Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 59

Tue, 31 Mar 2009

• 1. History Scenarios and (Emunas) Chachamim?? (Harvey Benton)
• 2. Birkat haChamah Liturgy (Jonathan Baker)
• 3. Re: reasons for torah loopholes in dinei mamonos (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Birchat Hachama (Michael Poppers)
• 5. birchat hachama (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: birchat hachama (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: birchat hachama (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Women at a funeral (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 9. t a fyneral (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 10. concord (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: concord (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: More on Where did the wheat used to bake your matzos come from? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: More on Where did the wheat used to bake your matzos come from? (Zev Sero)
• 14. Pesach Insights From RSRH (Yitzchok Levine)
• 15. birchat hachamah (Eli Turkel)
• 16. Re: History Scenarios and (Emunas) Chachamim?? (Allan Engel)

When conflicting
medrashic/Talmudic statements describe the same event, (with or without direct
immediate halachic implications ? like which fruit Adam ate in Gan Eden, or was
their ever a ir hanidachas/ben sorer u?more) how/why should we believe the
chachamim on other issues?

It has been mentioned (Joseph
Pearlman/Kolel Iyun Hadaf Yerushalayim in the name of the Chazon Ish) that if
the original sefer Torah that Moshe received was found it would be discarded if
it differed from the versions we currently have today.? Assume for the moment that this is true, what
theoretically would be the implications for the Bais Shlish vis a vis the
Menorah and/or the lettering on the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol?? In the absence of the originals say we were
to construct a menorah in say Year 1 of the Geulah, ?with a certain shape (say straight-arms), and
then 40 years later the original Menorah turned up; would we still hold by
straight-armed one that we had constructed, or would we have to admit our (historical)
error and either re-construct a new menorah (with curved arms), or use the
original Menorah that had been found (also with curved arms). 

Similar scenarious could apply
to Rashi/ Rabeinu Tam/Shmushei Raba and/or Raivad Tefillins etc?? Do we Care what either: what Hashem told
Moshe or Bnei Yisrael to wear? Or do we ignore historical facts, despite the
fact that either Moshe Rabeinu himself could tell us (techiyas Hameisim) or
Eliyahu Hanavi (or someone else) could reveal to us the exact and necessary
order of the parshios.? Simila reasoning
could apply to the chilazon fish/techeiles, other scenarios, etc. 

All the best from galus L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090330/73daf99e/attachment-0001.htm>

If anyone is interested, I've written a longish piece on the history of
the nusach for Birkat haChamah.  It's mostly pretty recent - 1785 and
later, but there's a fair bit of evidence that there were other rituals
used earlier, that may have been designed for one-time use, or were 
otherwise lost during the ensuing 28-year breaks.

http://thanbook.blogspot.com/2009/03/liturgies-for-blessing-sun.html

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

RDR writes:

> I don't own a Sdei Hemed.  My impression of the Rama is that the Beis 
> Din has the authority to award a fine in its capacity as keeper of 
> communal peace, rather than in its capacity as remedying monetary 
> damage.

Well it rather seems more than that. Basically one who is motzei shem ra is
guilty of a torah violation, but because it is a lav she ain bo ma'aseh,
there are no lashes min hatorah.  But there are lashes d'rabbanan (makos
mardus) at least according to one opinion.  Now neither form of lashes are
given today, but in their place are the possibility of nidui or other
remedies as decided by beis din.

I agree that the remedy is not necessarily monetary - but that does mean
there is not a remedy in halacha, just that there may not be a remedy in
damages.  As I understand the basic underlying argument why one might not
provide a monetary remedy when embarressing somebody with words is that, in
theory, such a situation can be rectified in other ways, so a monetary
penalty is not needed.  A public flogging for slander would seem to do the
trick rather effectively I would have thought.  The fact that the common law
legal system provides primarily a remedy for slander that involves monetary
recompense does not mean that that the only available remedy (and it is not
in fact in the common law either, there are various injunctions and other
equitable remedies available, publishing of retractions etc).

> Boshes is a weird din because it requires intention, unlike the 
> standard cases of nezikin.

