Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 433

Wed, 24 Dec 2008

• 1. Re: Madoff scandal (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: women lighting candles (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: women lighting candles (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: 'Al Hanisim (Zev Sero)
• 5. JO Article about TIDE in Lithuania (Yitzchok Levine)
• 6. Re: Madoff scandal (Zev Sero)
• 7. Madoff's children (Eli Turkel)
• 8. priorities in halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: priorities in halacha (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: women lighting candles (menucha)
• 11. Re: Madoff's children (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: priorities in halacha (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: women lighting candles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 14. re; women lighting candles (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 15. Re: Kaddesh after Kiddush Levana (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 16. Re: When NOT to Lie for Peace (T6...@aol.com)
• 17. Re: Security Cameras & Sattelites on Shabbas (Chanoch (Ken) Bloom)
• 18. Re: Priorities in halacha (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 19. Phantom Maamar Chazal? (Arie Folger)
• 20. Re: Phantom Maamar Chazal? (Micha Berger)
• 21. Re: Phantom Maamar Chazal? (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 11:20:36AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: I wonder what the chevra think about Madoff's sons turning him in? ...

I fail to see the question.

He wasn't done robbing people. Is there anyone who thinks they are
halachically supposed to let him continue to bankrupt investors and
charities?

Now, in the hypothetical case where they weren't precenting further
robbery...

RnTK suggests the following issues:
:                                              Dina demalchusa?   Or mesira?  
: What about kibud av?

Mesirah has been discussed a lot lately, in light of efforts
to rid our communities of child abusers. RHS discusses it at
<http://www.torahweb.org/torah/special/2007/rsch_mesirah.html>, which is a
followup to <http://www.torahweb.org/audioFrameset.html#audio=rsch_120306>
titled "Regarding mesirah".

> If, however, one is guilty of a crime, and according to the law of the
> land deserves a prison sentence, or will be put to death, even though
> according to Jewish law his punishment would not be as severe, this is
> not mesirah (see Ritva to Bava Metsia 83b; Dvar Avraham vol. I pg. 8).
> ... In an instance of avoiding a chilul Hashem, just like we would
> be obligated to return the aveidas akum, so too we would be obligated
> to hand over this individual (see Rama, Choshen Mishpat 388:12).

> If the non-Jewish governmental authorities know that one Jew is
> concealing information about another Jew in order to save him from
> punishment, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 28:3) considers this a
> situation of chilul Hashem...

> Even if one is guilty of a crime and deserves a punishment according to
> the laws of the land, but due to anti-semetic attitudes he will probably
> suffer more than if he were a non-Jew; or, the (state) prison conditions
> are such that he will suffer at the hands of the other inmates (or at
> the hands of the guards) in a manner that is not proscribed by law, then
> turning the offender in would constitute mesirah... However, mesirah
> is permitted in situations where one is a public menace (see Shach to
> Choshen Mishpat 388, 59), or if one is physically or psychologically
> harming another individual ... (see Shach to Choshen Mishpat ibid, 45).

> The Jewish community does not have the ability to investigate these
> types of cases. Wherever there are raglayim ladavar that there seems
> to be a problem, the proper government agencies should be contacted to
> investigate.

Of course, RHS ends with an admonition to go ask a poseiq who actually
knows the subject if the topic arises.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org                    ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In 139:6, the KSA writes that the "minhag pashut bimdinoseinu, kemehadrin
min hamehadrin, shemadliqin kol echad ve'echad mibenei habayis." In s'
16 he adds that women are chayavos, and could be motz'os kol benei beisah.

What I found interesting though is R' Shabsi Frankel's footnote #16.
These are the footnotes in the "im pisqei MB" edition. It reads:
    6) Chutz mei'ishto, she'einah tzerichah lehadeir.

Barukh shekivanti -- someone else who assumes the issue is because the
actual mitzvah is "ner ish ubeiso" and therefore we're asking about
hidurim. This appears to be RSF's own interpretation. Looking at the MB
inside, I only saw the usual ishto kegufo.

As for why the hiddur isn't an issue for women... Maybe it's related to
the Sukkos - Chanukah connection, and the fact that "peri eitz hadar"
doesn't have a af hein be'oso haneis issue. This in turn got me wondering
if maybe the entire Mehadrin and Mehadrin min Hamehadrin thing which
seems to be uniquely Chanukah is actually an outgrowth of esrog and the
common theme of the two holidays. Just half-baked speculation...

