Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 198

Mon, 05 Oct 2009

• 1. Creation-Revelation-Redemption (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: Creation-Revelation-Redemption (Arie Folger)
• 3. Sukkah on Shabbos (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: lulav on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Re: berachos 7a; schena and nevuah??? (Yosef Skolnick)
• 6. treifot (david guttmann)
• 7. Re: lulav on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: psak and rationality (D&E-H Bannett)
• 9. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: lulav on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: lulav on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (David Riceman)
• 14. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Sukkah on Shabbos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: lulav on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 17. misinai nusach (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)

Dear fellow 'Ovedim,

The phrase Creation-Revelation-Redemption has become more well known
since Rabbi Sacks used it as a model to explain some aspects of
prayer, particularly in birkot qeriat shema' and in the 'amidah, in
his siddur and lectures. In a lecture given at YU on the occasion of
the launch of teh Koren Siddur, he credited the Tashbetz with
identifying this triad, which is otherwise usually credited to Franz
Rosenzweig in Der Stern der Erloesung (The Star of Rdemption). The
phrase is also mentioned in a number of blogs.

Does anyone know where the Tashbetz speaks of this pervasive theme of
Creation-Revelation-Redemption?

Note that there are two authors known as Tashbetz. I have a feeling
this is from the Algerian Tashbetz, but may be wrong.

Precise citations will be most appreciated.

Good mo'ed,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* The Tzaddik of Yerushalayim - a Documentary
* Ein Verzeihungsgebet der 10 Busstagen im Licht des 9. Aw
* Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
* Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????

I had forgotten to post the link to Rabbi Sacks' shiur. I believe it's
the following one on yutorah.org:
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/
lecture.cfm/720349/Chief_Rabbi_Dr._Jonathan_Sacks/Introductory_Plenary_Addr
ess

Kol tuv,

Arie

On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear fellow 'Ovedim,
>
> The phrase Creation-Revelation-Redemption has become more well known
> since Rabbi Sacks used it as a model to explain some aspects of
> prayer, particularly in birkot qeriat shema' and in the 'amidah, in
> his siddur and lectures. In a lecture given at YU on the occasion of
> the launch of teh Koren Siddur, he credited the Tashbetz with
> identifying this triad, which is otherwise usually credited to Franz
> Rosenzweig in Der Stern der Erloesung (The Star of Rdemption). The
> phrase is also mentioned in a number of blogs.
>
> Does anyone know where the Tashbetz speaks of this pervasive theme of
> Creation-Revelation-Redemption?
>
> Note that there are two authors known as Tashbetz. I have a feeling
> this is from the Algerian Tashbetz, but may be wrong.
>
> Precise citations will be most appreciated.
>
> Good mo'ed,
> --
> Arie Folger,
> Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
> * The Tzaddik of Yerushalayim - a Documentary
> * Ein Verzeihungsgebet der 10 Busstagen im Licht des 9. Aw
> * Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
> * Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????
>



-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* The Tzaddik of Yerushalayim - a Documentary
* Ein Verzeihungsgebet der 10 Busstagen im Licht des 9. Aw
* Educating Children About the Evil of Nazism
* Complex Memories ? the Notion of ?? ????

My son asked this. I think I've heard it before, but I can't remember (or imagine) what the answer might be.

Why was there no gezera against sukkah on Shabbos?

Consider the following, from the perspective of the society current when
the gezera against Lulav on Shabbos was enacted: A certain percentage of
Jews live in a location such that a Reshus Harabim lies between their home
and the location of the chacham to whom they'd go for learning about Lulav.
Most of them already know what to do with a lulav, and/or would not violate
Shabbos by taking their lulav across the Reshus Harabim to ask the chacham.
But a small number of them would do exactly that, and so to protect
Shabbos, the mitzvah of Lulav was cancelled for that Shabbos.

(Maybe not all poskim agree that the above is the reason for forbidding
lulav on Shabbos. If so, then the question applies only to those poskim who
DO subscribe to the above reasoning.)

So we've established that we're dealing with a society in which a real
Reshus Harabim exists, and there are people who - for the sake of the
mitzvah of lulav - would succumb to the temptation to carry the lulav
across that Reshus Harabim, to the chacham.

