Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 53

Wed, 18 Mar 2009

• 1. Re: bittul (Akiva Blum)
• 2. Re: bittul (Rich, Joel)
• 3. A Question About Davening Vo'Sikin (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Shmoneh Esrei - 18/19 (Jonathan Baker)
• 5. Re: superstition (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: [Areivim] hashovas aveirah (Liron Kopinsky)
• 7. Chutzpah and Cheilek (harveyben...@yahoo.com)
• 8. Avodah] reasons for torah loopholes in dinei mamonos (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: Chutzpah and Cheilek (Cantor Wolberg)
• 10. Re: "the language of Canaan" (dbm...@aol.com)
• 11. Re: Choshen (T6...@aol.com)
• 12. Re: bittul (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 13. Re: bittul (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 14. Re: superstition (Danny Schoemann)
• 15. TODAY IS ADAR 22 (Cantor Wolberg)
• 16. Re: Choshen (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Avodah] reasons for torah loopholes in dinei mamonos (David Riceman)

 


>>>I assume that if we know that a piece of treif meat fell in a pot with
60 kosher pieces many people would forgo the steak even though
halachically it is kosher because of bittul. There are even shitot
that one can eat all 61 pieces (not at once) since each is a safek.
Again I assume many would forgo that privelege.>>>

I heard a shiur from R' HSchachter, Q&A on kashrus, where he said that even
though halachically the food is 100%, nevertheless, it may be incorrect for a
certifying agency to approve the product. Not because of YD, but because of
Choshen Mishpot. The agency has a contract, unwritten, with the kosher consumer,
and that consumer presumably would not want food that has botel traif in it!

Akiva

R' Reisman discussed this a few weeks ago during his navi shiur.  He
said that there was a machlokes, with the Pischei Teshuvah holding that
if one wishes to be machmir, it is commendable, and the Toras H'Asham
holding that if someone is machmir in a situation where there is no
machlokes about whether it is permissible to eat or not, it is apikorsus
to be machmir.

R' Reisman then quoted the Bnei Yissaschar (regarding the situation of a
piece of treif meat that falls into a pot with sixty kosher pieces of
meat) that the piece of treif meat had a "nitzutz kedusha" in it and it
was meant to be eaten - and it is a mitzva to davka eat that piece of
meat (with the rest of the meat).

R' Reisman mentioned that, while there is an inyan not to eat a piece of
food about which a shaila was asked, that is only when there is a
machlokes about the permissibility of the food - not in the situation
above where the halacha is 100% clear and unequivocal that a piece of
treif meat that falls into a pot of sixty kosher pieces of meat is
permissible.

KT,
Aryeh
_______________________________________________
 Now if someone could just tell me what it means to be "an inyan", it
would be helpful. Actually the source of this inyan is a gemara, but
iiuc one needs to think about Mar Ukva and why he didn't wait 24 hours
between milk  and meat as his father did.  BTW is it really unequivocal?
What if you could determine by DNA testing which the treif piece is -
would there be "an inyan" to do so?
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.

I have from time to time davened with Vo'Sikin minyanim where the 
attempt was made to start Shemoneh Esrei precisely at Netz. However, 
it seems to me that this is not what davening Vo'Sikin could have 
meant in the past, before we had all of these technological devices 
to determine sunrise. Before them, the only way to determine netz was 
to observe it. However, to see it is to miss it when it comes to 
davening SE. Hence, it seems to me that davening Vo'Sikin should mean 
davening Shema (Shemang for Sephardi readers) before sunrise and SE 
after sunrise.

All of this is based only on my thoughts. Anyone care to enlighten me 
on this issue?

Yitzchok Levine 

RMi:

> Yalqut Shim'oni (Shemu'el I "vatispallel chanah") says the 18 berakhos
> dates back to Chanah! It says she says 18 berakhos, ...
 
