Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 88

Mon, 18 May 2009

• 1. chukat hagoyim (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (Mandel, Seth)
• 3. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (Mandel, Seth)
• 4. Re: Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 87 (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles? (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: chukat hagoyim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: chukat hagoyim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. german custom (Shlomo Pick)
• 10. Re: Electricity (Michael Mirsky)
• 11. Re: shabbas 55b; neged pshat? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. The Sin Of Reuven (Jay F Shachter)
• 13. Re: shabbas 55b; neged pshat? (Allan Engel)
• 14. Targum Yonatan & Pirush Yonatan on Ber 1:16 (Motti Yarchinai)

<<Professor Sperber [Minhagei Yisrael 8: 13-30] takes Hamberger's
discussion much further documenting how this comes from many
completely outside ancient sources. >>

In fact Sperber shows that many minhagim especially for a wedding have
nonJewish sources

This leads to the question of when minhagim are questioned because
they follow nonJewish sources and when we say they are already
established Jewish customs.
Chatam Sofer objects to a chupah in a shul because it is a reform
custom based on nonJewish practices. However, it seems that this was a
Jewish practice in the days of Rishonim.
As pointed out on the contrary many other weeding practices may have
nonJewish origins

-- 
Eli Turkel

You may post in my name.

Well, funny you should mention that.  I did not, because I do not 
have the time to enter into a full discussion of this 
matter.  Suffice it to say that "negel vasser" as currently practiced 
is not an old Jewish custom.  N'tilas yodayim before davening in the 
morning is.  And it is called n'tilas yodayim.  But that has nothing 
to do with one's fingernails.  The latter was an innovation in Europe 
according to the Zohar and kabbolo.  Look in the Tur and SA: n'tilas 
yodayim is onely done once in the morning, after going to the 
bathroom and before davening.
There will be many cries that what I said is not correct.  There are 
g'moros that have been reinterpreted as referring to negel 
vasser.  But they were not interpreted that way by the 
rishonim.  This matter needs a long discussion to make clear the 
changes that have taken place, probably even a longer discussion than 
I wrote for bonfires, Lag ba'Omer and opsheren.  But I do not have 
the time now, and am not sure when I will.  However, do not take my 
silence as consent.
Weddings are called by all chasunes.  Funerals are called levayas, 
even though their is nothing wrong with the English  word (or the 
German word) in either case.  The only other thing that comes to my 
mind right now not in Hebrew is a "vort" for an engagement 
party.  But that was also a European innovation to replace 
tenoim.  Vort refers to the signed agreement made between the 
families of the choson and kallo, which, however, was significantly 
different than what was signed in tenoim.  Tenoim, AFAIK, is only 
done today by certain chasidic groups that cling fast to their old 
customs; yeshivishe circles changed it already in Europe because of 
halachic concerns (innovation again).



-----Original Message-----
From: T6...@aol.com [<mailto:T6...@aol.com>mailto:T6...@aol.com]
Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 12:42 PM
To: avo...@lists.aishdas.org; Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu; Mandel, Seth
Subject: Re:  Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles?

From: Yitzchok Levine _Larry.Levine@stevens.edu_
(<mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu)

Quoting  R' Seth Mandel:
 >>  For a linguist, the importance of
the ceremony being  called "halaqe" (Arabic for "shaving, haircut")
also cannot be  overemphasized.  As most people are aware, Jews have
always used Hebrew  words for old Jewish minhogim, even if there was a
suitable term in the  spoken language (e.g. Shabbos rather than
Sabbath, or bris rather than  circumcision), because the Hebrew term
carried with it the connotations of  the Jewish dinim and minhogim
associated with it.  Arabic (and  Germanic/Yiddish) were only used for
customs that did not have a Jewish  background (e.g. shtreimel or
yarmulke or farbrengen). <<


 >>>>>>

What about negel vasser?



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








_____________________




**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in
the U.S.
(<http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nationa
l-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002>http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nation
al-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/402dc389/attachment-0001.htm>

You may post this in my name.