What I *don't* know is what the "urban planning" was like. Did everyone
have a courtyard for their sukkah, so that there was NEVER a Reshus Harabim
nearby? Or is maybe there were some people who were *not* able to build
their sukkahs nearby? Such a situation is common nowadays in certain areas,
where the apartment buildings are packed so closely that there is no option
other than to eat in the shul's sukkah. Such people must either make sure
to have an eruv in town, or to have the food already at shul before Shabbos
begins. But we can get away with that only because there is no gezera
preventing it, for fear that people might carry food acroos the Reshus
Harabim to the shul. Was this unheard of in Chazal's day?

It is worth noting that most people know what to do with their lulav, and
don't need to bring it to the chacham. At the very least, they would have
gone to the chacham a few days earlier. This gezera is only for the rare
individual who doesn't know what to do, and waits for the last minute to
find out. In very sharp contrast, *everyone* needs to bring food to the
sukkah *on* Shabbos.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Become A Leader
Advance your career with a graduate business degree. Free info!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=FoywpBOiPxNN5RyaPjxDrAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAENT-T4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARmMQAAAAA=

>>
>> EraI = time when 2 days was a safek
>> EraII = time after the gezerah to keep 2 days in Beitzah
>>

From Zev
>> 1. The groups keeping 2 days in eraI and eraII are not necessarily
>> the same. ?In eraI it depended on where the messengers actually
>> reached. In fact there could be a difference between Tishre and Nisan
>> because the messengers didnt travel on Yom Kippur.
>> In eraII it depends only ony on the boundaries of EY.
>
> Who says so?

Wasn't sure which part Zev was questioning. Rambam mentions explicitly
the messengers of Tishre to exclude those of Nisan.
SA OC 496 discusses only residents of Israel and galuyot. No mention of
places where the messengers reached as is done by Rambam

>> although the story goes that CI and the Griz kept 2nd day lechumra)
>
> Was this chumra because they held the halacha *might* be like the
> Rambam, or was it because they held the halacha is *definitely* like
> the Rambam and therefore they had a safek whether shluchim came to
> the site of modern Bnei Brak?

Both CI (Bnei Brak) and Griz (who was in Jerusalem but outside of the old city)
requested that there custom of being machmir on the 2nd day be kept a secret.
It was meant as a personal chumrah and not for the public. It was only
years after
their death that the stories came out. Hence, it seems that that they thought
the halacha "might" be like the Rambam. For the general public they accepted
the SA against the Rambam


-- 
Eli Turkel

I would highly recommend that we establish a good definition of both of
those terms before speculating.  The term shechina is often used to refer to
times when you can see what hashem wants through the actions of people.  The
term nevua is used when there is a direct speaking between G-D and man.
I am not quite sure those definitions are accurate but they may be a good
starting point in a discussion of the matter.  Looking forward to seeing how
this conversation develops.

Yosef Skolnick
I am looking for a job as an entry level business consultant
516-690-SKOL


On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM, Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Berachos 7a says moshe requested that the scheina reside only with yisrael.
> 1. was this request before the episode of bilaam? 2. does this request
> include prophecy? E.g are the scheina and nevua related?
> Does one need one for the other??
>  3. Can we learn out kal v'chomer that if the shechina resides only with
> israel, then for sure nevuah does??? HB
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20091005/fdf80ad9/attachment-0001.htm>

RJR wrote:

Interesting is the language of the Rambam shechitah 10:13 - "vchol eilu
shemanu vamru shehein treifa af al pi sheyireh bdarchei harefuah
shebiyadeinu shemiktzatan einan mmitin vefshar shetichyeh meihen, ein lcha
ela mah shemanu chachamim shenemar al pi hatorah asher yorucha"  Were
miktzatan and efshar lav davka (i.e. what if it was kulan and vadai - e.g. a
surgical procedure that 99.9% survived) GT

See Hakirah  volume 4 for an in depth discussion of this Rambam -

http://hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Buchman.pdf

Moadim Lesimcha

David Guttmann
 
If you agree that Believing is Knowing, join me in the search for Knowledge
at http://yediah.blogspot.com/ 
 