In fact

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

menucha wrote:
> Sorry, I don't happen to have a "women's Shulchan Aruch", but I did find 
> some of these halachot in the "men's".
> if you miss a candle you have to light for the rest of your life - Rema  
> OC 263,1
> Shabbat comes in when you light candles Mishna Brura sham 50
> Not to touch a sefer Torah when nidda- Rema  OC 88.1
> 
> these may be topics over which there are other opinions but it's pretty 
> sad if men have never heard of them.....

Obvious men have heard of them, or I'd not have been able to write about
them.  But they're all recorded as the minhag of women, i.e. it was the
women who decided to do these things, not the men who told them to.


-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

Jonathan Baker wrote:

> Baer notes that almost all old siddurim, both Ashkenazic and Sphardic,
> don't use V'al, but Al.  He notes that even those few commentators (Mateh
> Moshe and a couple of others) who add the Vav only do so in Benching, where
> there is a string of V'als.  In Shmoneh Esreh, though, the string of V'als
> is broken by Hatov ki lo calu rachamecha vehamerachem ki lo tamu chasadecha.

Then whence the continuation "ve'al kulam"?

-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer has kindly given me permission to post 
his article dealing with TIDE schools in Lithuania that appears in 
this month's Jewish Observer. It is at 
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/carlebach/east_meets_west.pdf

I consider this a very important article, because it makes it clear 
that the gedolim in Lithuania were willing to provide a TIDE 
education to the youth, because the environmental situation in 
Lithuania had changed as a result of the modernization of the 
country.  Indeed, it seems that not only were they willing, but that 
they felt it was necessary.

Yitzchok Levine 

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> I wonder what the chevra think about Madoff's sons turning him in?  He's 
> a major criminal so they did the right thing?  Dina demalchusa?  Or 
> mesira?  What about kibud av?   What should a person do if he finds out 
> that his father is a goniff?  Minor tax cheat?  major investment fraud? 
>  
> PS Is this a hashkafic or a halachic question?  I don't know.  But my 
> visceral reaction was:  his own kids turned him in?!  That's disgusting!

It is disgusting.

Legally, they had no obligation to do anything with their knowledge.
So long as they did not themselves play any part in the scheme, and
they did not knowingly mislead anyone, they would have been entitled
to keep their mouths shut and let their father fall without pushing
him over the edge.

Halachically, did they have an obligation of arvus to his victims, at
least to the Jewish ones?  But which victims? By turning him in they
certainly did no favours for his existing victims; had the scheme
remained secret, some of them might have recovered some or all of their
money, but the moment it became public all of their money was lost.
The only victims who benefited were the future ones, the hypothetical
new suckers whose money would be used to pay off the old suckers.
But these victims were, by definition, hypothetical -- can one have
an obligation to them, one that overrides ones existing obligations
to ones father and to his existing victims?

Can we compare this to the question of "choleh lefaneinu"?  If we have
an actual sick person whose life can be saved by us cutting up a dead
person we do it, because his pikuach nefesh overrides the issur of
nivul hameis; but if there is no choleh lefaneinu we do not anatomise
meisim, even if we are certain that some day soon someone will need the
information or the organs we would obtain.

It seems to me that while a rational analysis of the situation makes
it difficult to come to any conclusion, the above arguments, when
combined with the natural revulsion a person must feel at the tale of
sons informing on their father, should be enough to conclude that
someone in their position ought not to do as they did.

-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

<<I wonder what the chevra think about Madoff's sons turning him in?
He's a major criminal so they did the right thing?  Dina demalchusa?
Or mesira? What about kibud av?   What should a person  do if he finds
out that his father is a goniff?  Minor tax  cheat?  major investment
fraud?>>

Om a legal basis if they did not turn him they could be brought to
trial as accomplices. Even now I would not be surprised if someone
sues them on the basis that kids must have known

-- 
Eli Turkel

Q: Is it an obligation to have a silver chanukiyah?
A: The basic mitzvah is that any material is suitable for a chanukiyah,
but like all mitzvot, one can embellish the mitzvah (hiddur mitzvah).
Therefore, a silver chanukiyah is proper. But the Pele Yoetz writes that
even better than what is "proper" is what is "preferable": such as
giving the extra money to the poor.>>