I am coming from a different direction.  I do not have problem with 
people adopting new customs, as long as they pose no problem halakhically.
What I do object to is hypocrisy.  While I doubt any particular 
person here is being hypocritical, the stance of various movements 
within Judaism is, if not hypocritical, at the very least self-contradictory.
If one does not object to adopting new customs, then why, pray tell, 
do some groups make a big issue out of wearing the European fur hats 
(AKA shtreimels or spodiks)?  Why do some groups insist that one 
shabbos one must wear long coats, as the upper class wore in Eastern 
Europe?  Why do some groups insist that suits worn to shul on shabbos 
or rabbis' garb must be black?  Why insist that the children speak 
Yiddish?  The reason given for all is that "we do not want to change 
what our holy forefathers wore."  Fine and dandy, but then they 
should not be so eager to adopt new customs either.  And if you say 
that there was no problem in chasidim in Europe adopting the 
opsheren, which according to chasidic sources was a chiddush unknown 
to the BeShT and R. Berl Mezricher, or other new-fangled customs 
(such as standing when the choson and kallo walk down the aisle), 
then what is wrong with wearing a nice navy-blue suit and speaking English?
Make up your minds.  And, if you adopt the logically teneble position 
that "I prefer to do what my grandfather did, but there is nothing 
wrong with other people changing their custom," then don't criticise 
other Jews for changing their dress (as long as it is tziusdig) or 
the thousands of other things that are condemned by the chareidi 
establishment as dangerous innovations.


-----Original Message-----
From: Prof. Levine [<mailto:llev...@stevens.edu>mailto:llev...@stevens.edu]
Sent: Sun 5/17/2009 1:08 PM
To: T6...@aol.com; avo...@lists.aishdas.org; 
Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu; Mandel, Seth
Subject: Re: Are Upsherin and Bonfires Taken from the Gentiles?

At 12:49 PM 5/17/2009, T6...@aol.com wrote:
 >Make no bones about it, it is unfortunate that the Lag B'Omer
 >bonfire should be a bone of contention between Jews.  [To be serious
 >for a moment:] Can we not agree that once a minhag has become so
 >accepted and its origins largely forgotten, that we can forget about
 >how it started and not object to it anymore?  That is the etzem
 >davar.  (Sorry.....)

IMO absolutely not!  We have to work to eliminate the error.

YL



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/197bee3b/attachment-0001.htm>

At 08:40 AM 5/17/2009, Zev Sero wrote:

>Yitzchok Levine wrote:
>
> > From contemporary documents we learn the Muslims (and a few Jews)
> > cut the hair of children as well as lit a bonfires on the yohrtzeit
> > (28 of Iyyar) of non other than the aforementioned Shmu'el haNavi.
>
>The Bartenura's letter doesn't seem to make it out as a minority
>custom, or as a goyishe one.   Could the Arabs not have learned it
>from the Jews, perhaps in the 70 years or so between the Bartinura's
>day and the Radbaz's?
>
>
> > However, in the 1560s the Arab authorities forbade Jews to go there.
>
>There is a teshuva of the Radbaz to a father who had vowed to take his
>son to Shmuel Hanavi for a haircut, and was now unable to do so.  IIRC
>the Radbaz doesn't say anything negative about the custom, but merely
>deals with what to do about the neder.
>

I sent Rabbi Mandel Zev Sero's message above. Below is his response

There is nothing here that addresses the issues:

1) there is evidence from before the reconstitution of the Jewish 
community in the 1500's that the Arabs practiced these customs.
2) if the Arabs had borrowed an existing Jewish custom, why would the 
Jews call it by an Arabic name?
3) how come the custom was specifically labeled as one practiced by 
the Musta'rabim and not other Jews?
3) most importantly, talmidim of R Berl Mezricher who emigrated to EY 
expressed their astonishment that such  "holy custom" was totally 
unknown in Europe, even to m'kubbalim and chassidic masters.  If this 
was originally a Jewish custom, where pray tell, had it been hiding? 
Not by Ashk'nazim, not by S'faradim, not by Teimanim, none of whom 
knew anything about it until they got to EY.

Why is the fact that the RaDVaZ does not condemn it a kashya?  Were 
the Musta'rabim not part of the Jewish community that he headed, even 
if they had adopted Arabic customs?  And the RaDVaZ would not 
necessarily have known that only known source for the customs, which 
were practiced by a significant part of the Jews in his day, was only 
in customs of other religions.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/a0357aac/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Yitzchok Levine _Larry.Levine@stevens.edu_ 
(mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu) 

Quoting  R' Seth Mandel:  
>>  For a linguist, the importance of 
the ceremony being  called "halaqe" (Arabic for "shaving, haircut") 
also cannot be  overemphasized.  As most people are aware, Jews have 
always used Hebrew  words for old Jewish minhogim, even if there was a 
suitable term in the  spoken language (e.g. Shabbos rather than 
Sabbath, or bris rather than  circumcision), because the Hebrew term 
carried with it the connotations of  the Jewish dinim and minhogim 
associated with it.  Arabic (and  Germanic/Yiddish) were only used for 
customs that did not have a Jewish  background (e.g. shtreimel or 
yarmulke or farbrengen). <<
 
 
>>>>>>
 
What about negel vasser?
 