Ve'izen vechiker (Kohelet 12:9) subscribe to Hakirah at www.hakirah.org 

Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> EraI = time when 2 days was a safek
>>> EraII = time after the gezerah to keep 2 days in Beitzah
>>>
> 
>>From Zev
>>> 1. The groups keeping 2 days in eraI and eraII are not necessarily
>>> the same.  In eraI it depended on where the messengers actually
>>> reached. In fact there could be a difference between Tishre and Nisan
>>> because the messengers didnt travel on Yom Kippur.
>>> In eraII it depends only ony on the boundaries of EY.
>> Who says so?
> 
> Wasn't sure which part Zev was questioning. Rambam mentions explicitly
> the messengers of Tishre to exclude those of Nisan.
> SA OC 496 discusses only residents of Israel and galuyot. No mention of
> places where the messengers reached as is done by Rambam

But who tells you what the boundaries of "EY" are for this purpose?
How do you know that they aren't "whereever the shluchim went"?



>>> although the story goes that CI and the Griz kept 2nd day lechumra)
>> Was this chumra because they held the halacha *might* be like the
>> Rambam, or was it because they held the halacha is *definitely* like
>> the Rambam and therefore they had a safek whether shluchim came to
>> the site of modern Bnei Brak?

> Both CI (Bnei Brak) and Griz (who was in Jerusalem but outside of the old city)
> requested that there custom of being machmir on the 2nd day be kept a secret.
> It was meant as a personal chumrah and not for the public. It was only
> years after
> their death that the stories came out. Hence, it seems that that they thought
> the halacha "might" be like the Rambam. For the general public they accepted
> the SA against the Rambam

Again, how do you know this?  The facts you recite are perfectly
consistent with the explanation I proposed, so how do you know it's not
correct?
 


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

Re: <<Dud shemesh according to many passim is toldas hama
and assur miderabbanan. That is because the hama heats an
intermediary.>>

Even if you consider that the heating of the water is direct
chama and therefore mutar, there is still, a problem.  As 
one takes
hot water from the tank, cold water enters the tank and is
heated by the chama-heated water in the tank. This heating
is definitely toldot hachama and assur. BTW, the cold water
enters both the tank and the heating coils in parallel.


And, Re: <<RMF and the Rav, RYDS, both held that where 
Toledos
HaChamah is from a device specifically manufactured for this
purpose that even though such a device wasn't at Har Sinai,
it's now a "bishul device" where companies make a
comfortable profit from such a device and should be assur.
He mentioned that some argued with RMF and RYDS and said "it
wasn't at Sinai" but that RMF & RYDS stood by their views.>>

R'SZA"s p'sak is that, as the heater is specifically 
manufactured
for use with chama, the gezeira on toldot chama doesn't
apply as there is no safek of how the water was heated. 
This p'sak was made on the first generation of solar water 
heaters.  Rabbi L"Y Halperin noted that solar water heaters 
are now made with built-in electric heating elements for use 
on cloudy days and duringhigh consumption.  So, today, the 
gezeira applies as there is a chance of heating incoming 
cold water with water heated by the heating elements and not 
by the sun.  While some argued that, if the heating elements 
are disconnected there is no safek ands the gezeira doesn't 
apply, Rabbi Halperin holds that the existence of the 
electrical heating elements in almost all solar water 
heaters creates the safek and application of the gezeira 
even if you disconnect the elements.


Mo'adim L'simcha,

David

kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Why was there no gezera against sukkah on Shabbos?
>   
I don't remember where, but I recall reading that the reason Hazal uses 
the verb "la'alot" to describe entering a sukkah is because sukkot were 
typically built on roofs.

David Riceman

>
> But who tells you what the boundaries of "EY" are for this purpose?
> How do you know that they aren't "whereever the shluchim went"?
>
Rambam (kiddush hachodesh 5:9-13) says that indeed 1 vs 2 days depends on
where the shelichim of Tishre reached. It does not depend on distance
since Eygpt
keeps 2 days even though it is relatively close. Rather in EY we
assume that shelichim
came while in chutz le-aretz we assume they didnt come. Hence, in a new
city in EY or a place where we know that there was no Jewish community they keep
2 days just like chutz la-aretz.

The Ritva in several places diasgrees and says it depends only on the
halachik definition
of EY as that was the gezerah of Hillel who set up the calendar.