Why not say this about every "zeh keli veanvehu". Instead of buying a more
mehudaer etrog give money to tzedaka and similarly for all sorts of other
mitzvot

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 08:35:09PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Why not say this about every "zeh keli veanvehu". Instead of buying a more
: mehudaer etrog give money to tzedaka and similarly for all sorts of other
: mitzvot

People don't spend every penny they could on mitzvos. Someone who is
motivated to fly to the rebbe might not be sufficiently motivated to
take that same money and give it to tzedaqah. (And even less motivated
without that inspiring encounter with the rebbe!)

In general you do find this argument made by someone or another about
every hiddur mitzvah. Except perhaps for esrog which has its own pasuq
promoting hiddur, and even there I'm not sure. That said, if someone
has a real desire for a beautiful megillah case, better the money go
for that than other things a person could want.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org        it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org   mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507          - Unknown shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter

I don't see them recorded as the minhag of women:
miss a candle - Rema in the name of Mahari"l
take in Shabbat- MB says Yesh Omrim - unless Yud aleph here means Yesh 
Omrot?
Nida touching Sefer Torah - seems to be the opposite, that only matir 
because of Nachat ruach for women (see beur haGRA
menucha


Zev Sero wrote:

> menucha wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I don't happen to have a "women's Shulchan Aruch", but I did 
>> find some of these halachot in the "men's".
>> if you miss a candle you have to light for the rest of your life - 
>> Rema  OC 263,1
>> Shabbat comes in when you light candles Mishna Brura sham 50
>> Not to touch a sefer Torah when nidda- Rema  OC 88.1
>>
>> these may be topics over which there are other opinions but it's 
>> pretty sad if men have never heard of them.....
>
>
> Obvious men have heard of them, or I'd not have been able to write about
> them.  But they're all recorded as the minhag of women, i.e. it was the
> women who decided to do these things, not the men who told them to.
>
>

Eli Turkel wrote:

> Om a legal basis if they did not turn him they could be brought to
> trial as accomplices.

On what basis?  So long as they did not actively take part in the
coverup, or receive anything in return for their silence, they had
no legal duty to open their mouths.


> Even now I would not be surprised if someone
> sues them on the basis that kids must have known

"Must have" is not evidence.  Anybody can sue anyone for anything,
and sanctions for frivolous lawsuits are not handed out nearly often
enough to discourage the practise, but without actual evidence such
a suit could not get very far.


-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name

 

Q: Is it an obligation to have a silver chanukiyah?
A: The basic mitzvah is that any material is suitable for a chanukiyah,
but like all mitzvot, one can embellish the mitzvah (hiddur mitzvah).
Therefore, a silver chanukiyah is proper. But the Pele Yoetz writes that
even better than what is "proper" is what is "preferable": such as
giving the extra money to the poor.>>

Why not say this about every "zeh keli veanvehu". Instead of buying a
more mehudaer etrog give money to tzedaka and similarly for all sorts of
other mitzvot

--
Eli Turkel
_______________________________________________

I think the answer is that it is a shikul hadaat which will depend on
the time and place. In addition, imho it's hard to place a chanukiyah in
the same category of hiddur with etrog (or mehadrin min hamehadrin)
where the hiddur is in the cheftza shel mitzva .  I have many times have
you seen a silver etrog box holding a benoni etrog and wondered about
adult ed concerning where true hiddur lies.
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.

Regarding MB 675:9, I wrote:
> I find it particularly noteworthy that he invokes the
> concept of "mitzvos aseh shehazman grama" and the
> (Ashkenazi) psak that women  *do* say the brachos on
> such mitzvos. This seems to contradict his own admission
> that women *are* obligated on their own.

R"n Toby Katz responded:
> It seems to me exactly the same as saying kiddush on
> Shabbos. I don't see where your problem is or why you
> think there is a contradiction in the MB. ... A woman can
> either be yotzei with her husband's kiddush on Shabbos or
> she can make her own if she doesn't want to wait until he
> comes home from shul.

I have read RTK's post several times, and have discarded several drafts of my comments.

