Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 28

Thu, 05 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Zev Sero)
• 2. ancient minhagim (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Re: ancient minhagim (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: ancient minhagim (Rich, Joel)
• 5. Re: Early morning minyan (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: shatz saying things out loud a.k.a silent ga'al (D&E-H Bannett)
• 7. Yirah and Emunah (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 9. Re: Currency and Bond Trading; Ribis (Micha Berger)
• 10. RE AMALEK-CHILDREN OF HAMAN IN BNEI BRAK (simon benloulou)
• 11. Re: ancient minhagim (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Our Attitude towards Segulos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Re: "Ancient" Minhagim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Derech HaLimud (Gilad Field)
• 16. Re: ancient minhagim (David Riceman)
• 17. Re: Derech HaLimud (David Riceman)
• 18. Re: Ta'aroves of yayn mevushal (David Riceman)
• 19. child abuse and moser (Eli Turkel)
• 20. Re: child abuse and moser (Liron Kopinsky)
• 21. Re: child abuse and moser (Daniel Israel)
• 22. Re: child abuse and moser (Daniel Israel)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 08:49:51PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : That one is easy.  1 part wine to 6 parts other liquid.  If you were
> : going to add that much mevushal to your non-mevushal, why bother?
> 
> The opening case was that RRW has a nachriah housekeeper. I don't know
> about you, but I know how to make a taaroves, but I do not know how
> to cook wine without ruining it. I would think you need equipment to
> insure the alcohol wouldn't get away. So lemaaseh in someone's home,
> this solution may be the more pragmatic one.

If you're diluting it 6:1 you're not adding mevushal to the non-mevushal,
you're adding a tiny bit of left-over non-mevushal to a nearly-full bottle
of mevushal.  Why bother?  For that little, why not just leave it, and
take the risk that you might have to throw it away *if* she happens to
move the bottle?  In such a situation I doubt RRW would be asking the
question in the first place.  If he is, he must have a substantial amount
of non-mevushal left in the bottle, and be asking about topping it up
with some mevushal, in a ratio of less than 1 to 1, in order to pasel it
from nisuch.  That sounds like a good question and I don't know the answer.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

<<Did Tosafos think they were reinterpreting, or using other data to
understand how it was always understood, thus explaining how the
practice was allowed to persist.>>

I assume that tosefot thought this was the perush in the gemara

I recently read an interesting article about shitat Brisk. Among other
things the author states that R. Chaim insisted that he was just clarifying
what the rishonim and gemara was saying and not really introducing anything new

OTOH the critics of the Brisker shita (including possibly CI) claimed that this
was a revolution in learning and so was an incorrect approach.

i.e. due to the conservatism (small c) of halakha any real chiddush has to
be claimed to be nothing really new

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:13:07PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Did Tosafos think they were reinterpreting, or using other data to
:> understand how it was always understood, thus explaining how the
:> practice was allowed to persist.

: I assume that tosefot thought this was the perush in the gemara

I am inclined that way as well.

: I recently read an interesting article about shitat Brisk. Among other
: things the author states that R. Chaim insisted that he was just clarifying
: what the rishonim and gemara was saying and not really introducing
: anything new

A scientific theory can be inherent in the data collected. That doesn't
mean the person collecting the data realized it.

I wonder whether RCB would say that the Rambam would recognize his
lomdus, or whether he would say that the Rambam would necessarily accept
his lomdus as a necessary implication (that he didn't necessarily draw
himself).

The impression I get from the Yad, primed by tertiary sources referring
to the Rambam's "ledaati", is that the Rambam didn't formalize the rules
that unite his pesaqim. Rather he operated on the level of feel, of just
knowing the consistent picture without trying to articulate it. (Odd,
for someone who enjoyed Aristo as much as he did, but consistent with
the lack of any overarching rules spelled out in his sefarim. He spells
out organizational principles and his proof of the first several ikkarim
(in the begining of Moreh cheileq II). But anything like lomdus?

If the Rambam thought of formalizing such theories, wouldn't they have
made it into writing?

OTOH, I think the Rambam would agree with most applications of gavra vs
cheftza, if he heard RCB present it. The reduction of the Rambam's art
to a science.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 

A scientific theory can be inherent in the data collected. That doesn't
mean the person collecting the data realized it.