IMHO it is clear that the mechaber who only mentions EY agrees with the Ritva.

In the Encyopedia talmudit they bring several achronim that paskim like Rambam
and held that Petach Tikvah (the first city established in modern times
outside of Jerusalem) should keep 2 days.
. Since they presumably did not reach modern day Bnei Brak or even modern
day Meah Shearim CI and Griz quietly kept a second day lechumra. As I previously
said this was keep secret from the public at the time.
As it was secret obviously no exact reason was given for the chumra
except that it was
a chumra and not a psak.

Nevertheless the standard psak in present times is like the Ritva. Of course the
halachik boundaries of EY are subject to dispute and the question of 1 or 2
days in Eilat seems to depend on whether Eilat is in the halachik boundaries
of EY (some say that extends to the Euphrates)

I remember a debate when the IDF crossed the Suez canal whether the
troops should
keep one or two days and similar discussions about troops in Lebanon.
None of these discussions treied to determine where shlechim reached.


See Encylopedia Talmudit  vol 23 p99-105 for more details

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 12:16:58PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Micha asks
:> When was "lo ad"u Rosh" instituted? Is it possible that the calendar
:> was being modified during the third generation of amora'im?

: It is obvious that it wasn't done at the same time. In fact from the
: sugya it is clear
: that not having Rosh Hashana on wednesday so Hoshana Rabbah wouldn't
: be on shabbat is a much later gezerah

I tried dating Bar Hedya, Ravin and R' Hillel in order to put things in
a time fram. The former two were only a couple of decades before the end
of R' Hillel's Sanhedrin.

I took it as a given that our calendar is R' Hillel's barring some
machloqesin about how to apply R' Hilel's rules -- such as that of R'
Saadia Gaon vs chakhmei EY. Which to my mind meant the rule about "lo
...d... rosh" can't be a "much later gezeirah", and was quite possibly
the subject of debate in their day.

: Reminds me of additional question. Why were Chazal so worried about
: missing hoshanot
: and they weren't concerned about losing shofar when RH fell on shabbat
: especially in
: eras where there was only 1 day RH and similarly for lulav.
: The answer that occurs to me is that to avoid RH on shabbat it would
: require that
: RH cant fall out on a friday, shabbat or sunday which is demanding too much,
: ie if it should fall out on friday it would require a 3 day change

And/or it's one of those cases where Chazal were more worried about
people saying "eh, it's only a drabbanan" -- or in this case, "... a
minhag" -- and were more machmir on a deOraisa.

Or perhaps shofar represents qabbalas ol malkhus Shamayim in a way
that bowing for Shabbos is more mitabeir -- it's also unquestioning
qabalah. Whereas resting for Shabbos does not teach the same lesson
as hoshanos.

:> Ravin wasn't arguing with Bar Hedya, he was giving a later snapshot
:> of the changing of the rules then in progress.

: However, its going in the wrong direction. Bar Hedya says Hoshana Rabbah does
: not fall on shabbat while the later Ravin says it does.

: I dont have dates but the sugya reads that Bar Hedya first gave
: evidence but then came Ravin and
: al those who accompanied him
: Since today it cant fall come on shabbat it would be several flip-flops from
: yes to no to yes to no

Debates are like that, no?

You also assume the sequence in the gemara is historical sequence of when
they showed up, and not the sequence in which the contemporaries of R'
Ashi, Ravina or the savora'im testified.

Besach hakol, I would say you weakened my suggestion significantly, but
haven't ruled it out.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A pious Jew is not one who worries about his fellow
mi...@aishdas.org        man's soul and his own stomach; a pious Jew worries
http://www.aishdas.org   about his own soul and his fellow man's stomach.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 09:31:34AM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
:> Why was there no gezera against sukkah on Shabbos?

: I don't remember where, but I recall reading that the reason Hazal uses 
: the verb "la'alot" to describe entering a sukkah is because sukkot were 
: typically built on roofs.

Interesting. I just assumed it was like laalos la'aretz -- an aliyah in
the qedushah dimension, not vertical.

In any case, lulav, shofar and megillah are all mitzvos asei. Eating
outside of the sukkah is a lav. (And, on the first night ALSO an asei.)
I would think that's a sufficient chiluq to answer the original question.