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








_____________________




**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nation
al-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/af04a49e/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Yitzchok Levine _Larry.Levine@stevens.edu_ 
(mailto:Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu) 



>>  In this post Rabbi Mandel begins by discussing the origin of the term  
bonfire. It comes from the terminology bone fire. Such fires using 
bones  were made by Christians and this is where the term bonfire comes  
from....

In a message to me today, Rabbi Mandel added:

"....What I  did not put in the article, because 
it was too long already, is that there  is historical evidence that in 
the years after the Ari, this celebration  became a bone of 
contention...." <<
 
 
>>>>>
Make no bones about it, it is unfortunate that the Lag  B'Omer bonfire 
should be a bone of contention between Jews.  [To be serious  for a moment:] Can 
we not agree that once a minhag has become so accepted and  its origins 
largely forgotten, that we can forget about how it started and not  object to 
it anymore?  That is the etzem davar.   (Sorry.....)
 
 


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








_____________________











**************Recession-proof vacation ideas.  Find free things to do in 
the U.S. 
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-ideas/domestic/nation
al-tourism-week?ncid=emlcntustrav00000002)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/23fcd3ff/attachment-0001.htm>

Plz post

RET:
"In fact Sperber shows that many minhagim especially for a wedding have
nonJewish sources"

I spoke with a highly regarded rabbi-professor about professor Sperber's works.

Bottom line:  I would take a lot of Sperber's criticisms of Minhag with a big grain of salt.

Aisi, he has a "cynical" agenda.   EG - See his views on wine during the 9 days and qitniyyos. 


-RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RET:
> In fact Sperber shows that many minhagim especially for a wedding have
> nonJewish sources

I spoke with a highly regarded rabbi-professor about professor Sperber's
works.

Bottom line: I would take a lot of Sperber's criticisms of Minhag with
a big grain of salt.

AISI, he has a "cynical" agenda. EG - See his views on wine during
the 9 days and qitniyyos.


-RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Mention was made that: 

>>> For a linguist, the importance of the ceremony being called "halaqe" 

>>> (Arabic for "shaving, haircut") also cannot be overemphasized.  As 

>>> most people are aware, Jews have always used Hebrew words for old 

>>> Jewish minhogim.

 

There is a German custom of Chol Kreiss, i.e. verses of the Torah read by
youth by a male child before giving a secular (chol) name.  When was this
practice started and by whom? It can be found in the Seligman Baer Siddur,
after the Torah readings on p 494 (Seder Avodat Yisrael, Tel Aviv 5717
[1957] edition).

The term has a combination of Hebrew (chol) and German? (Kreiss).  I doubt
it's an original Jewish minhag or perhaps it is to give sanctity (?) to a
non Jewish name.

Baer originally published his siddue in 1868 (5628) and if he recorded the
custom there, it must have been already accepted by the general public. Is
it still practiced today by Jews of German descent? 

Curious,

Shlomo Pick

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/a507222f/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger raised as a possible issue:

"7- There is also the issue of causing the power plant to burn more fuel,
but that is obviously dismissed by anyone who uses Chevrat haChashmal's
power on Shabbos."

I'm an electrical engineer working for the power company here in 
Toronto.  When I suggested that it's a Psik Raisha (inevitability) at 
a lecture being given by Zome, and the best reason for not turning on 
something on Shabbat, he effectively rebutted that claim (I forget 
who gave the lecture).

The reason is that yes, it is true that the power system is always 
working in a perfect balance between how much power the generators 
are putting out and the instantaneous demand.  So if you flip the 
switch on an electrical appliance, if the demand from everyone else 
is constant, then your action causes more fuel to be burnt at the 
power plant (unless it's hydroelectric - then it's just more water 
flow).  But the key idea is that people on the system are constantly 
turning on and off lights and appliances.  You can't be sure that at 
the instant you turned your light on, someone didn't turn their light 
off, and so the net impact would be no impact on the output level of 
the generators. So it's not psik raisha.