I wonder whether RCB would say that the Rambam would recognize his
lomdus, or whether he would say that the Rambam would necessarily accept
his lomdus as a necessary implication (that he didn't necessarily draw
himself).


Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

==================================================
Listen here for varying approaches :
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/730439/Rabbi_Zvi_Sinensky/R.
_Tzvi_Sinesky_Brisk_at_a_Crossroads-Between_Lomdus_and_Postmodernism


As I summarized on hirhurim:

What if the Lomdus isn't (gasp!) what the historical Rambam meant?
(humph - you might as well ask what if Chazal were not always on the
same page as each other hashkafically)? R'M Rosensweig would say beneath
the surface (IIUC meaning they might not have been self aware of why
they came to a conclusion) they did mean it; Chazal and Rambam were all
attuned to the internal logic of the Torah (and Ratzon Hashem).  R'A
Lichtenstein would say doesn't matter - there is a Torat Emet and a
Torat Chesed (IIUC - whatever Rambam thought his work is now a cheftza
shel torah - very postmodern).



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.

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 01:12:53AM +0200, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
: But, to answer your question.  the before and after brakhot 
: and all the zimra and other paragraphs of praise in between 
: are one chativa of the tefila. See my long posting just 
: above. The Shabbat lengthening of the introduction to the 
: final brakha are not a break. Similarly, kri'at shema beween 
: the brakhot fore and aft are one chativa and an extra barukh 
: ata is not added.

My question was that we're switching shlichei tzibbur in the middle of
that chativa. (Or in many yeshivos, we have a chazan only for the ending.)
How does it retain unity?

Yes, for each chazan as an individual, it's a berakhah haseumchah
lecheverta, but what preserves that nature for the minyan? Or -- I'll
add, starting to think of answers to my own question -- does the minyan
not really count for pesuqei dezimra?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
mi...@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (270) 514-1507         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

Re: RKM's adding of Oseh shalom bimromav to self amens  and 
question << It seems to me that if someone chose to include 
Oseh Shalom in these prayers, they could just as easily have 
ended it at "v'al kol Yisrael", leaving off the "v'imru 
amen". I wonder why they didn't.  >>

But they did!

Early versions of Elohai n'tzor do not have the Oseh shalom 
sentence at the end.  Later versions that have it end with 
v'al kol Yisrael.  Some add the word Amen without the v'imru 
which might make it eligible as a self amen ending.  Then 
comes the v'imru which, as it is asking for agreement, takes 
it out of the self amen category.

This was discussed on the list In the past and it was 
suggested that the v'imru amen is simply a carry-over or 
copycatting from the end of Kaddish.  A reverse copycatting 
can be seen in the stepping back three steps.  At the 
beginning of shmoneh esrei, after praising HKB"H, one steps 
up closer to Him to quietly make his requests. At the end, 
one doesn't turn around abruptly and leave. Good manners 
require that one step back and wait a decent interval before 
leaving.  In saying kaddish, one does not step forward to 
approach HKB"H, so why step back?

Shalom is a very important thing and adding a request for it 
in the tahanunim at the end of shomoneh esrei, at the end of 
davening after kaddish, or after any prayer is 
understandable.

Stepping back after shmoneh esrei makes sense, but the newer 
versions I've seen where the backstepper returns forward 
immediately and then bounces a few times is difficult to 
justify.  The bounces might also be copycatting. If one has 
need to return to his usual place for kedusha he will then 
bounce like an angel for Kadosh-kadosh-kadosh. 
Justification:  Z'rizim makdimim.


David

The following is from the new translation of 
RSRH's commentary to the Chumash, Sefer Shemos. YL

14: 31 And when Israel saw the great hand which 
God had used on Egypt, the people feared God and 
they trusted in God and in His servant Moshe.

Yirah and Emunah are the two basic qualities that are always to pulsate in
the heart of the Jew who stands before God. There is only one Being
Whom we should fear and trust at the same time, and that is God, the
one sole God, Who is as loving as He is just, as just as He is loving,
and equally omnipotent in the exercise of His love and justice.

