Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 36

Mon, 16 Feb 2009

• 1. Re: [Areivim] More Conversion issues in Israel (revised) (Zev Sero)
• 2. Brisk (Eli Turkel)
• 3. bugs in our food (Eli Turkel)
• 4. The Survival of Judaism and Kibud Av V'Aim (Yitzchok Levine)
• 5. Shaving the Head of a Married Woman (Harry Maryles)
• 6. Re: Brisk (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (Yitzchok Levine)
• 8. Re: The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (Micha Berger)
• 11. Tevillah and Netillas yadayim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 12. Re: The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: bugs in our food (Michael Kopinsky)
• 14. Re: The Stature of Moshe Rabbeinu (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Tevillah and Netillas yadayim (Akiva Blum)

On Areivim, Stadlan, Noam wrote:

> In August of 2008, Yossi Fackenheim, who was converted to Judaism at the
> age of two by an Orthodox Rabbinical Court in Toronto, had his conversion
> revoked by Rabbi Yissachar Dov Hagar, a judge on Jerusalem's Rabbinical
> Court.  
> 
> 
> Rabbi Marc Angel had this to say:  "Yossi Fackenheim was converted
> according to halakha, and is halakhically Jewish. The rabbinical court
> that annulled the conversion has acted against halakha, against Jewish
> ethics, against the people and State of Israel.

It seems from the news reports that the BD inquired into when he stopped
keeping mitzvot, to determine whether it was before 13 or after.  The
reason for this inquiry seems obvious: a child who is converted al daat
bet din is only converted subject to his approval when he becomes a bar
daat.  If he continues to keep mitzvot for even a moment after he becomes
a bar daat, then we take that as retroactive consent, and his conversion
is valid; but if at the first moment when he can refuse it he does so,
then it has been retroactively revealed that the BD had no right to convert
him, and he is a goy.

From the simple language of the halacha it would seem that this moment of
consent happens as soon as he becomes a gadol and continues to do mitzvot,
even if he had no idea that he had a choice in the matter.  But some say
that the gemara is referring to a child who knows his background and that
he has a choice; but if he didn't know then his continued keeping of
mitzvot doesn't prove anything, because he's only doing it because he
thinks he has to, and when he does find out, even at a later age, that is
the moment when he can consent or refuse his conversion.

From all this it would seem that the BD acted entirely properly, and
that R Angel, in accusing it of acting against halacha and Jewish ethics,
is displaying appalling ignorance. (What the people and the state of
Israel have to do with it, I don't know; a BD's loyalty must be only to
Torah, not to any government or people.)

HOWEVER, there's one big flaw in that whole analysis.  A few paragraphs
ago I referred to "a child who is converted al daat bet din".  *Was*
this young man converted al daat bet din?  While a cursory reading of
the halachic sources would make it seem so, a second and more careful
reading might introduce some doubt.  There are poskim (I don't know
whether they are the minority, majority, or consensus, but I know they
exist) who read the gemara and rishonim carefully, and conclude that
there are *two* kinds of child converts: those who come to BD on their
own or are brought by strangers (usually adoptive parents), and those
who are brought by their fathers.  The former are converted al daat bet
din, which only has the power to act as an agent of the child's future
adult self; anything it does must depend on the child's future consent.
But the latter are converted on the authority of the father, who has
the right al pi din to convert his son, just as he has the right to beat
him for misbehaviour, or to sell him into slavery.  Such a conversion
does not depend on the child's present or future consent; he may go
into the mikveh kicking and screaming that he is devoted to Zeus and
Jupiter, and he may keep up this rebellion through his whole life, but
al pi din he is a Jew because the Torah gave his father the right to
make that decision for him.

So it would seem that R Angel is correct after all.  But not so fast.
The gemara is talking about a goy who brings his son to be converted
(whether with him, or just on his own -- it seems that the father may
convert his son even without converting himself).  But the Torah tells
us that a goyta's offspring from a Jew are not his children.  It warns
us that if our daughter marries a goy he will lead our grandchildren
astray; but if our son marries a goyta, while that is just as forbidden,
we don't care how any products of the union are raised, because they
are not our grandchildren anyway, they have nothing to do with us, so
what happens to them is no concern of ours. If they end up serving AZ,
that is no worse than any goy doing the same.  If this is so, then who
gave the sire any right over them at all?  Who says he has the right to
sell these children, or to convert them?  Maybe halachically they have
no father at all, and can only be converted al daat bet din, and we're
back to square one.