The final conclusion he came to is likely only turning on 
incandescent bulbs is a malacha de'oraisa becase of heating the 
filament to a very high temperature which is "aish".  But in reality, 
fluorescent lights, LEDs etc would be OK, but as had been discussed, 
initiation of use of electricity on Shabbat has become assured by the 
rabbanan so it's a moot point le'chatchila.  And a possible sevora is 
a kind of a syag - people would get confused - I can turn this on, 
but not that - and eventually turn on the wrong thing.

Michael Mirsky 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090517/7be22819/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Harvey Benton <harveyben...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>> Shalom Toby and good Shabbas:> from golus,
>> 1. the chumash clearly states reuven slept with bilha. any other
>> interpretations that say he didn't sleep with her, open up a very dangerous
>> can of worms: who is to say "chazer" or "ribis" or "shabbas" prohibitions
>> really mean ""chazer" or "ribis" or "shabbas"?? maybe they mean something
>> else??? ....... along the same lines, who is to say adam actually "ate" from
>> the tree of knowledge? maybe (according to similar reasoning) he did an
>> aveira, but not necessarily the exact aveira described....which was
>> specified in the chumash?
>> 2. if reuven only moved his father's bed, why not say so? why say somthing
>> that would make him appear worse in the reader's eyes??"....

===============================================

Q: And what about ayin tachas ayin?
Rav Gorelick approached this as follows - AIUI loosely based upon the RambaN
...

Q: if ayin tachas ayin was not meant literally why was it written that way
at all?
A:  Because midinei Shamayim that is what SHOULD be done, but Beis Din does
not have the yecholes to execute this precisely [lehavdil think Shakespeare
and a pound of flesh] so it is limitted to mamonos.  I callit equitable
compensation.

Now here is the dichotomy that may help about how literal Torah Shebichsav
[Mikra]is meant to be taken.  These are mostely culled from ayain tachas
ayin threads from Avodah

Mikra:  metaphorical
TSBP:   normative

Mikra:  Middas Haddin
TSBP:   Middas Harachamim

Mikra: Dinei Shamayin
TSBP: Dinei Adam

Mikra: Psycholgical imagery. Visualization.  imagination.  Spiriutal
perspective [hashkafa]
TSBP: Practical applications of the above to the real world

Beniddon diddon I think the Midrash is saying:
In fact Reuven and David did less than what Mikra says

But - Bedinei shamayim they are as culpable as the text states.

Tangentially this explains this like hezek she'eino nikkar and places where
the Talmud says chayeav beindei Shamayim but no bedinei Adad.  When I gave
daf on the penultimate daf on Baba Kamma I asked
Q: If BD can be machmir on issur v'heter then why not on dinei Mamoanos?
A: Because BD is limited in its ability to mete out justice justly. Only BD
shel ma'aleh can weigh all fagtors fairly.

-- 
Kol Tuv - Best Regards,
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

In the ongoing discussion of Genesis 35:22, it has been noted that the
act that Reuven perform upon, or with, Bilhah, is described using the
Hebrew word sh-k-b.  It has accordingly been urged, with fair
justification, that Reuven and Bilhah must have lain together.  We all
know the homiletic explanation of the verse, but we also all know that
a verse, though it may be homiletically explained, never departs from
its straightforward meaning (of course, the straightforward meaning of
a verse -- "pshat" in Hebrew -- need not be its literal meaning;
Hebrew has idioms just like any other language, and when, e.g.,
Genesis 27:41 states that `Esav said something in his heart, the
"pshat" is that he thought it, not that his cardiac muscle was capable
of articulate speech).

Now, it is possible that the above-cited principle, that a verse never
departs from its straightforward meaning, is a general principle that
admits of exceptions.  Maybe there are some verses that just do not
have a straightforward meaning, verses whose only meanings are
homiletical.  Genesis 35:22 could be one such verse.