>     Al tarbu tedabru gabohah = she'Osekha levadkha beyir'ah na'avod
>     Yatza ataq mipikhem = haTov shimkha uLekha na'eh lehodoso
>     veyitein oz lemalkhuso = Shalom
 
> (Note the chasimah to Retzei according to the the Yalqut!)

Indeed.  It's the old Palestinian chatimah, linked to the Kohanim.  See
http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2007/03/retzei-et-les-prieres-du-comtat.
html
towards the end for more on this bracha.  What is the Yalkut's source?
Oh, Yelamdenu/Tanchuma.  Is that a Palestinian midrash?
 
Elbogen posits a process of accretion: first one central bracha, like our
Havineinu, covered all the topics.  Then you get some separation into 
personal-needs brachot at the beginning, and finally the national redemption
brachot at the end.  The first three and last three having been always 
present.

R"n Toby Katz wrote:
> I agree with RET that this sounds like something
> superstitious, as does cutting all your nails out of
> order (and also making sure to gather all your nail
> parings lest a pregnant woman step on one and miscarry)

R' Akiva Blum responded:
> That one's different. It's in the gemora. Moed Katan
> 18a, reason included.

I'm not sure what RAB meant by "that one". What is the "reason included" on that daf which RTK didn't mention?

If he was referring to cutting the nails out of order, I did not see anything on that daf on that topic.

If he was referring to making sure that a pregnant woman doesn't step on
the cut nails, that daf does mention that, but I didn't see anything beyond
what RTK wrote.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Click to get free auto insurance quotes from top companies.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsHEaCdlesla9CV25mtBaG8caCMDaALNSHfPd6DVVuYRvWsImw1CaU/

2009/3/17 <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org>

>
>
> http://www.theyeshivaw
> orld.com/news/General+News/31510/No+Mitzvah+to+Return+Non-Kosher+Cellu
> lar+Telephone.html
>
> this is akin to  the secular legal principle , where a judge won't
> adjudicate in small claims  when  eg a drug deal went bad ---because hands
> aren't clean.
>
> so here too, no mitzva to return, a  non-kosher object......
>

Previously I asked on Avodah if there was an obligation to return a razor to
someone if we know they are going to use it wrongly. We concluded then that
no, there is no obligation to return the razor.

A few cases to help clarify what the implications of this should be.
1) If it is a "non-kosher" phone and you know for a fact that the person is
using it for inappropriate uses - Should not be returned like the razor
2) If it is a "non-kosher" phone and you don't know what the person uses it
for - Why should you not have to return this object? If I find a wallet on
the street with money in it, and I'm not sure if the person is going to buy
a cheese-burger with that money or not I shouldn't return the object?
3) I find a computer on the street - Do I have to go through the computer's
history to see if the person is going to kosher websites before returning it
to him?

If it is a "kli she'mlachto l'issur" I would understand not being allowed to
return it. But a phone's inherent use is halachically permitted and it
shouldn't be up to me to try and control someone else's yetzer.

~Liron
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090317/24da4908/attachment-0001.htm>

RWolberg:
This is something I have always found fascinating. It seems like a? 
chutzpa to tell HaShem to take away your cheilek in O.H. If that's? 
valid, then you might as well ask HaShem
to take away your cheilek in Gehinnom. The mere fact of asking HaShem? 
to take away your cheilek in O.H. implies that you unequivocally? 
deserve the cheilek to begin with.

HB: 1. If we have the klal/Chazal, that >>Kol Yisrael Yesh Lahem
Cheleik LeOlam Haba, then why assume the worst of oneself to assume he/she
will fall into those categories of egrigious sinners that are excepted from
that Klal?
2. For an egregious sinner to ask Hashem to give up his Cheilek in Olam Habah would indeed in my opinion be Chutzpa.
3. A non-egregious sinner could always phrase his request to Hashem in a
 conditional tone:? e.g, SHOULD I have a cheiliek in O.H. please apply it towards the following (worthy) causes....
Kol Tuv

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090317/85269ed0/attachment-0001.htm>

RMC writes:

> The torah (via gezeras hakasuv) paturs a damager in various cases
> (that sechel haAdom would say are not understandable)
> For example: kelim b'bor, tamun b'aish, hezek shaino nikar, admit to
> chazti nezek (modeh b'knas), etc etc

You would have to take these on a case by case basis, by why do you say that
these are not understandable by sechel haAdom?