The ideal solution, of course, would be for the young man to start
keeping mitzvot and undergo a giyur lechumra.  But if he's not
interested in accepting the yoke of mitzvot then that won't work.
So how can a BD approve his marriage to a bat yisrael?

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

<<Example: Seforim on Kashrus will first explain how Rov works, and
then explain the myriad versions of "if a drop of milk falls into a
meat soup". It will first how Nosen Taam works, and so on, and then
tell what to do if you cook something in the work pot.

Example: But my favorite example is Muktza. Any modern sefer will have
several distinct chapters, each on a specific category: Machmas Gufo,
Chisaron Kis, Melachto L'Issur, etc. But Gemara has *none* of that.
Gemara will mention an object that can't be handled on Shabbos, and
then spends a whole discussion comparing it to other objects --
objects which to *us* are clearly in an entirely different category.>>

The examples you give all prove that modern seforim are more organized
than old ones, shemirat shabbat being an excellent example. However,
explaining how Rov or Nosen Taam works is details it is not
intellectually challenging. Same for listing the various types of
muktza

An example from science would be botany. Explaining how to classify
various species etc is necessary but not very simulating. I was a
chemistry major for one year in college. However, inorganic chemistry
is mainly memorization and so I gave it up before reaching the more
interesting parts.
The question is whether hilchot muktza is memorization aided by modern
organization or is an intellectual challenge?


-- 
Eli Turkel

after this article I am not sure I want to eat anything.
What is the halacha of all these "tolaim"

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13levy.html?em



-- 
Eli Turkel

RSRH writes the following in his commentary on 
Shemos 20: 12 Honor your father and your mother, 
so that your days may be long on the land that God, your God, is giving you.

Y'tzias Mitzraim and Matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the
Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the
Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical
truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition,
and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to
children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their
parents.

Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism
rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to
parents. Accordingly, Kibud Av V'Aim is the basic condition for the eternity of
the Jewish nation.

Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than
just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the
child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man
or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the
Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and
upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish
Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own
children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children
someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents
and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the
Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to
exist.

<snip>

Kibud entails, first of all, obeying one?s parents unreservedly and doing
their will with alacrity. The only limitation placed on this duty is
that their will should not be contradictory to God?s Will (see Vayikra
19:3 and Commentary there). For the parents are meant to be the heralds
of God?s Will. This is their mission; this is what gives them their
great importance.

It is this mission of the parents ? not the amount of kindness,
large or small, they have shown their children ? that lies at the root
of the mitzvah of Kibud Av V'Aim, a mitzvah that increases with the age and
maturity of the children and extends even beyond the death of the
parents. The unconditional and imposing demands of this mitzvah transcend
by far any moral obligation that ordinary morality ? the so-called
morality of reason ? could deduce from considerations of gratitude
(see Kiddushin 30b, 31, 32).

This selection is taken from pages 347 - 348 of 
the new translation of Rav Hirsch's commentary on the Chumash Shemos.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090215/894cbd09/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Fri, 2/13/09, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:




Neither my mother nor my sister has ever worn a sheitel, and they are as
charedi as they come.?? I was the MODERN one in my family?for putting?on a
sheitel instead of the old-fashioned frum headgear!? ?The women in Me'ah
She'arim with shaved heads and tight black tichels -- they are not
charedim??
?
==================================
?
Speaking of the shaved heads of married Meah Shearim women, I am curious
when, where and why this started. Is it a Halachic requirement of certain
communities? Is it Chumra? Or just a strong minhag? Why do they do it? What
s it based on? How far back does it go? What is the history with respect to
this? How important is it for a woman from this community toi shave her
head? Is she ostracized oif she doesn't? How do they see the rest of the
Frum world that does not do this? (Perhaps this is Avodah territory? - sent
there too.)
?
HM

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090215/1e561ab0/attachment-0001.htm>

> Example: But my favorite example is Muktza. Any modern sefer will have
> several distinct chapters, each on a specific category: Machmas Gufo,
> Chisaron Kis, Melachto L'Issur, etc. But Gemara has *none* of that..

