Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 78

Tue, 05 May 2009

• 1. Re: The Forces Within Man (Rich, Joel)
• 2. Re: water and electricity (Liron Kopinsky)
• 3. Mayim achronim (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: How the Torah defines species [was: Yeast isn't chameitz] (T613K@aol.com)
• 5. Re: Yeast isn't chameitz (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: water and electricity (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: is mayim acharonim a chumra? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Forces Within Man (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: How the Torah defines species [was: Yeast isn't chameitz] (Micha Berger)
• 10. water and electricity (M Cohen)
• 11. Re: water and electricity (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: water and electricity (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: water and electricity (T6...@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Yeast isn't chameitz (T6...@aol.com)
• 15. Re: Yeast isn't chameitz (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: The Forces Within Man (T6...@aol.com)
• 17. Re: Love/Mercy as a Factor in Halakhic (T6...@aol.com)

What bothers me about the s'irim is the lottery, which seems to indicate
that not conscious, moral choice, but mere chance and fate, as it were,
determines whether a s'ir becomes la-Shem or la-Azazel.
Saul Mashbaum
_______________________________________________
FWIW I always understood the message that what we see as fate, is really
destiny.
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.

To me they seem inherently different.
1) A tap is not a broken connection it is a blockage.
2) Allowing the water to come out does not complete a flow path, it just
enables the water to come out on its own with the already present pressure.


On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 6:49 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

> The question came up over Shabbos whether Rabbi Karelitz, who prohibited
> opening and closing (as they say in modern Hebrew) an electrical circuit on
> Shabbos because of binyan and stirah, said the same thing about a water
> circuit (e.g., opening or closing a tap in the sink).  We could think of no
> logical distinction between the two cases.
>
> David Riceman
> _______________________________________________
> 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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090503/6fcf9841/attachment-0001.htm>

From Rav Aviner's Commentary on Birkat Ha-Mazon, entitled Shir
Ha-Ma'alot
Mayim Achronim - Washing after Eating
Is "Mayim Achronim" a law or a stringency? It is called an obligation in
the Talmud (Berachot 53b). The Tosafot (ibid.) however writes that the
reason for this washing is "salt from sodom" - a type of salt which can
make one blind if it touches the eye, and since in our days this type of
salt is uncommon, this custom creates no obligation to wash "Mayim
Achronim." But there is another reason given for this washing: The Torah
says (Vayikra 11:44), "For I am Hashem, your God - and you shall
sanctify yourselves and you shall become holy..." The Talmud (ibid.)
explains that "and you shall sanctify yourselves" refers to "Mayim
Rishonim - washing before eating" and "you shall become holy" refers to
"Mayim Achronim - washing after eating." This means that one should not
bless Hashem with soiled hands. This law is not stated explicitly with
regard to the blessing after eating, but with regard to all blessings,
whether they are in the middle of a meal or the middle of the day
(Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 181, Shaar Ha-Tzion #32). Therefore, all
depends on the situation. One who eats neatly without becoming soiled
from the food is exempt from "Mayim Achronim." But if his hands are
dirty, and it is to a degree that he would be careful to wash them for
reasons of cleanliness or even because he is overly sensitive with
regard to dirty hands, he may not recite the blessing without washing
"Mayim Achronim." If his hands are completely clean, he is exempt
according to the Halachah, although he is still required to according to
the Kabbalists - the mystics (Mishnah Berurah ibid. #22). There is
certainly no difference between men and women in regard to "Mayim
Achronim." 

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090505/54179773/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) 

>>(Now,  to be honest, the mishna in Kilayim says breeding dogs and
wolves together is  kilayim, but this is of course strange, given that
the two are clearly the  same type of animal. Perhaps halakha isn't
scientific here; perhaps oats are  halakhically a type of wheat/barley,
even though biologically they are not,  and conversely, perhaps dogs
are not a type of wolf, even though biologically  they most certainly
are. Tzarich iyun.)<<


Michael  Makovi


 
 
>>>>>
R' Natan Slifkin has a terrific chapter about this very subject -- how  the 
halacha defines "species" -- in his wonderful book, *The Camel, the Hare 
and  the Hyrax."  I've read the book twice, with great pleasure.
 
 
I can't do it justice -- he covers the subject at great length, and from  
various angles -- but one of the things he says is that wild and domestic  
varieties of similar animals (even if they can interbreed) are different 
species  in halacha, and, apparently, subject to halachic strictures against 
deliberately  interbreeding these species.  In the normal course of events they 
seldom  come into contact with each other and seldom do interbreed.  Of 
course  animals do not have to obey halacha so if Doggie Capulet and Wolfie 
Montague  /should/ happen to meet and mate, they are not sinning.
 