If you go back to the theory of damages, there is a clearly a spectrum of
what one could require. At the one end, one could say that a person is
responsible for what they or their property did, regardless of how
foreseeable the damage is - ie no matter how remote the likelihood of the
particular damage is, the person is liable if he or she was the ultimate
cause.  At the other extreme one can say that a person should only be liable
for something if it was absolutely clear to them precisely what damage would
be caused by their action - and anything a bit more remote that they *might*
not have foreseen would be the consequence should be exempt.

The Torah clearly takes a stance somewhere between these two extremes, as do
our modern legal systems, but differences in the middle ground occupied does
not necessarily seem to make any particular position illogical.

So, for example, the kelim b'bor case.  It is not unreasonable to say that a
person who digs a hole in the public domain should be liable for animals
that fall in, as he or she should reasonably expect animals to be walking
around (they go of their own volition), and it was a normal part of society
up until very recently for animals, who were the means of transport in most
cases, to be walking up and down the public domain.  Hence it is not that
difficult to foresee the type and nature of animals that might fall in.
Kelim however cannot go on their own, they need either an animal or a human
to bring them.  And to expect a person to foresee the nature of the kelim
that could possibly fall into a hole, if they happened to be carried by an
animal, is asking for a whole additional level of foresight, as well as far
more sophisticated valuation skills.  You could argue that a more nuanced
answer would be to examine the road in question, look at the types of kellim
that are normally carried by animals there (if this is a general
thoroughfare for caravans carrying exotic goods, then one might expect more
expensive and breakable kellim than if it were a different kind of road,
where it might not be reasonable to expect a caravan carrying expensive and
exotic goods), but such a level of inquiry would eat up judicial and legal
time, and you have to balance.  Our modern English/American legal systems do
go much more for the full assessment of damages, but it is not totally clear
that this is an ideal.  The situation we have in modern Western society when
one desperately hunts around for somebody to "blame" for the damage so as to
have recourse to deep pockets does not necessarily produce a productive
society (think of the situation where a baby is injured due to medical
negligence compared to the situation where the baby has problems which can
not be pinned on the medical profession, but where the parents and child
will face the same medical and other needs throughout their lifetime).

There are hence two aspects of requiring a damager to pay damage.  The one
is to put the person damaged back in the same position, or as near as money
can, to the way they were before, and the second is to deter potential
damagers and to punish those who do damage.  In terms of the first, however,
you are privileging those who suffer misfortunate by the hands of a damager
who can be found and brought to court over those who suffer damage from
somebody who cannot be found, cannot be brought to court, or over those who
suffer damage as a result of bad mazel (an unusual wind or whatever).  It is
not totally clear in terms of absolute justice why this should be.  Hence it
is not illogical to say that  a large part of making damagers pay is about
deterrent, and if a certain level of damages is an appropriate deterrent, to
query the extent to which you necessarily want to go further than that with
all the associated costs.

Modeh b'knas is a totally different kind of concept and is clearly (like
lower penalties for somebody pleading guilty in modern legal systems) to
encourage acceptance of responsibility and lower the cost to society of
conducting full trials.  Knas itself is much more like secular criminal
penalty, with the major difference being that instead of the money going to
the government (as it does in Western legal systems) it goes to the person
damaged.  But like a fixed penalty in modern criminal law, it is more about
deterrent and punishment than about recompensing anybody who might be
damaged in the process.