Lfad over time we as a continuous community evolve more delineated
taxonomy that results from repeated iterations of davar mitoch davar.

EG In YD melicha over time the reasons for hadacha rishona have evolved
into a very clearly delineated set of reasons and nafja minas.

The BY started a comprehensive list and the pesicha to pri megaddim
refines it. The sefer hasheetos digests a very clear outline. And so
it goes.

AISI, Gmara talks in theory; rishonim are the prijsm or lens thru which
we traditioanlly view Gmara, and ideally acharonim should be clarifying
and synthesizing the rishonim.

Some acharonim are clearer than others of course. At times eg Pri
Megaddim is very clear.

AIUI AhS is trying to do this, Too.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I have always pictured Moshe Rabbeinu as a 
"giant" of a man with tremendous abilities. After 
all, he had the clearest revelation of HaShem of 
any of the Neviim. Yet on the Pasuk

18: 24 Moshe hearkened to the voice of his 
father-in-law and did all that he had said.

RSRH writes

24 Nothing could be more instructive than this information regarding the
first State institution of the Jewish people, coming just before the chapter
on the Lawgiving. Moshe?s stature as a lawmaker was so small, and his
talent for organizing was so inadequate, that he had to learn the basics
of state organization from his father-in-law. This man Moshe worked
himself to exhaustion and could not, on his own, organize such a basic
institution, or one similar to it, so beneficial to himself, to the people,
and to the matter at hand. This man, who needed Yisro?s counsel to
appoint judges, could not have invented statutes and laws and given
them to the people. This man was strictly the faithful instrument of
God; he told the people God?s Word ? and nothing more.

I find this description of the abilities of Moshe 
Rabbeinu difficult to reconcile with my "gut" 
impressions of him as a "giant" of a man.  On the 
other hand, I have wondered from time to time why 
Moshe himself did not institute a system similar 
to the one suggested by Yisro before Yisro arrived.

I would be interested to hear what others think about this.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090215/4d7d0319/attachment-0001.htm>

In a message dated 2/15/2009, Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu writes:

>>This man Moshe worked
himself to  exhaustion and could not, on his own, organize such a basic
institution, or  one similar to it, so beneficial to himself, to the people,
and to the  matter at hand. This man, who needed Yisro?s counsel to
appoint judges,  could not have invented statutes and laws and given
them to the people.  This man was strictly the faithful instrument of
God; he told the people  God?s Word ? and nothing more.<< [--from Commentary 
of  RSRH]

>>I find this description of the abilities of Moshe  Rabbeinu difficult to 
reconcile with my "gut" impressions of him as a "giant"  of a man.  On the other 
hand, I have wondered from time to time why Moshe  himself did not institute 
a system similar to the one suggested by Yisro  before Yisro arrived. 

I would be interested to hear what others think  about this.<<
Yitzchok Levine 
 
 
>>>>>
One of Hirsch's purposes in writing his magnificent Commentary on Chumash  
was to answer the Reformers and the Bible Critics, the promoters of the  
Documentary Hypothesis.  
 
He did not deign to actually name or quote any of those heretics --  why give 
them such credibility, and why immortalize their names in a work of  Torah 
that he hoped would prove timeless?  However, throughout his  Commentary there 
are many subtle arguments against the heretics, and this  example is typical.  
 
He is pointing out, in case anybody buys into the theory that Moshe  Rabbeinu 
himself made up the Torah, that Moshe was incapable of creating such a  
complex system himself.   He could not even think of a hierarchical system  of 
judges, how could he ever have thought up the whole system of laws in the  Torah?  
 