Halachic definitions of "species" for the issur of kilayim and for other  
purposes do not coincide with "scientific" categories and are not meant  to.  
The ability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring is only one  factor 
and as you can see with dogs and wolves, is not the only criterion in  
halacha.



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




_______________
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090505/0e5b3faf/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 09:31:54PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
: Oats: The Gemara says the five grains are all types of wheat or
: barley. However, oats are not a type of either.

RHSchachter's similar position was discussed on list, probably annually.
It is leshitaso -- he also follows science over a lack of mesorah WRT
the chilazon. Yet, as I pointed out in the last few iterations, RHS
records that his rebbe (RYBS) wouldn't accept any new chilazon based on
scientific research nor would allow questioning the identification of
the gemara's orez with rice. Unfortunately, he didn't put a footnote
in NhR to explain why he is choleiq -- not that such a footnote would
have been appropriate given the purpose of the work.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?

On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 09:49:42AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: The question came up over Shabbos whether Rabbi Karelitz, who prohibited 
: opening and closing (as they say in modern Hebrew) an electrical circuit 
: on Shabbos because of binyan and stirah, said the same thing about a 
: water circuit (e.g., opening or closing a tap in the sink).  We could 
: think of no logical distinction between the two cases.

To really be similar, there has to be a load that does work only when the
circuit is closed. Such as a water-wheel -- not a tap in the sink. But the
water-wheel has to be doing something that isn't itself a melakhah, let's
say it's pushing a fan. And I'm not sure the CI would actually allow.

Second, I don't know if in the CI considered electricity a fluid.

But the whole analysis is off. It's an abstract / objective comparison.
Even if the CI thought electricity was a fluid, the experience of
electricity is totally unlike water. The point is that an electrical
circuit is a work-doing thing; that's what they're made for. The same
structure not there for work isn't necessarily "broken".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?

Wouldn't this conversation be much simpler if we stated by defining
"chumrah"?

Is it a pesaq that is more chamur (eg BY chalaq) -- mandatory, but
toughter than others;
a minhag (eg glatt);
or a hanhagah (glatt as observed by a Litvak, a brisker chumrah, etc...)?

A second recurring theme this touches on is defining the difference
between baseline vs chumrah and qulah vs baseline. RMF's teshuvos WRT
"chalav hacompanies" appear to my ignorant eye (despite repeated Avodah
discussions) to conflict with eachother on this point.

Tosafos take common practice and back it with a pesaq. Did they mean that
it was a qulah, but better to rely on a basline of washing, or that this
was the actual din, and for an Ashkenazi to wash mayim acharonim would
be stam a hanhagah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?

On Sun, May 03, 2009 at 09:48:09PM +0300, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
: What bothers me about the s'irim is the lottery, which seems to
: indicate that not conscious, moral choice, but mere chance and fate,
: as it were,  determines whether a s'ir becomes la-Shem or la-Azazel.

Well, what are the other options? You can't have a more complete parallel
because to do so would be to imply the se'ir has bechirah, or that a
human's bechirah is as illusory as a se'ir's.

If you leave it up to the KG's decision, then the se'ir is being shown
to be a victim of someone else's choice. It might even representant
determanism, if you say that Hashem is to the person as the KG is to
the se'irim.

I think therefore we can't make too much out of this lack of fidelity
to the nimshal -- no closer fidelity is possible.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 01:11:19PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: Halachic definitions of "species" for the issur of kilayim and for other  
: purposes do not coincide with "scientific" categories and are not meant  to.  

We discussed this WRT my chumrah-of-the-month not to use concord grapes
for 4 kosos because they are a distinct species. That's why a crossbreed
of old-world and concord grapes are seedless (infertile).

But in reality, that criterian, which matches the scientific criterion,
is only used for beheimos. For plants we use the "looks the same"
definition, which fits my general theory about halakhah being about
the-world-as-experienced. There is a machloqes WRT birds. The Netziv
uses yet 

(I just did a run of blog entries on the role of experience in the
definition of metzi'us [note the shoresh!], based on my taam and taste
posts here on Avodah, some posts on scjm as corrected by a "Meir B.",
and other thoughts. I have one post left in the series, the metaphysics
of it. But so far, I wrote:
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/03/halakhah-phenomenology-1.shtml - on
    bugs, taam, birkhas hachamah [that which we can't experience, and
    that which we experience but has no scientific analog]
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-phenomenology-2.shtml - why
    parish follow rov, but qavu'ah does not -- uncertainty about
    the experienced vs uncertainty because something we could have
    experienced wasn't
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-phenomenology-3.shtml - more
    on the nature of rov, understood based on how people mentally
    handle doubt
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2009/04/halakhah-phenomenology-4.shtml -
    chazaqah and how some of these various rules interact)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 26th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        3 weeks and 5 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Hod sheb'Netzach: When is domination or taking
Fax: (270) 514-1507         control just a way of abandoning one's self?