Hezek sheano nikar is a really fascinating one - because it generally deals
with situations where the object has become diminished in value because of
the Torah value placed on it, rather than its intrinsic value.  It is indeed
an extraordinary philosophical question as to why.  But it is not without
its logic - if we place a higher value on something because we are following
the Torah, it does not automatically mean (although perhaps one might think
it should mean) that we should compel others to. It does seem strange and
almost "modern" not to so compel, but there is a logic to it -especially
given that to a non Jew in most cases the object has the same value it
always had, and hence the same value in the non Jewish second hand market
which is often the only real way of measuring some form of market value.
> 
> 
> ie if someone deliberately puts nails on the road to damage car tires, he
> is patur in beis din

Presumably you are talking about the damage to the tires, rather than any
injuries to humans in the cars caused by the cars then careening out of
control (where I wouldn't have thought the din was so clear).  Even with the
cars, however, is it totally clear that they fall into the category of
kellim rather than being treated as a form of mechanical horse - which in
many ways is what they really are - in essence they perform the function of
horses, donkeys and oxen in the gemora?  In terms of the theory I outlined
above, a car would more comfortably fit within the foreseeability test used
for animals in the Torah and gemora, whereas the kellim of the gemora are
intrinsically much more akin to luggage being carried within the car.  I
don't know if any modern day posek has said this, and of course this is a
purely modern question, as it is only recently that machines have replaced
the function of animals and so the animal/kellim distinction has become
blurred.  But it seems to me that at least some of your discomfort with the
Torah din as you have applied it may in fact be rooted in the modern
replacement of animals with machines, and your automatically applying the
din of kellim to such machines.

> (though possibly chayav b'yidei shamayam because of gramma)
> For many of the gezeras hakasuv's of the torah (basar v'chalov, shatnez,
> para aduma, etc)
> the mforshim attempt to give reasons for the gezeras hakasuv
> Does anyone know of possible explanations for these peturim in dinei
> mamonos?
> mordechai cohen

Regards

Chana

>
> HB: 1. If we have the klal/Chazal, that >>Kol Yisrael Yesh Lahem  
> Cheleik LeOlam Haba, then why assume the worst of oneself to assume  
> he/she will fall into those categories of egrigious sinners that are  
> excepted from that Klal?

That sounds nice but you know, as well as I, that the "Kol Yisrael" is  
a k'lal but the p'ratim are quite different.

> 3. A non-egregious sinner could always phrase his request to Hashem  
> in a conditional tone:  e.g, SHOULD I have a cheiliek in O.H. please  
> apply it towards the following (worthy) causes....
I must admit that I thought of the conditional tone. But that's not  
the way it was presented.




On Mar 17, 2009, at 6:02 PM, harveyben...@yahoo.com wrote:

> RWolberg:
> This is something I have always found fascinating. It seems like a
> chutzpa to tell HaShem to take away your cheilek in O.H. If that's
> valid, then you might as well ask HaShem
> to take away your cheilek in Gehinnom. The mere fact of asking HaShem
> to take away your cheilek in O.H. implies that you unequivocally
> deserve the cheilek to begin with.
>
> 2. For an egregious sinner to ask Hashem to give up his Cheilek in  
> Olam Habah would indeed in my opinion be Chutzpa.
>
> Kol Tuv
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090317/d2625cf4/attachment-0001.htm>

 



He also mentions "the language of Canaan".


 


 Two points:

In Medieval Europe, the Jews had a minhag of renaming place-names after
Biblical places and words. Hence, the Biblical "Ashkenaz," which can't have
been the site of modern-day Germany, gave the name to that land. So too for
Tzorfas (France), Sepharad (Spain), Hagar (Hungary) and Slavic lands, which
were called Kenaan. Micha's reference to the Slavs as slaves may well be
the connection. The others seem to have been based on phonetic similarity
('Ashkenaz' may have been so-called because of a phonetic similarity to
Scandia, a general name for parts of Northern Europe).