To demonstrate and to teach these three virtues of God: His justice,
which is to be feared at all times; His love, which is to be trustingly
awaited at all times; and His mighty power, freely commanding over
all things and acting with mercy and justice simultaneously ? that is
the eternal significance of the moment of this salvation, unique in its
greatness, when the once-enslaved nation, now forever free, saw the
colossus of Egypt stretched out dead at its feet.

Just as this moment attests to God?s hand acting omnipotently with
mercy and with justice, so, too, it is 
everlasting testimony to the authenticity
of the mission of His servant Moshe. Moshe?s hand was
stretched out over the sea, and it was by his hand that God led Egypt
to its doom and led Israel on the path of life and freedom. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090204/364413f8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:55:43 -0500
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 01:10:22AM -0500, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> :                             and the implication of Tosafos is that they
> : are reinterpreting the Sugya to justify the Minhag to the contrary.
> 
> The following two say the same substance but IMHO betray very different
> attitudes toward mesorah.
> 
> Do Tosafos reinterpret a sugyah to justify a minhag?
> or
> Do they realize by looking at how halakhah was practiced (and assuming
> the default that practice is in line with halakhah) that the gemara
> couldn't have meant what it seems to?

I merely meant that they proposed an interpretation different from the
obvious one, and that they would apparently not have done so without
the pressure of the need to justify the prevailing custom.

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

On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 04:26:25PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: R. Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> Thus, mah nafshach: either there is no Jewish
:> borrower at all, or each borrower borrows less than a p'ruta. Either
:> way, a hetter iska is unnecessary.
: 
: We know that one of the reasons the Dor Hamabul was punished (destroyed)
: was because of theft...

Theft is chamas, inherently wrong.

If ribis were inherently wrong, it would be assur to charge nachriim as
well. I therefore would argue that ribis isn't a lack of tzedeq or din,
but a lack of achdus of kelal Yisrael. As the pasuq says, "Vekhi yamukh
ACHIKHA umatah yado..." And similarly after the ribis, "vechai ACHIKHA
imakh". (Vayiqra 25:36, lefi BM 62a) The problem isn't that it's unjust,
but that it's unbrotherly.

This may also explain why ribis is in YD, not CM.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fullfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

Does it take care of the problem of how could Haman's descendants
>>have learned Torah in Bnai Brak?  If they were Amalekites shouldn't
>they have been put to death?

>I don't know. What's the status of an Amalekite who becomes a ger?

Suppose the beit din that does the giyur doesn't know he's an Amalekite.
Suppose he himself doesn't know he's an Amalekite.

Can an individual kill an Amalekite, or is it something that has to

be done either by a beit din or in a time of war? What are the exact
parameters? If I see an Amalekite, and somehow it's 100% certain that
he's an Amalekite, am I required/allowed to blow his brains out? Do I

have that authority?

But even aside from all of these questions, we seem to have a situation
where every single source we have says Haman is a direct descendent of
Agag, king of Amalek. Every one. Modern musings that perhaps he wasn't

don't count as sources, as I see it

-------


milublin zsl
addresses this point in passing and concludes that its likely that
these children were

 the product of an amalekite raping a jewish girl....seems like the
simplest answer
 and therefore probably true
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090204/232395b0/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:
> :> Did Tosafos think they were reinterpreting, or using other data to
> :> understand how it was always understood, thus explaining how the
> :> practice was allowed to persist.
> RETurkel:
> : I assume that tosefot thought this was the perush in the gemara
> RMB:
> I am inclined that way as well.
>   
Don't forget the Talmudic practice "la'asukei Shama'tsa aliba 
d'hilchasa", which I would translate as "to construe a text so that it 
will harmonize with normative halacha".  Normally that implies that the 
text is not being read kipshuto.  See Rabbi Maimon's book "Toldot HaGra" 
p. 75, where he says (my translation) "The Gra used to say that just as 
written law can be expounded with [the four methods whose acronym is] 
PaRDeS, so too the Mishna, which is the oral law, can be expounded with 
[the four methods whose acronym is] PaRDeS.  Therefore we sometimes find 
that the Talmud construes (mefaresh) the Mishna using drash and pilpul, 
when we can construe the mishna differently using pshat."
> The impression I get from the Yad, primed by tertiary sources referring
> to the Rambam's "ledaati", is that the Rambam didn't formalize the rules
> that unite his pesaqim. Rather he operated on the level of feel, of just
> knowing the consistent picture without trying to articulate it.
If you learn through Tshuvos HaRambam (and, to a lesser extent, Sefer 
haMitzvos), you will find many places where the Rambam articulates his 
methodology.  I strongly recommend Rabbi Benedict's book "HaRambam L'lo 
Stiyah Min HaTalmud".

