ashkenazim,
or even some wines for sefardim), the issues are different.  Even if you
are yotzei kiddush you may need to make a shehakol, just like in shul
Shabbos morning , when I hear the Rav make kiddush and immediately make
mezonos and eat my cookie.

3) Hamotzi-
a) Is B'rov am relevant for hamotzi?  Kiddush is a mitzvah, hamotzi is
not.  In my Yeshiva, they are makpid that only one person makes kiddush
for everyone, but hamotzi is made separately at each table.

b) As mentioned before, it is not clear that you will eat enough for kvias
seudah.  216 grams of bread is quite a lot.  AIUI, the issue is just the
same for hamotzi and birkas hamazon.  (Unless you were planning to be
koveia seudah and later change your mind, or vice versa.)

c) Birchos hanehenin are individual chiyuvim, and I don't see why my host
being yotzei should automatically means that I am yotzei.  If the correct
bracha (for you) on this food is mezonos, why are you yotzei with my
hamotzi?  I don't know of a rule that hamotzi works b'dieved on cakes etc,
the way Shehakol works on anything, and mezonos (acc. to the Gra) works on
all foods.

d) There is also a chiyuv to have a seudah with bread.  This may be easier
to solve than the lechem mishneh issue, since the host very possibly will
have an already cut loaf of hamotzi bread, but it is still an issue.

e) Lechem mishneh- ROY seems to understand that lechem mishneh needs to be
specifically on bread.  I have heard shitas that even two cakes (if you're
koveia seudah on them) work b'dieved.  ROY could be arguing on that and
saying that you need davka lechem, or he could just be assuming that you
won't eat enough sweet chalah for k'vias seudah.

KT,
Michael

Does anyone know of psakim on the permissibility/recommendability of
davening netz, thereby missing tefillah b'tzibbur?

I heard quoted in the name of the MB that for someone who usually davens
with a minyan, he should rather not daven netz.  Does anyone know where
this MB is?  I found a possible mashma'us like this in the MB on SA 90:9
in the Rama (sorry, I don't have a MB with me, only a SA), but it was not
mefurash.

Thanks,
Michael

The Medrash Rabah on Rus (quoted by the Torah Temimah on Rus 1:11) in fact 
states that Naomi's question "ha'Od Li Banim b'Mei'ai v'Hayu Lachem l'Anashim" 
-- "have I anymore children in my innards and they will be for you for men?" 
(Rus 1:11) was a rhetorical question concerning Yibum (as well as her inability 
to bear children). The Medrash describes her thoughts: "Does a person do Yibum 
with Eishes Achiv Shelo Hayah b'Olamo?" The Ibn Ezra similarly explains that 
Naomi's statement was not that they shouldn't wait for Yibum, as that would be 
impossible due to the children's being brothers from the mother's side. It 
was rather a loving and sympathetic statement that if she could produce children 
which would take the place of their husbands, in order to help them, she 
would. She knew this was impossible both from a practical and halachic aspect, and 
sympathized with them in this fashion.
 
Was Ruth converted before her husband died, or after?
If it was after, why to mention "Goel"? there is no Mitzva of Yibum, as she 
does not have any relatives.
 
Aaron Galsaba





************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070509/a2d92ec0/attachment.html 

See Rashi to Ruth 1:11.

Yisrael Herczeg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070509/40e21f17/attachment.htm 

> The question of what, who and how to hate is a gemara on Pesachim
> 113b. If you want to discuss it, take it to Avodah.

So, here is the first installment:

Source: BeAhava U'VeEmuna, chapter 14 "Ahavat Yisrael".

(thanks to Dov Goldstein, who produced the Rav Kook writings CD).

> I am arguing that the post-Enlightenment reality has made such
> judgments impossible. And therefore while there ideas out there that I
> hate, I feel only pain for those who are doing them. I would not take
> RtSLB's position that there is no such chiyuv.

Actually, Rav Kook quotes the Chafetz Chaim in his book "Ahavat Chesed". 
The Chafetz Chaim quotes Rabbi Yehonatan Vohliner: The Din that it is 
allowed or a Mitzva to hate people that don't follow the straight path, is 
only after you reproved (Hochichuhu), but it is forbidden to hate him until 
all the options have been tried.  And, as the Tana'im have already informed 
us "Temeihani Im Yesh BaDor HaZeh SheYode'ah LeHochi'ach" (Arachin 16b) 
Mimeila, it is forbidden (!!!!-SLB) to hate anyone.