Why is it a weird din because it requires intention?  As I think I said at
the outset, the spectrum along which any judicial system could award damages
ranges from, at the one extreme, only when there was intention to have the
particular consequence (or certainty of forseeability, which amounts to the
same thing.  If you know with 100% certainty there is going to be a certain
consequence to your actions, and you do it anyway, you have intention or you
are a shoteh) to at the other extreme, liability for the consequences of
your actions, no matter how remote and how unlikely it was that you forsaw
it.  The fact that halacha has put different forms of damages at different
points on the spectrum, with actual damage towards the less easily forseen
end, shevet and refua further along the spectrum and boshes at the the other
end does not seem to me to make it a weird din.

 
> On the contrary there is one market, and kosher and non-kosher meat 
> are different things which carry different prices.

That is not at all true in the non Jewish market. If I buy my kosher chicken
at my kosher butcher, and go down to the non Jewish market (in fact there
was an open air non Jewish meat market near my old work, I used to walk
through it sometimes on my way to work, and they were just packing up at
8.30am or so, having finished for the day) I would get no more for that
chicken in that market than I would for a treif one with the same physical
characteristics.  To them it is exactly one and the same thing.

>  Multiple markets means that the same thing sells for different prices 
> in different markets in the same town (i.e. the differences aren't 
> attributable to cost of access).

Yup, and it does - my kosher chicken sells for ?8 pounds in my kosher
butcher and if I take that chicken down to the goyishe market I would get,
what, maybe ?3-?4 for it.  Same chicken, different prices, no problem with
access.  Same thing is likely true with wine that I can certify has not been
the subject of nesech, or produce which has not become tamei - we Jews will
pay a higher price for them, but in the general non Jewish market, they will
go for whatever it is that the wine or wheat is selling for - and the non
Jew will not care whether it comes with fancy stamps or it does not.  And in
fact the Jew only cares to the extent that he is shomrei torah - ie it is
only because he has accepted upon himself ol malkus shamayim that suddenly
it matters and these things go for higher prices.  

>  That can't happen because of arbitrage, and that is what I understood 
> you to postulate in your initial post.
> > But what does it mean to say that no damage has occurred to an item 
> > when before time X it could be sold for 100 units in a
> given market,
> > and now it can only be sold for 50?  How do you describe this item?
> See the Rambam I cited last time: "hoil vl'o nishtanah hadavar vlo 
> nifsdah tzuraso ... aval midivrei sofrim amru hoil v'hifhis d'maihem 
> harei zeh hayyav".  The item hasn't been damaged; it's market value 
> has been reduced.

I thought that was what I was arguing - ie that the issue is the change in
market value.  But then you have to ask what is the market.  If you look at
the non Jewish market as the basis, there has been no reduction in value
-wine before nesach and produce before becoming tamei obtains the same price
as afterwards - so there is absolutely nothing to pay.  To say that the
market value has been reduced is already making a judgement about the market
- and saying the market is the shomrei torah market, as no non Jew (or non
frum Jew) would pay a penny less than he would have beforehand.

The problem it seems to me with saying that hezek sheino nikar lo shmei
hezek  means hoil vlo nishtaneh hadarvar vlo nifsda tzuraso , is how do you
then explain the position (Chizkiya on Gitten 53a) that hezek sheaino nikar
shmei hezek?   The Rambam's formulation remains just as true, it is still
true that lo nishtanah hadavar vlo nifsdah tzuraso.  So that part of his
formulation could not be expected to change which ever way the machlokus
went.  I therefore just understand that part of his formulation as
explaining so the audience understands the case, it is not saying there is
no damage (or there is damage), it is saying that the case is where the
object does not change form - clearly true however you understand it.   It
is only after that that we get into the question of which way to posken.  Ie
which market value - and then all you need to say is that Chizkiya is
looking at the market of the Jews as the basis of measurement of the Torah,
and in that market the value has been reduced while Rav Yochanan understands
the basis of measurement of the Torah as being the more general goyishe
market in which it hasn't, with the rabbis then modifying that to allow one
to look at the market of the Jews.  BTW, under Chizkiya's formulation, the
Torah obligates payment whether intentional or unintentional, but according
to him d'rabbanan the unintentional is exempted from payment, so that you
get to a similar situation to boshes, ie intentional chayav, unintentional
patur - and it is not weird at all.
 