the electrical device is 'broken' when the electricity is not flowing
and it is not working

the sink is not broken when water is not flowing
(can be used for other things, etc)

mordechai cohen

But the whole analysis is off. It's an abstract / objective comparison.
Even if the CI thought electricity was a fluid, the experience of
electricity is totally unlike water. The point is that an electrical
circuit is a work-doing thing; that's what they're made for. The same
structure not there for work isn't necessarily "broken".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

=============================================================
A tap in a sink isn't a work-doing thing(for washing dishes)?
If a circuit could be closed with no observable physical change, would
that still be boneh?
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.

RMB:
> But the whole analysis is off. It's an abstract / objective comparison.
> Even if the CI thought electricity was a fluid, the experience of
> electricity is totally unlike water. The point is that an electrical
> circuit is a work-doing thing; that's what they're made for. The same
> structure not there for work isn't necessarily "broken".
>   
According to the CI the problem is binyan and stirah.  Why should 
"work-doing" matter?

According to Wikipedia domestic refrigeration became available in the 
USA "around 1911", and commercial refrigeration for meat packing was 
even earlier (i.e., during Rabbi Karelitz's life).  As far as I can tell 
the majority of electricity used in my house is for refrigerating, 
freezing, and air conditioning.  That's not inherently "work doing".  
Yet, AIUI, the CI would prohibit my turning off a refrigerator on 
Shabbos because of stirah, even in the absence of technical problems 
associated with the motor.

RLK:
<<1) A tap is not a broken connection it is a blockage.>>

Solid stuff blocks water, air (usually) blocks electric current.

<<2) Allowing the water to come out does not complete a flow path, it 
just enables the water to come out on its own with the already present 
pressure.>>

In the absence of ground (a lower "electric pressure") electricity won't 
flow.

RTK:

<<You are not bringing the water into existence by opening the faucet.  
But it seems to me there is no pool of electricity sitting 
there someplace, no puddles of electricity sitting in the wires.>>

(a) Where do you think the electrons go?  (b) What about a circuit with 
a battery? Why isn't a battery a "pool of electricity"?

RMB (again):

<<To really be similar, there has to be a load that does work only when the

circuit is closed.>>

This misrepresents the CI's opinion.  He prohibited closing an electric circuit because of boneh, not because of the work that it does.

David Riceman

 
From: David Riceman _driceman@att.net_ (mailto:drice...@att.net) 

The question came up  over Shabbos whether Rabbi Karelitz, who prohibited 
opening and closing (as  they say in modern Hebrew) an electrical circuit 
on Shabbos because of  binyan and stirah, said the same thing about a 
water circuit (e.g., opening  or closing a tap in the sink).  We could 
think of no logical  distinction between the two cases.

David Riceman






>>>>
There is water in the pipes even if the faucet is not turned on.  You  are 
not bringing the water into existence by opening the faucet.  But it  seems 
to me there is no pool of electricity sitting there someplace,  no puddles 
of electricity sitting in the wires. If there is no completed  circuit, 
"electricity" simply doesn't exist.  (R' Micha, I don't have a  very good 
understanding of electricity so if what I just wrote is factually  wrong, please 
reject this post, thank you.)
 

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




_______________
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090505/602811a2/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) 

>>Given  that matzah meal cannot become hametz, cannot one easily bake
bread on  Shabbat using matzah flour?

...So does anyone take advantage of this to  bake wheat/barley-based
breads on Pesah? I'm rather amazed that no one I know  does this. <<


Michael Makovi

-- 
>>>>>
I don't know who you  know but there are plenty of people who bake Pesach 
rolls or buy them  in the shops. The ones in the shops are very expensive and 
in any case, the  idea of Pesachdiga bread disturbs me -- you might say, it 
gets a rise out of  me.  So I personally don't use these products, don't 
use Pesach noodles  either.  The whole idea of "in the spirit of the holiday" 
or "not  in the spirit of the holiday" is an extra-halachic concept that may 
or may  not be an issue Avodah-niks want to discuss.






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




_______________
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090505/b1c376df/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, May 02, 2009 at 09:31:54PM +0300, Michael Makovi wrote:
> : Oats: The Gemara says the five grains are all types of wheat or
> : barley. However, oats are not a type of either.
> 
> RHSchachter's similar position was discussed on list, probably annually.
> It is leshitaso -- he also follows science over a lack of mesorah WRT
> the chilazon. Yet, as I pointed out in the last few iterations, RHS
> records that his rebbe (RYBS) wouldn't accept any new chilazon based on
> scientific research nor would allow questioning the identification of
> the gemara's orez with rice.