David Riceman

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:48pm EST, R David Riceman wrote:
:>                                     If competing Chazals present a 
:>historical description of events in different, non compatible ways, how do 
:>we then hold from Elu VeElu? 
...
: For an extreme position see Michtav Me"Eliyahu III pp. 353-354.

There REED discusses who has a greater place in OhB, tzadiqim or baalei
teshuvah? And onflicting statements about yemos hamoshiach. He answers
that there is only machloqes WRT halakhah, and these aggadic disputes
are more like two people looking at twwo different sides of the same
piece of paper. Their conflicting descriptions do not mean they are
describing different things.

This is much like the Maharal on machloqesin in halakhah. That the
Truth can't be captured in its entirety in olam hazeh, and therefore
each pesaq lemaaseh reflects a different aspect of the greater truth.
But without the second part about the lemaaseh which could end up being
truly different.

However, what would REED's thought say about history?

Perhaps he agrees with the rishonim who hold that chazal use narratives
as meshalim with no concern about the historicity of the story. In which
case, there isn't necessarily anyone insisting anything particular about
history. What conflict?

Alternative, if he doesn't have that "out"....

REED's take in a number of michtavim is that reality is more about what
you perceive in it than what's objectively "out there". Very Kantian.
Reality is the phenomonilogical universe, not the neumenal. Whether it's
his take on the Maharal on nissim, or the Ramban on the nature of time
during maaseh bereishis and time altogether. The notion that he would
say that experiened reality too could differ based on perspective is
not out of the question.

Speaking of which, this takes me to this thread...

On Sun, Feb 01, 2009 at 10:45pm EST, R Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: R' Akiva Miller:
:> (Disclosure: I'm actually uncertain about this. It is possible that HaShem
:> does indeed change things as time goes on. It is possible that a hundred
:> years ago, an electron truly was the smallest object, and that HaShem did
:> not introduce quarks until later. But that's a discussion for another
:> thread.)

: Isn't there some sort of assumption that everything that will be
: was created in Sheishes Yemei Bereishis? Otherwise why did those things
: mentioned in Avos (like Pi Ha'ason) need to be created then? Why couldn't
: they be created as necessary?

Following this mehalekh, it's possible that what's "really out there"
was created once, but since reality is more about how we see that
reality, new phenomena emerge as we change.

Kant thought that even space and time were phenomena. Why not quarks?

I am reminded of a thought by a different RAMiller. A totally different
idea, but similr enough for one to remind me of the other.

Hashem is the Rofei cholim. A doctor tries his best, verapo yerapei,
but really the job of the doctor is to hide the Yad Hashem, so that the
hashgachah peratis of the refu'ah doesn't require nissim geluyim. And
so, R Avigdor Miller suggested that Aristotilian medicine was no less
frequently effective -- at a time when it was state of the art in what
people knew about such things.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RRW asked what quantity of yayin mevushal would have to be added to aino 
mevushal to give it the status of mevushal.  The responses thus far 
orbit around the issue of bitul, except for RRW's own suggestion that it 
may relate to the proportion of other liquid added would make it no 
longer a hagafen.

WADR, barring any specific sources on this question (which no one has 
introduced) it would seem more likely to me that we must go back to the 
original takanah, which (at least in part) was related to the 
possibility of using yayin for AZ.  It would seem to me that if we add 
enough mevushal to make the yayin pasul for nesicha, then the takannah 
shouldn't apply.  That may be related to the regular shiur for bitul, 
but I don't see any reason to assume that is the case.