> David Riceman

Regards

Chana

PS RYG's point is well taken, it is interesting that we have these two
opinions as to what the Torah is really saying is the underlying din without
any reference to derivations from psukim - and only references to mishnayos
(ie torah shebaal peh) to try and prove that the halacha is one way or the
other.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090331/718efd9b/attachment-0001.htm>

In Avodah Digest V26#58, RJIR replied to RAM:
>> I've heard it said that the ideal "B'rov Am Hadras Melech" is where not
only the multitude gathers together to do a mitzvah in unison, but they
do it via a single individual, i.e., by being yotzay together through
one person's saying it. I've also heard that although this is true
l'halacha, it is not viable l'maaseh: We fear that some people will not
have proper kavana and will not be yotzay unless they say it themselves. <<
> Yet , as you point out, we do it by areas where we need the person's act
and generally someone gets up and says the shatz will have in
mind....and we should all have in mind..... <
And isn't the prototypical "b'rov am" stated (at least as a hava amina) by
t'qiyas shofar (BT RhSh 32b), w/ Halleil also entertained as subject to the
dictum and "z'rizim maqdimim" seemingly taking priority?

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090330/832e5f52/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The even being commemorated, is the first sunrise after the tequfah
occuring during the begining of the rule of Shabetai (Saturn) on or
layom revi'i. That hour has no astronomical meaning, it's when the planet
happens to be in force with no regard to where it or anything else is.

So why are we assuming the tequfah is an astronomical season? Perhaps in
addition to the tropical year and the sidereal year, there is a totally
distinct astrological year.

And all the circumlocutions (never mind the ones that go overboard and
use the words "exactly the same place" ukhedomeh) just make more problems
for the nevuchim than they resolve. As RYL's correspondent noted.>>

On the contrary all the earlier generations understand hachamah betekufata
as an astronomical event when the sun returns to the same place it was
in creation.

Mainly in modern times when it was stressed that Shmuel's method is
not accurate
did some achronim explain that this is only a pedagogical rule and not
astronomical.
Reminds of the modern proofs that chazal knew the earth is round while
early generations
took the gemara (in several places) more literally as dealing with a flat earth.

I again looked at the CI  (OH 138:4) who says that both shitat Shmuel and R. Ada
are from Sinai and anyone who denies it is a min.
Problem is that the Rambam seems to speak of 2 differing opinions which both
can't be correct and also mentions that the same machkloket exists in the
Greek and Perisan sources



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:03:50PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On the contrary all the earlier generations understand hachamah betekufata
: as an astronomical event when the sun returns to the same place it was
: in creation.

The "return to location" I agree, but I'm not sure how you know that
they took it as an astronomical event. Again, looking at the beraisa,
that "location" is defined by the rule of Shabetai, which is decidedly
NOT an astronomical event.

: Mainly in modern times when it was stressed that Shmuel's method is
: not accurate did some achronim explain that this is only a pedagogical
: rule and not astronomical.

But even amora'im knew that R' Adda's tequfah was more accurate! So what
sparked this increased interest?

You're arguing that the position changed -- the rishonim assumed science
and these acharonim assume pedagogic.

I instead saw the change as cultural. Until the modern era, no one had a
problem with a mitzvah that was based on astrology and myth rather than
science. The whole distinction wasn't one anyone would have bothered
making until after the death of alchemy, and the separation of natural
philosophy from science.

IOW, it's not that we recently decided it was pedagogic as much as this
wouldn't have been a chiddush until recently. It's not the side of the
distinction we're drawing that's new, it's attention to the distinction
altogether. You're crediting the rishonim with making a distinction few
of their contemporaries would have considered.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 05:03:50PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: On the contrary all the earlier generations understand hachamah betekufata
: as an astronomical event when the sun returns to the same place it was
: in creation.

The "return to location" I agree, but I'm not sure how you know that
they took it as an astronomical event. Again, looking at the beraisa,
that "location" is defined by the rule of Shabetai, which is decidedly
NOT an astronomical event.

: Mainly in modern times when it was stressed that Shmuel's method is
: not accurate did some achronim explain that this is only a pedagogical
: rule and not astronomical.

But even amora'im knew that R' Adda's tequfah was more accurate! So what
sparked this increased interest?