Huh?  How is that related to science, or to lack of mesorah?  It's
precisely the mesorah that questions the identification of "orez" with
"rice", while the science of linguistics would seem to rule out such a
question.

As for oats, it seems to be only Rashi who identifies them as shibolet
shual, and he doesn't give any source or reasoning.  All other *Torah*
sources translated it otherwise.  So once more there's no lack of
mesorah, there's at most two competing mesorot, and science supports
the majority position.

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

 
 
From: Saul Mashbaum _saul.mashbaum@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:saul.mashb...@gmail.com) 

>>What  bothers me about the s'irim is the lottery, which seems to
indicate that not  conscious, moral choice, but mere chance and fate,
as it were,   determines whether a s'ir becomes la-Shem or la-Azazel.
...If anything, this  difference emphasizes that the
lottery is a unique, intrinsic element of the  2 s'irim. however, I am
unable to fathom what its symbolic message is. In the  absence of any
rational or moral decision regarding the s'ir selection  process, it is
hard to see how they symbolize, in RSRH's  words "With  our eyes on the
Torah, we make our decision."<<


Saul  Mashbaum


 
 
>>>>
If there were "a rational or moral decision regarding  the s'ir selection 
process" then the initial selection would show that the goats  were somehow 
/not/ identical, from the beginning.  The lottery is not meant  to show that 
Hashem has determined that the two goats are somehow intrinsically  
different, but the opposite:  to show that they are both exactly the  same.  
 
To quote Hirsch, "...identical in appearance, size and monetary  value.  
The lot marked 'for G-d' or that 'for Azazel' could fall upon  either one of 
them.  The chances of becoming the one or the other are the  same for each.  
Indeed, each of the two can only become that which it will  become because 
it could just as well have become the other."
 
The whole point is that these are identical twins, exactly alike in every  
way. The "twins" are the two possibilities that you can choose with your  
life, the two possible life-arcs.
 
It goes without saying that a symbol can't possibly match point for point  
the thing being symbolized.  Whether chosen by lottery or by some other  
system, it wouldn't /really/ be a matter of the goat's bechira whether it got  
shechted in the BHM'K or fell off a cliff in the desert.  The goats don't  
have bechira, so the symbol falls down there. Much like the goat.   [Sorry, 
lame joke]  [Much like the goat after it falls...]  [Sorry....]
 
But even if the symbolism doesn't match point for point, the  identical 
goats do symbolize the fact that two identical /people/ can end  up with 
entirely different outcomes, and the different outcome is not the result  of any 
initial difference in the two people.  I don't know if I'm making  myself 
clear or, just the opposite, beating a dead horse or a dead goat and  restating 
the obvious, but the lottery is meant to show that the INITIAL  conditions 
were identical, and either one could just as easily have been the  other.
 
 
So if a person goes bad he can't say he was dealt a bad hand ab initio and  
that's why he went bad.


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




_______________
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090505/b9c00c65/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) 

>>....The  difference that R' Grossman makes between bein adam l'havero and
bein adam  laMakom seems valid, if we modify it a bit. I seem to recall
Rabbi Angel  citing/quoting(?) Rabbi Uziel to the effect that ***when it
is bein adam  l'havero, and ruling in one's favor will be ruling in the
other's  detriment***, then in that case, the law must cut through the
mountain, and  one may not rule in favor of the poor. However, in a
case where there is only  one party, and ruling by mercy/love will not
cause a loss to anyone else,  then truth may be somewhat modified in
favor of peace.

The question  remains, however, how Rabbi Uziel could exclude love and
mercy and peace from  consideration in paying child support for a child
born out of wedlock, but  utilize these notions regarding a child born
to an intermarriage of a Jewish  father and non-Jewish mother. Whatever
factors exist to include or exclude  considerations of hesed and
ahavah, would seem to apply equally to  both.<<


Michael Makovi


 
 
 
>>>>>
 
I highlighted a possibly relevant section of your post, above.   This is 
pure speculation, but maybe if you pay child support to a child born out  of 
wedlock, you are taking away money you really owe to your other children who  
are born to you and your lawful wife,  whereas if your only  marriage is an 
illicit one, to a non-Jewish woman -- then giving money to those  children 
will not take anything away from any other children you have, since you  
don't have any others.






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




_______________
**************Remember Mom this Mother's Day! Find a florist near you now. 
(http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=florist&;ncid=emlcntusyelp00000006)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20090505/8d0502cf/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 78
**************************************

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..."