Another possibility is that the straightforward meaning of Genesis
35:22 is different from what we think it is.  This is the position
taken by the author of Hakkthav V'Haqqabala, a book whose single
purpose is to argue that the straightforward meaning of various verses
in the Torah is different from what we think it is.  Many of the
arguments are unconvincing, and the book is full of bogus etymologies,
but it is still, in my opinion, very much worth reading, at least once
(Hirsch's commentaries are also full of bogus etymologies, but that
does not mean that the commentaries are not worth reading).  Very
often Hakkthav V'Haqqabala will come up with something entirely
plausible.  For example, the book proposes that in Genesis 38:24 Tamar
was being taken out, not to be burnt alive, but to be branded.  I
think that that is quite probably the straightforward meaning of the
verse: the branding of criminals was a not uncommon practice among
Bney Noax, and this interpretation is, moreover, proposed by other
traditional Jewish sources.

Now, with respect to Genesis 35:22, Hakkthav V'Haqqabala has proposed
something a bit more of a stretch, but not entirely impossible.  The
root meaning of sh-k-b, it is proposed, is not "to recline", but "to
lower".  This is possible.  When you lie down to go to sleep, you
generally do so by lowering yourself from a standing position to a
reclining position.  If people normally slept in trees, maybe a
different word would have been adopted.  The use of sh-k-b as a
euphemism for copulation (since sh-g-l is obscene) is also quite
reasonable, since copulation generally involves grabbing your beloved
and pulling her/him down onto the bed.  Again, if people normally
copulated in trees, maybe a different word would have been used.

Thus, what Genesis 35:22 might be saying is that Reuven lowered
Bilhah, and that is exactly what he did, according to our traditional
explanation of the verse, which is thus seen not to depart from its
straightforward meaning.  If he moved his father's bed out of Bilhah's
tent, then he certainly lowered Bilhah, in the sense that he degraded
her, and the actual means used to degrade her might have been
deliberately left unspecified.  Although not the literal meaning, this
could very well be "pshat".


                        Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                        6424 N Whipple St
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784
                                j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Harvey Benton <harveyben...@yahoo.com
> >wrote:
> : who is to say "chazer" or "ribis" or "shabbas" prohibitions
> >> really mean ""chazer" or "ribis" or "shabbas"?? maybe they mean
> something
> >> else???


I am sure we are all aware of when "Shabbos" does not in fact mean mean
"Shabbos", and it affects us all every day (or at least till the end of next
week).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090518/adcf09b6/attachment-0001.htm>

I am seeking help understanding the Targum Yonatan's explanation of 
Bereshit 1:16. Not so much his translation of the text but his 
embellishment of it from the legend (also quoted by Rashi on the same 
verse) in Hulin 60b about the Moon having been diminished in size 
after vying with the Sun for supremacy.

A minor point of puzzlement is that in TY's version of the legend the 
Moon speaks slanderously of the Sun. (This not part of the tale told 
in Hulin.) But more important to understand is his calendar 
arithmetic giving the exact moment at which the diminishment of the 
Moon occurred.

I believe that I have managed to work out the logic behind this 
arithmetic in the light of something else I have read which uses the 
same time as given here by TY. I have fully explained this in an 
article: "On the search for a source for the Jewish tradition that 
the Sun was created at zero hours (Jewish time) on Wednesday." That 
article can be downloaded from 
http://www.geocities.com/calendar.luchot

What I cannot understand at all though, is the amendment to the TY's 
arithmetic suggested by Pirush Yonatan. This is also discussed in the 
above article, but it remains an enigma to me. Pirush Yonatan is the 
work of an unspecified author printed in certain editions of the 
Mikraot Gedolot chumashim. (Mine is the Mechon Hamaor edition.)

Both the Ty and the PY are reproduced in full (and translated) in my 
article. I have consulted the Pirkei de Rabbi Eliezer referred to by 
PY, and that too is discussed in the article. Although it suggests 
that there are some words missing from the number (the subtrahend) 
given in PY, this is not much help in working out what PY is getting 
at.

Also mentioned in the same article is another related matter on which 
I am seeking help. I am trying to find a source for a reported 
variation on this legend told about the Moon. In another version of 
the legend, the Moon was punished by being shut up in darkness (i.e. 
she was not permitted to shine) for a period of 47 hours (nearly two 
days), ending at Molad VYD, when Adam was being formed. That vesion 
of the legend, it would seem, was aimed at explaining how the Moon 
was already two days old at the moment of its first conjunction with 
the Sun.

Has anyone else heard this alternative version of the story, and, if 
so, do you have a source for it? One thing that is significant about 
this version is that it puts the Moon's creation at Wed, 15:00 
(Jewish time).

Motti



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 88
**************************************

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..."