You're arguing that the position changed -- the rishonim assumed science
and these acharonim assume pedagogic.

I instead saw the change as cultural. Until the modern era, no one had a
problem with a mitzvah that was based on astrology and myth rather than
science. The whole distinction wasn't one anyone would have bothered
making until after the death of alchemy, and the separation of natural
philosophy from science.

IOW, it's not that we recently decided it was pedagogic as much as this
wouldn't have been a chiddush until recently. It's not the side of the
distinction we're drawing that's new, it's attention to the distinction
altogether. You're crediting the rishonim with making a distinction few
of their contemporaries would have considered.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 R. Zev Sero's distinction between women at a funeral and women at the
 cemetary is well taken and is undoubtedly correct in theory.  However,
 since most funerals in Israel and around the world take place at the Beit
 haKevarot - wouldn't that make this distinction nigh irrelevant or moot?
    Ar

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090331/9d9daf7e/attachment-0001.htm>

"The real question in this case is about pluralism. Do official and
quasi-official bodies like the Rabbanut and the Chevra Kadisha have an
obligation to permit anything that is within the generally accepted bounds
of Orthodox practice, whether or not they personally rule that the action is
permitted? In which case, how exactly do we define those bounds? Or should
they follow their own halachic conscience, and forbid activities that they
consider assur? "

I'd like to add a sub-question to Ilana's perceptive questions:  does the
fact that we're talking about minhagim affecting mourners, who are in a
difficult emotional state, affect the answer to these questions?  That is,
should the standards governing demanding that  a mourner follow a minhag of
mourning that he/she finds emotionally problematic be the same as, for
example, a rabbi deciding whether to insist that a male not put on tefillin
in the rabbi's shul on chol HaMoed?

Joseph Kaplan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090331/06b79b3a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 1:59am EDT Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
wrote [to Areivim; I'm also providing more context than RYG sent in his
original email -mb]:
> All this started because I semi-jokingly questioned the use of concord
> wine for the 4 cups.

> Concord grapes (Vitis labrusca) are new world grapes, one of a totally
> different set of species than the grapes known by our ancestors (Vitis
> vinifera). For kelayim, the definition of a min is the inability
> to crossbreed and produce fertile young. In which case, concord is
> a different min than old-world grapes; crossbreeding them produces
> infertile, seedless, grapes.

> Thus, how can concord wine qualify lehalakhah as yayin, and usable for
> the 4 kosos?


I am aware that that is the exact definition of modern biology for species
differentiation, but what is your source that that is the definition of
'min' in the context of Kilayim? On the contrary, the criteria that
I see all seem to refer to similarity of appearance (of leaves and /
or fruit) or taste, and there's even the phrase "ein holchin be'kelayim
elah ahar maris ha'ayin" (see commentaries of Rash, Rambam and Tosfos
Yom Tov to Kelayim 1:4-5 and Hazon Ish Kelayim Ch. 3).

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

On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 09:12:22AM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: I am aware that that is the exact definition of modern biology for species
: differentiation, but what is your source that that is the definition of
: 'min' in the context of Kilayim? ...

Realize you're overanalyzing a joke, but that said....

I was referring to Bekhoros 7a WRT kosher species of animals. The Chasam
Sofer (YD 74) explicitly links kelayim and beheimah tehorah Yes, applying
it to fruit is not quite proper, since the CS isn't even sure it applies
to birds!

Although R' SM Schwadron (Da'as Torah YD 82:3) assumes that lemaaseh the
CS did, and the Avnei Neizer (YD I 75:19) attribute using this definition
of species for birds to Tosafos.

All this comes up WRT turkeys.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 05:04:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: The mitzvah of matzah, though, was not given to be fulfilled in Egypt
: but in EY, which, Hashem tells us is "not like the Land of Egypt which
: you left, where you sow your seed and irrigate it with your foot like a
: vegetable garden"...

Ramban on Shemos 12:32 "vayofu es habatzeiq" quotes the Mekhilta that
says it was matzos mitzvah that they were too rushed to make chameitz
anyway. They made the dough for the mitzvah, but not all the dough was
baked before they were being chased out. They couldn't leave the dough
to become chameitz, so...