Do we know if the standard used to exempt yayin mevushal from the 
takanah of stam yayin is based on what would make it pasul for use in 
the Bh"M or what would pasul it for (l'havdil) AZ?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

D Bennett:
> You seem to be unaware or have forgotten that, in the first years, there
> were places where they did not permit the saying of Kabbalat Shabbat
> in the synagogue and those interested, came early to say it in a side
> room. Later, in shuls with a professional chazan, it was permitted in
> the shul but, because it is not part of the normative davening, it was
> not said by the chazan and not from the amud of the chazan.

> But, to this day, there is still an obvious objection, although not
> usually seen as such. In many Ashkenazi shuls, Kabbalat Shabbat is
> still said from the bima and the ba'al tefila moves to the chazan's amud
> afterwards for ma'ariv.

Note
Yekkes implment this  distinction as follows:
The first 6 kappitelach are said responsively. This is how yekkes say
tehillim in public

Then @ lecha dodi shatz moves to bima until borachu.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

 I came across an interesting teshuva in the Chavos Yair (124) that
talks about a proper derech ha-limud. in that teshuva he was
addressing a father asking how to educate his son who
just became bar mitzvah - but it i think the answer is general enough.
my question is - are you aware of sources in rishonim or achronim that
deal with this question?
I am interested in seeing how the question was answered through the
generations in different locations.

thanks,
Gilad Field

RMB:
>> The impression I get from the Yad, primed by tertiary sources referring
>> to the Rambam's "ledaati", is that the Rambam didn't formalize the rules
>> that unite his pesaqim. Rather he operated on the level of feel, of just
>> knowing the consistent picture without trying to articulate it.
Me:
> If you learn through Tshuvos HaRambam (and, to a lesser extent, Sefer 
> haMitzvos), you will find many places where the Rambam articulates his 
> methodology.  I strongly recommend Rabbi Benedict's book "HaRambam 
> L'lo Stiyah Min HaTalmud".
The other thing to remember is that the Rambam intended to replace 
introductory study of Talmud with study of Mishneh Torah (see Igrot 
HaRambam , ed. Sheilat, pp. 257-259, 311-313), so that articulating 
methodology of Talmud study would be less useful.
>
> David Riceman

Gilad Field wrote:
>  I came across an interesting teshuva in the Chavos Yair (124) that
> talks about a proper derech ha-limud. in that teshuva he was
> addressing a father asking how to educate his son who
> just became bar mitzvah - but it i think the answer is general enough.
> my question is - are you aware of sources in rishonim or achronim that
> deal with this question?
> I am interested in seeing how the question was answered through the
> generations in different locations.
>   
See Tshuvos Tzafnas Pa'aneah, ed. Warsaw, #5-6.

David Riceman

Daniel Israel wrote:
> Do we know if the standard used to exempt yayin mevushal from the 
> takanah of stam yayin is based on what would make it pasul for use in 
> the Bh"M or what would pasul it for (l'havdil) AZ?
See YD 123:4.  Honey is assur b'mashehu on the mizbeah (IIRC it's in the 
third perek of Pesahim) so that implies psul for the mizbeah is 
insufficient.

David Riceman

Is reporting child abuse - moser?

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3667308,00.html

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:35 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is reporting child abuse - moser?


I guess the question needs to be: Even if it's moser to report this to a
non-halachik court system (which I doubt), why don't we have a proper way to
deal with this using our own batei din?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090205/f9e93350/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:35:52 -0700 Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
>Is reporting child abuse - moser?
>
>http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3667308,00.html

I notice Ynet (perhaps the police) aren't naming the Rav.

Personally I RET's shailah isn't the complicated one to me, I want 
to know whether reporting the Rav who paskens thus is moser.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:27:58 -0700 Liron Kopinsky 
<liron.kopin...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I guess the question needs to be: Even if it's moser to report 
this to a
>non-halachik court system (which I doubt), why don't we have a 
proper way to
>deal with this using our own batei din?

In chu"l I would say that no Beit Din could have the authority to 
handle such a case in the way it needs to be handled.  Even if we 
forgo punishing the offender, and even if the BD could do 
everything necessary to protect the victim (which would be 
unusual), and even if it could enforce its ruling in other Jewish 
communities, to protect other Jewish children- is it authorized to 
take for itself the authority to determine if everything necessary 
has been done to protect non-Jewish children?

I don't know if a BD in EY could have the authority and expertise 
necessary to handle such a case.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 28
**************************************

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..."