The Torah contains within itself clues to its Divine authorship.  The  story 
of Yisro and the advice he gave his son-in-law is one of many such clues  
scattered throughout the Written Torah -- clues that Moshe or another human  being 
couldn't have written the Torah, clues that there had to be an Oral Torah  
along with the Written Torah, and so on -- and Hirsch was brilliant at spotting  
and highlighting these clues.
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

--------------------
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?
redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%2
6bcd=fe
bemailfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090215/4cd3a589/attachment-0001.htm>

At 04:42 PM 2/15/2009, T6...@aol.com wrote:
>One of Hirsch's purposes in writing his 
>magnificent Commentary on Chumash was to answer 
>the Reformers and the Bible Critics, the 
>promoters of the Documentary Hypothesis.
>
>He did not deign to actually name or quote any 
>of those heretics -- why give them such 
>credibility, and why immortalize their names in 
>a work of Torah that he hoped would prove 
>timeless?  However, throughout his Commentary 
>there are many subtle arguments against the 
>heretics, and this example is typical.

I recall him mentioning Naphtali Herz Wessely at 
some point in his commentary. He refers to him 
only as Wessely. From 
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/639985/Naphtali-Herz-Wessely

Jew? who had embraced Western culture, 
Mendelssohn?s message to his own community was to 
become Westerners, to seek out the culture of the 
Enlightenment. To that end he joined with a poet, 
Naphtali Herz (Hartwig) Wessely (1725?1805), in 
translating the Torah into German, combining 
Hebrew characters with modern German phonetics in 
an effort to displace Yiddish, and wrote a modern...

>
>He is pointing out, in case anybody buys into 
>the theory that Moshe Rabbeinu himself made up 
>the Torah, that Moshe was incapable of creating 
>such a complex system himself.   He could not 
>even think of a hierarchical system of judges, 
>how could he ever have thought up the whole system of laws in the Torah?

All of this is certainly true. Nonetheless, I 
find it surprising that he wrote in terms which I 
think many would consider not very flattering to 
Moshe Rabbeinu in order to make a point against the reformers.


Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090215/442d62c0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 03:24:41PM -0500, Yitzchok Levine wrote:
: I have always pictured Moshe Rabbeinu as a 
: "giant" of a man with tremendous abilities. After 
: all, he had the clearest revelation of HaShem of 
: any of the Neviim...

Isn't that the point of the medrash about MRAH being 10 amos tall?

: 24 Nothing could be more instructive than this information regarding the
: first State institution of the Jewish people, coming just before the chapter
: on the Lawgiving. Moshe's stature as a lawmaker was so small, and his
: talent for organizing was so inadequate, that he had to learn the basics
: of state organization from his father-in-law...

MRAH couldn't serve as the leader who brought us into EY. This was
demonstrated when he hit the stone, but it was inherent in who Moshe
Rabbeinu was. "Haazinu hashamyim ... vesishma ha'aretz", as Rashi
explains, was because Moshe was at home with shamayim, and distanced
from aretz. He was a good leader for a generation protected by ananei
hakavod and fed by mon, but when that ended, Yehoshua took over.

RSRH's image could be taken to be of someone too otherwordly to think
about the pragmatics of running a gov't and applying halakhah to
real people and real problems.

:                            This man, who needed Yisro's counsel to
: appoint judges, could not have invented statutes and laws and given
: them to the people. This man was strictly the faithful instrument of
: God; he told the people God's Word -- and nothing more.

This isn't smallness, it's being too big to relate.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Given:
We men take showers before tevila. This creates the possibility that
if a body part is outside the mikvah but is wet, it can be mitztareif
to the mikvah provided that the water is continuous w/o hefsek down to
the mikvah.

OTOH with netillas yadayim, if we wash w/o a poper keli first we need
to dry our hands. IOW the water is a hefsek.

Why the hilluk?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

One Yekke talmid chacham pointed out Moshe's humble origins in Parshas
Shemos

He quoted Hirsch and added that this was davka to contrast with yushka.
So AIUI deifying Moshe Rabbeinu would only support the Xtian thesis that
some humans were more special.

Adderabba Moshe's humility made him a perfect keli to transmit pure
divine Torah w/o any egotistical spin.

(FWIW that is why I favor ego-less pesaq)

I guess this ne'emanus is also to support torah misiani against reform
as well as against xtianity.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> after this article I am not sure I want to eat anything.
> What is the halacha of all these "tolaim"
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13levy.html?em
>

It's not for nothing that Chazal, and l'havdil the FDA, accept the notion of
bittul. There is no danger (physical or spiritual) from those few parts per
million of extra organic matter. The only halachic concern is because a
berya is not battel. That idea is seemingly what's behind the humor in the
closing sentence of the article.

KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090216/6e05292d/attachment-0001.htm>

>> He is pointing out, in case anybody buys into the theory that
>> Moshe Rabbeinu himself made up the Torah, that Moshe was incapable of
>> creating such a complex system himself. He could not even think of a
>> hierarchical system of judges, how could he ever have thought up the
>> whole system of laws in the Torah?
>> [--TK]

> All of this is certainly true. Nonetheless, I find it surprising that
> he wrote in terms which I think many would consider not very flattering
> to Moshe Rabbeinu in order to make a point against the reformers.
> Yitzchok Levine  

It doesn't sound unflattering to me at all. In any case Hirsch did
not see himself as bringing in judgements or analyses from outside
the Torah. He saw himself as explaining and clarifying what was IN
the Torah. Therefore if the Torah indicates that Moshe couldn't have
thought of Yisro's system himself, then it is the Torah itself that
is being "unflattering" to Moshe Rabbeinu. As we know, the Torah
portrays the great men of our past as they were, not in idealized
visions of perfection. But to finish where I started, I don't consider
this particular trait -- that he didn't think of delegating -- to be
"unflattering" to Moshe at all.

To address your implicit criticism: Hirsch certainly would not have
*invented* anything in order to make a point against Reform. He merely
pointed out emes, what was right there in the Torah.

[Email #2. -mi]

>> [Hirsch] did not deign to actually name or quote any of those heretics
>> -- why give them such credibility, and why immortalize their names in a
>> work of Torah that he hoped would prove timeless? However, throughout
>> his Commentary there are many subtle arguments against the heretics,
>> and this example is typical. [--TK]

> I  recall him mentioning Naphtali Herz Wessely at some point in his 
> commentary.  He refers to him only as Wessely. From 
> <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/639985/Naphtali-Herz
> -Wessely>
> --Britannica quote--
>> Jew" who had embraced Western culture, Mendelssohn's message to his
>> own community was to become Westerners, to seek out the culture of the
>> Enlightenment. To that end he joined with a poet, Naphtali Herz (Hartwig)
>> Wessely (1725 -- 1805), in translating the Torah into German, combining
>> Hebrew characters with modern German phonetics in an effort to displace
>> Yiddish, and wrote a modern...
> --end Britannica quote--
> Yitzchok Levine  

He may have mentioned Wessely in The Nineteen Letters, but not likely
in his commentary on Chumash. If you can find a place in the Hirsch
Chumash that mentions Wessely by name please let me know where, thanks.
Your Britannica citation shows Wessely to have been a modernizer and
perhaps proto-maskil but does not show that Hirsch quoted him.

In any case Wessely was not an actual Reformer nor was he an advocate of
the Documentary Hypothesis since he lived before the Reform movement and
before Haskala (though in some ways he could be considered a forerunner
of Reform and Haskalah). He died in 1805. Hirsch would probably not have
considered him an apikores. Wessely was an observant Jew. I think he
wrote part of Mendelssohn's Biur (on Vayikra?) and unless I'm confusing
him with someone else, I think some people consider his contributions
to have been "frummer" than those written by Mendelssohn himself.
As we have many history scholars here among the distinguished Avodah
membership, perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am can weigh
in here.

--Toby Katz
==========

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 1:18 AM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Given:
> We men take showers before tevila. This creates the possibility that
> if a body part is outside the mikvah but is wet, it can be mitztareif
> to the mikvah provided that the water is continuous w/o hefsek down to
> the mikvah.
>
> OTOH with netillas yadayim, if we wash w/o a poper keli first we need
> to dry our hands. IOW the water is a hefsek.
>
> Why the hilluk?
>

Firstly, it is far from poshut that you need to have dry hands before
netilas yodayim. But assuming you do, the difference is that the water of
the mikva joins together with the mikva since a mikva can be metaher other
objects. With water, it's even better because the water becomes a part of
the mikva itself. The water of netilas yodayim can only be metaher hands,
not anything else.

>>>>>>>>>>> IOW the water is a hefsek.

No, not a hefsek because as a hefsek, it would wash away. It is tomei and
needs taharoh.

Akiva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090216/4019a99a/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 36
**************************************

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..."