But in any case, the assupmtoin was that the original qorban pesach was
also to be eaten al matzos umerorerim, or at least, al matzos. Which makes
sense, since HQBH calls the future qorban Pesach "haavodah hazos" (v 25),
which would *seem to imply* (not saying it's muchrach) the same dinim.
OTOH, the doorway thing would then have to be a distinct avodah
anyway...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 05:04:04PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : The mitzvah of matzah, though, was not given to be fulfilled in Egypt
> : but in EY, which, Hashem tells us is "not like the Land of Egypt which
> : you left, where you sow your seed and irrigate it with your foot like a
> : vegetable garden"...
> 
> Ramban on Shemos 12:32 "vayofu es habatzeiq" quotes the Mekhilta that
> says it was matzos mitzvah that they were too rushed to make chameitz
> anyway.

Yes, but *our* mitzvah of matzah, ledorot, was "vehaya ki yeviacha".
It did not apply in the desert, apart from the first year.  And ledorot
we used wheat that grew on rain water.  So how can that be a problem?


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

I have posted Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch's essay Nissan III at

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/nissan_3.pdf

In my opinion, this essay gives excellent insights into the nature of 
Pesach and the 4 sons. I found  the approach Rav Hirsch tells us to 
take when dealing "doubters and scoffers" to be most interesting.

This is a long essay, but well worth the time invested to read it.

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090331/89cefd98/attachment-0001.htm>

856. L'Chatchila the beracha should be said as early as possible after
Netz Hachama (sunrise - NYC 6:28 am) to fulfill the rule of "Zrizin
Makdimin L'Mitzvos" (the diligent hurry to fulfill their Mitzvah
obligations). The minhag of The Chazon Ish and The Steipler (and many
others) was to daven Shachris K'vasikin, and then the congregation
would go outside and say the beracha (B'rov Am - with a large
multitude) after Kaddish following U'va L'tziyon, (before Aleinu and
the Yom). Shulchan Aruch 229 see Shaarei Tshuva 3, Kitzur Shulchan
Aruch 60:7, R' Yechiel Michel Tikutchinsky in Tekufas Hachama
U'birchasa, Orchos Rabbeinu 1:pg95

-- 
Eli Turkel

I heard a quote from R' Hershel Shachter on the issue of paskening from
archeological finds.
The Gemoro in Bava Basra quotes a story of a Tanna who was shown the ancient
meisei midbar in the desert. When he returned, he was rebuked by his
colleagues for not ascertaining whether their tzitzis had three or four
strings. Seemingly, these Tannaim had no qualms about paskening halocho
lema'aseh from historical artifacts.


2009/3/30 Harvey Benton <harveyben...@yahoo.com>

> When conflicting medrashic/Talmudic statements describe the same event,
> (with or without direct immediate halachic implications ? like which fruit
> Adam ate in Gan Eden, or was their ever a ir hanidachas/ben sorer u?more)
> how/why should we believe the chachamim on other issues?
>
> It has been mentioned (Joseph Pearlman/Kolel Iyun Hadaf Yerushalayim in the
> name of the Chazon Ish) that if the original sefer Torah that Moshe
> received was found it would be discarded if it differed from the versions we
> currently have today.  Assume for the moment that this is true, what
> theoretically would be the implications for the Bais Shlish vis a vis the
> Menorah and/or the lettering on the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol?  In the
> absence of the originals say we were to construct a menorah in say Year 1 of
> the Geulah,  with a certain shape (say straight-arms), and then 40 years
> later the original Menorah turned up; would we still hold by straight-armed
> one that we had constructed, or would we have to admit our (historical)
> error and either re-construct a new menorah (with curved arms), or use the
> original Menorah that had been found (also with curved arms).
>
> Similar scenarious could apply to Rashi/ Rabeinu Tam/Shmushei Raba and/or
> Raivad Tefillins etc?  Do we Care what either: what Hashem told Moshe or Bnei
> Yisrael to wear? Or do we ignore historical facts, despite the fact that
> either Moshe Rabeinu himself could tell us (techiyas Hameisim) or Eliyahu
> Hanavi (or someone else) could reveal to us the exact and necessary order of
> the parshios.  Simila reasoning could apply to the chilazon
> fish/techeiles, other scenarios, etc.
>
> All the best from galus L
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090331/8b13b9a5/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 59
**************************************

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..."