Second point: IIRC Rashi scholars believe the lo'azim which refer to the language of Kenaan (ie, Slavic) to all be later interpolations into Rashi's text.

S.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/74629c68/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 
: Three examples of  Rashi assuming certain words to have come from other  
: languages (or  to be cognate to words in other languages) come to  mind:  
[--TK]

Definitely not "come from other languages"! Rashi on Bereishis  1:11
reads "'Safah achas' - leshon haqodesh."

Clearly Rashi felt the  bilbul leshonos was incomplete, leaving traces
of similarities in some words  from the original leshon haqodesh.




>>>>>
 
 
You meant to type Bereishis 11:1 -- re the Dor Haflaga (or as  they say in 
these erudite parts, Dor HaPalagah).  
 
Yes, Rashi says that the original language of mankind, the "safah achas",  
was Loshon Hakodesh.  However there is no suggestion in Rashi's words that  
"Clearly Rashi felt the bilbul leshonos was incomplete...."  You are making  an 
inference based on what you yourself believe, but there is nothing in  Rashi to 
support that inference.
 
In any case, even if there were traces of Hebrew left here and there in  
other languages, that would not help Rashi's (Chazal's) etymologies of "avrech"  
and "totafos."  In these two cases we do not see foreign languages  retaining 
traces of Hebrew, but the opposite -- the Hebrew language seeming to  contain 
traces of foreign languages.
 
You can't say that in the Caspian language they retained the original  Hebrew 
word for two, "tat," since tat is not the original Hebrew word for  two!  Nor 
can you say that Africi retained a trace of Hebrew in its word  for two, 
since "pat" also is not the original Hebrew word for two.  And  "rech" is not the 
original Hebrew word for king, so you can't find in Latin a  trace of the 
original Hebrew, either. (Not in the word avrech, anyway.)
 

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



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

**************Great Deals on Dell 15" Laptops - Starting at $479 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1220433363x1201394532/aol?
redir=http:%2F%2Fad.doub
leclick.net%2Fclk%3B212935224%3B34245239%3Bb)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/a29f0856/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel(?):
> >>>I assume that if we know that a piece of treif meat fell in a pot with
> 60 kosher pieces many people would forgo the steak even though
> halachically it is kosher because of bittul. There are even shitot
> that one can eat all 61 pieces (not at once) since each is a safek.
> Again I assume many would forgo that privelege.>>>

Maharsha (Chullin 44a, CA) brings an explanation of the Pasuk Ashrei Kol
Yerei Hashem - Ashrei in Olam Hazeh someone who has a Safeik in Hilchos
Treifah but is a Yarei Hashem and is Machmir not to eat it. But Yegi'a
Kapecha Ki Tochal - if you exert yourself to find a Heter for your Safeik
until you are able to eat it, he's Ashrei in Olam Hazeh - that he was able
to eat it - and Tov Lo in Olam Habah - that he exerted himself in Torah
learning for it. Ayin Sham.

KT,
MYG

R' Eli Turkel(?):
> >>>I assume that if we know that a piece of treif meat fell in a pot with
> 60 kosher pieces many people would forgo the steak even though
> halachically it is kosher because of bittul. There are even shitot
> that one can eat all 61 pieces (not at once) since each is a safek.
> Again I assume many would forgo that privelege.>>>

(Reposted: Corrections in caps, sorry.)
Maharsha (Chullin 44a, CA) brings an explanation of the Pasuk Ashrei Kol
Yerei Hashem - Ashrei in OLAM HABA someone who has a Safeik in Hilchos
Treifah but is a Yarei Hashem and is Machmir not to eat it, BECAUSE HE
AVOIDS AN ISSUR TREIFOS. But Yegi'a Kapecha Ki Tochal - if you exert
yourself to find a Heter for your Safeik until you are able to eat it, he's
Ashrei in Olam Hazeh - that he was able to eat it - and Tov Lo in Olam
Habah - that he exerted himself in Torah learning for it. Ayin Sham.