At one point, this is what I had *wanted* to write:
> But Kiddush isn't a mitzvas aseh shehazman grama, and the
> MB said that Ner Chanukah *IS* like a mitzvas aseh
> shehazman grama. THAT's the contradiction. Comparing Ner
> Chanuka to Kiddush is an error; a better comparison would
> be Ner Chanuka and Lulav.

First I took that draft, and then reversed the logic, and discarded that
too. I finally realized that the problem is where the MB says that Ner
Chanukah is LIKE OTHER mitzvos aseh shehazman grama (henceforth: MASG).

Both words ("like" and "other") are problematic. The word "like" is
ambiguous - is it a MASG or not? And saying "other" seems to say that it
*is* in that category. Yet the situation of not having a husband to light
makes it very clear that there is no room for leniency: she *does* have to
light on her own.

I suppose I should rephrase my question. Instead of framing it as a
contradiction, I should ask, "What on earth was the MB thinking? What did
he mean when he wrote that Ner Chanukah 'is like other MASG'? It is NOT
like MASG in any way!!! It is EXACTLY like Kiddush, which l'halacha all
women are totally obligated in, yet l'maaseh some/many/most are yotzay via
their husbands."

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click here for proven Credit Repair programs. Increase your score today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/fc/
PnY6rbuoS2GnE8Wt5D5VW6QmzWfZd4r0Q1Z2IWmV2FGeRjCX60uXg/

<I've often half-jokingly claimed that there is a separate women's
Shulchan Aruch, written by and for women, completely independent of the
men's SA. This is the SA where it is written that dirt is chometzdik, that
Shabbat comes in when you say the bracha on the candles, that if you miss
lighting one week you have to add a candle for the rest of your life, not
to touch a sefer torah while niddah, and a lot of other things that men
have never heard of.  Women learned halacha from their mothers and
grandmothers, not from their fathers, so there was some divergent
development.  A very feminist view, actually.>

     If men never heard that saying the b'racha of candle lighting is
     kabbalas Shabbos (in the absence of a stipulation to the contrary),
     then it might be because they haven't learned enough.  It dates back
     to the Rishonim, appearing in the Mordechai.  It is doubtful that
     women would have been allowed, on their own, to abrogate the din of
     oveir la'asiyasan.  

     As for the addition of an extra candle, it is mentioned in the
     Maharil, who is one of the prime sources for Minhag Ashk'naz. 
     Parenthetically, I suspect that this minhag may be the source of
     another one -- adding a candle for each child.  In the past, women
     were considered too weak to light in the week after giving birth --
     see MB 263:11, who (in discussing the din that women have priority
     over men in the mitzva of hadlaka) says that the husband lights in
     that first week.  Thus,  each time she gave birth, a woman missed a
     week of lighting, necessitating one more candle for life.

     What might be in that women's SA is that if several women are in one
     home, each lights, rather than the hostess lighting for the house,
     thus treating lighting Shabbos candles as a chovas haguf rather than
     what it is, an obligation on the home.  However, it _is_ a
     time-honored custom (unlike, say, the custom for unmarried girls to
     light, which is less than fifty years old.)

EMT


____________________________________________________________
Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL114
1/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007

<<After Kiddush Levana, people (if there is a minyan) say Kaddesh. 
My question is: how many people actually have to have said the Kiddush
Levana for it to be valid to say Kaddesh afterwards?>>

<It would seem to me that there's no need for anyone but the person
saying kaddish to have said it, and that it's entirely OK for one
person who has said kiddush levana to gather 9 others just for his
kaddish, just as people do with borchu.>

     As I understand it, kaddish is a chovas hatzibbur -- when a minyan has
     completed something _as a minyan_, be it p'sukei d'zimra, chazaras
     hasha"tz, learning, etc., a kaddish is said. If it was not done
     b'tzibbur, there is no subsequent kaddish obligation. Thus, if a
     person was studying g'mara alone, there is no justification for then
     gathering a minyan for him to say kaddish, and the same should be true
     for kiddush levana, unless at least a rov minyan said Aleinu.  In the
     case of Borchu, on the other hand, the entire minyan is participating.

     This is not to say that it is proper to gather a minyan to say Borchu,
     other than at the times the din provides for: at k'rias haTorah,
     before birchos k'rias Sh'ma, and at the conclusion of a t'filla which
     contains birchos k'rias Sh'ma, for the benefit of latecomers who
     missed it.  I don't know whether it is permitted for ten people to get
     together and say Borchu at any other occasion.