Rav Kook continues that nowadays, we are not supposed to use the educational 
tools of Sin'a at all!

(Further proofs in the next post).

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Tue, 08 May 2007 16:58:08 +0000 Chana Luntz 
<chana@kolsassoon.org.uk> wrote:
>I think there are two aspects to ROY's psak:
>A) that if a sephardi is making hamotzei he can only do so on 
>water chala;
>B) he cannot be yotzei with an Ashkenazi who is making hamotzei on 
>sweet chala.
>
>Even if you hold A) and I think a lot of Sephardim do, that does 
not
>necessarily mean that you hold B).  If you hold, as my husband 
>(and his Rav) does that if one is invited out the correct 
procedure is 
>to be yotzei on the kiddush/hamotzei of the baal habayis on the 
rov am 
>hadras melech principle (which he is quite machpid on) and if one 
takes 
>the view that if it is OK for him, one can rely on his standards, 
then 
>even if one holds A) one is not required to bring one's own 
challos 
>
> [Similar case with Kiddush snipped]
>
> (BTW if you don't hold a mutar for him, OK for me approach,
>then Ashkenazim can have problems eating at a Sephardi home on 
>shabbas, if the food has been warmed up by doing chazara which is 
>permitted for Sephardim and forbidden according to most 
Ashkenazim, but 
>I don't know anybody who won't permit that). 

I'm not convinced the two cases are comparable.  In the first case 
you are using his action to fulfill your mitzvah, in the latter the 
chazara is incidental to your eating.  Also, in the chazara case I 
think the issue would be an issur d'rabbanan anyway, so it would be 
mutar for you to eat it (but not for him to eat it) if you were to 
hold everyone to the Ashkenazi psak.  So the only nafka mina in 
whether you have to view his action according to his posek or yours 
would be, perhaps, lifnei iver.

I don't quite understand how being yotze on someone else's ma'aseh 
works, but according to your understanding above, what would you 
say to the case of someone making havdalah on something that he 
holds is chamar medina, but your Rav told you clearly that it is 
not?  Does the answer change if your Rav told you that those who 
hold that it is are plain wrong?  (Again, I'm not trying to 
disprove your position, just to learn the sugya a little better.)

--
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

 


No one ever suggested this, and what you are talking about (the above
mentioned SA) does not at all speak to the original question, namely: If
one has the opportunity to learn practical, life-saving medicine or one
can utilize that time to learn Torah, which of those two alternatives is
the preferred choice? The fact that one is supposed to *interrupt* Torah
study for other mitzvos does not take away from the clear decision by
Chazal that 'Gadol Talmud Torah M'hatzolas Nifoshas'. So if one can
choose an alternative that halachically lessens the chances of those
*interruptions* that is the preferred choice.

KT,
MSS

___------------------------------------------------------

Is it correct that lshitatcha society has nothing to say in this
decision and we assume that the unseen hand of the marketplace(HKB"H in
disguise) will allocate the proper resources so that the sick are
healed, the dead are buried...

Put another way do Roshei Yeshiva have an ethical responsibility to tell
their major donors that HKB"H would prefer on a micro basis if they quit
doing surgery and started learning full time?

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.

Tue, 8 May 2007 From: "Chana Luntz" chana@kolsassoon.org.uk

>.... It is clear from the Shulchan Aruch that I brought in that discussion that one is in
fact commanded to take time out from talmud torah to perform other
mitzvos, unless they are delegatable to others

...It seems pretty clear from the sources that if there is nobody else
around to bury, then one is commanded to stop and bury ....-

...This is not a TUM versus Torah only discussion, and I am sorry if I
seemed to suggest that is was. It is about something even more
fundamental. Should members of our society be taking time out to form a
Zaka,

...Now if you answer that indeed some people ought to be out there being a
Zaka or protecting graves, then surely the same answer must be, some
people need to be out there being a medic.<

I'm not involved in this discussion, but I would just like to point out that it is not so poshut to go from the classical cases of temporarily interrupting one's learning for doing an immediately necessary deed that required no training, to the kind of training and more permanent time commitment that preparing for Zaka requires, and certainly to the time and effort needed to become a medic in preparation for situations not yet in existence (although of course predictably they will be). In the first case, Talmud Torah remains the kevius, as opposed to in the other two cases.

Zvi Lampel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070509/5368c0f4/attachment.html 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 102
***************************************

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..."