KT,
MYG

RTK mentioned:
 (We wash the niftar  starting from the head and going down to the
feet, but I never heard anyone say  that when you take a shower you
should davka wash in a different order.)

Actually the MB in 2:4:(7) states "when washing ones entire body one
should start from the head since it's the king of limbs and look in
the D'M." (Darcie Moshe, I assume - I don't have one handy here.)

Interestingly enough the KSA writes (177:2)
http://www.kitzur.net/main.php?siman=197 that the order of Tahara is
to wash with warm water the entire body and the head. (Note the
order.)

- Danny

  Earthquake Saves Roman Jews from Forced Conversion (1430)

The church and the government of Rome set Wednesday, March 6, 1430  
(corresponding to Adar 22), as the day when all the Jews of Rome must  
convert
or face death. On that day a great earthquake shook Rome and many of  
the archbishops and priests who conceived the decree were killed.  
Following the earthquake,
Pope Martin V annulled the decree.


The Gemara (Berachos 6b) says, "A person should always be scrupulous  
about the Minchah prayer."

In other words, it's easy to daven shacharis, because you wake up and  
you know that's the first thing to do. (In fact, that's why one is not  
allowed to even eat prior to davening). Similarly, it's easy to daven  
ma'ariv because you've concluded your day's work. But the special  
quality of Minchah is that it comes in the middle of the day, when  
people are occupied and busy with personal affairs; nevertheless, the  
pious ones don't let their work and personal affairs overpower their  
devotion to HaShem and they interrupt the
physical for the spiritual.  In my Yeshiva days, I always appreciated  
davening mincha in the afternoon as opposed to having mincha followed  
by ma'ariv. To me, combining
mincha and ma'ariv was like making it one service instead of two. This  
is a good example of the "letter of the law" rather than the "spirit  
of the law."

For me, Mincha is the favorite service ? and not because it's the  
shortest, but because of its context and orientation. Allegorically I  
see the three services as a sandwich.
Shacharis and Ma'ariv are the two slices of bread (don't forget the  
motzi) and Mincha is the contents of the sandwich.

(Idea came to me from a commentary by the Alter Rebbe). 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090318/0d5bf6c1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 01:52:51AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Yes, Rashi says that the original language of mankind, the "safah achas",  
: was Loshon Hakodesh.  However there is no suggestion in Rashi's words that  
: "Clearly Rashi felt the bilbul leshonos was incomplete...."  You are making  an 
: inference based on what you yourself believe, but there is nothing in  Rashi to 
: support that inference.

I just meant that if Rashi believes that the pre-Hapelagah language was
LhQ and yet the post-Hapelagah new languages have cognate words to LhQ,
then clearly the bilbul wasn't complete. Leaving us words that weren't
changed beyond recognition.

And so I think it is implicit in Rashi, a statement of a conclusion I drew
(that was the point of that post), rather than being only my own belief.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Chana Luntz wrote:
> Hezek sheano nikar is a really fascinating one - because it generally deals
> with situations where the object has become diminished in value because of
> the Torah value placed on it, rather than its intrinsic value.  It is indeed
> an extraordinary philosophical question as to why.  But it is not without
> its logic - if we place a higher value on something because we are following
> the Torah, it does not automatically mean (although perhaps one might think
> it should mean) that we should compel others to.
Of course generally we use market value to determine value (I don't know 
what "intrinsic value" means).  Does this mean that market value doesn't 
apply when the market is distorted by halacha? What if I physically 
destroy a piece of kosher meat? Why can't I replace it by an equally 
appealing piece of non-kosher meat? I think this needs deeper analysis.  
In particular, I suspect that "value" is a red herring, and you need to 
think harder about what constitutes "damage".

David Riceman


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 53
**************************************

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..."