EMT


____________________________________________________________
Save $15 on Flowers and Gifts from FTD!
Shop now at http://offers.juno.com/TGL114
1/?u=http://www.ftd.com/17007

 
From: "Meir Rabi" _meir...@optusnet.com.au_ (mailto:meir...@optusnet.com.au) 

>>Why  are Yosef's brothers praised for not being able to speak to him
BeShalom,? Is  it not a Mitzvah to even lie in order to make and promote
peace?  <<
 

Meir Rabi
 
>>>>>
They believed he was a major sinner (mored  bemalchus -- if Yakov is a melech 
-- plotting to usurp his father's and  brothers' place -- re his dream of his 
father and brothers bowing to him -- OR  -- eating ever min hachai -- OR -- 
other?).  To smile at a sinner and  pretend everything's fine is not darkei 
sholom but hypocrisy.  (Maybe we  should learn from the brothers that chanifa to 
non-O rabbis is not the right  thing to do.)
 
--Toby Katz
========


**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081224/445403f3/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 01:29:51PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
> 
> Are we allowed to go outside on Shabbas if a Sattelite is overhead
> (or even may be overhead)... it records our movements ... If it is
> allowed, then would being on a conference-call on Shabbas be
> permitted? (if the call was initiated before Shabbas, and all one did
> was talk on it??)
> 
> >From what I
> understand the Wall Cam at the Western Wall
> is turned off because of (not) recording people on Shabbas/Yom Tov....
> what about being recorded by Sattelites, Cameras on the Street and/or
> Cameras in front of Banks, Federal Buildings, etc. ???
> I was told the issue is one of Psik Reisha DeLo Neicha Lei, but that it is still a Psik Reisha...

If you could name a camera or sattelite that was recording you in a
specific location then it could be psik reisha delo neicha lei. If you
don't know where there are cameras, then it's mitasek because you
accidentally triggered a melacha action without knowing or intending
to be in a situation that would cause one.

--Ken

-- 
Chanoch (Ken) Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081224/d49ca9ea/attachment-0001.pgp>

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 05:23:49 -0500
"Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com> wrote:

> >From R' Aviner:
> 
> Q: Is it an obligation to have a silver chanukiyah?
> A: The basic mitzvah is that any material is suitable for a chanukiyah,
> but like all mitzvot, one can embellish the mitzvah (hiddur mitzvah).
> Therefore, a silver chanukiyah is proper. But the Pele Yoetz writes that
> even better than what is "proper" is what is "preferable": such as
> giving the extra money to the poor.

I have always had trouble with this sort of thing; does he mean that as
long as paupers exist in the world, one should Le'Ma'aseh not use a
silver Menorah but should rather give the money to Zedakah?  Does it
make a difference how much Zedakah one has already given, or how much
one spends on oneself?

> Joel Rich

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Rabosai,

What is the earliest source of yesh lo maneh rotzeh matayim? After failing to 
find it in Bavli and Yerushalkmi, I googled, found the phrase widely quoted, 
but found no attribution. The one attribution I found (Midrash Qohelet 1:13) 
didn't seem correct. Is this a Phantom Maamar Chazal (tm)?
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 11:41:01PM +0100, Arie Folger wrote:
: What is the earliest source of yesh lo maneh rotzeh matayim? ...
:                           The one attribution I found (Midrash Qohelet 1:13) 
: didn't seem correct....

Qoheles Rabba 3:10.

The maamar "ein adam meis vechatzi ta'avaso beyado" seems to be almost
identical in meaning. And that one *IS* in Q"R 1:13.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Arie Folger wrote:
> Rabosai,
> 
> What is the earliest source of yesh lo maneh rotzeh matayim? After failing to 
> find it in Bavli and Yerushalkmi, I googled, found the phrase widely quoted, 
> but found no attribution. The one attribution I found (Midrash Qohelet 1:13) 
> didn't seem correct. Is this a Phantom Maamar Chazal (tm)?

Kohelet Rabah 1:13  http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/toshba/kohelet/1c-2.htm#6
Also 3:10 http://www.daat.ac.il/DAAT/toshba/kohelet/3a-2.htm


-- 
Zev Sero                                Have a brilliant Chanukah
z...@sero.name


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 433
***************************************

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..."