It's one thing for chazal to tell us to ignore an asei to protect a lav.
But do we find cases where they rank lavin to the extent where they
would tell us to defy one in order to protect a more chamur one?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:
> In any case, lulav, shofar and megillah are all mitzvos asei. Eating
> outside of the sukkah is a lav. (And, on the first night ALSO an asei.)
>   
No it's being mevatel the aseh of "basukos teishvu shivas yamim".  Look 
at the Rambam's heading to hilchos [shofar, lulav v']sukkah.  He lists 
no lavim.

David Riceman

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 12:06:45PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: No it's being mevatel the aseh of "basukos teishvu shivas yamim".  Look 
: at the Rambam's heading to hilchos [shofar, lulav v']sukkah.  He lists 
: no lavim.

Correct what I said from the formal asei vs lav to chiyuv vs issur.
That is the whole gezeirah shavah tes-vav tes-vav -- the first night
parallels a chiyuv of akhilas matzah, the rest of Sukkos it parallels
not eating chameit. The mitzvah is not to eat outside the Sukkah,
rather than a mitzvah to eat within it.

I think that with this change of terminology, my chiluq stands.

The question still remains one of telling people to perform one issur
for the sake of avoiding another. That is different than lulav, where
Anshei Keneses haGedolah told us not to perform a chiyuv.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot

> This gezera is only for the rare individual who doesn't know what to
> do, and waits for the last minute to find out.

Broken record:

The gzeiro s in the mishnah as axiomatic

The GMARA assigns rabba's svara to it

The above puts the cart before the horse!

We don't have a svara in need of creating svaros! Adderabba the gzeira
is a given and the svara comes later. [Wolpoe's law #1 we know WHAT
but not always why]

Also certain g'zeiros are sui generis.

Nevertheless, It's still a pretty good question! But the shema yaavirena
is AFAIK never used to generate any gzeira. Rather it is Rabbah's svara
to explain the gzeiros that already [pre-]existed in the Mishnah! (Or
possibly from an old Sanhedrin)

it is possible that Mishnah Tosefta and even Yerushalmi did not know of
this dynamic.

Gutn Moed
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Eli Turkel wrote:
>> But who tells you what the boundaries of "EY" are for this purpose?
>> How do you know that they aren't "whereever the shluchim went"?

> IMHO it is clear that the mechaber who only mentions EY agrees with
> the Ritva.

I don't see how you can know this, since *everyone* including the
Rambam, uses the terms "EY" and "galuyot" for the two zones.  If
someone doesn't specify exactly what he means by those terms *in this*
*context*, how can you decide that he holds like the Ritva and not the
Rambam (or vice versa)?

 
> In the Encyopedia talmudit they bring several achronim that paskim
> like Rambam and held that Petach Tikvah (the first city established
> in modern times outside of Jerusalem) should keep 2 days.  Since
> they presumably did not reach modern day Bnei Brak or even modern
> day Meah Shearim CI and Griz quietly kept a second day lechumra.

"Presumably"?  How can you possibly presume such a thing?  At most
it's a safek; they probably *did* reach that area, but maybe they
didn't.  In the case of Meah Shearim it's inconceivable to me that
there were no Jews on that site who kept one day; even if there were
no houses there, surely there were olei regel camping, or simply
people from Y'm out walking within the techum.  As for Bnei Brak,
while we can't guarantee that it *is* on the site of old BB, surely
we can't be sure that it *isn't*, and even if we could be sure of
that (e.g. if we found the remains of old BB elsewhere) we certainly
couldn't be sure that there wasn't some other Jewish settlement on
that site.   Thus any suggestion of keeping two days is by definition
a chumrah, even according to the Rambam.


> As I previously said this was keep secret from the public at the time.
> As it was secret obviously no exact reason was given for the chumra
> except that it was a chumra and not a psak.

Yes, you've said this several times, but how do you derive from this
that they didn't pasken like the Rambam?


> Nevertheless the standard psak in present times is like the Ritva.

How do you know?  Who explicitly paskens one way or the other?


> Of course the halachik boundaries of EY are subject to dispute and
> the question of 1 or 2 days in Eilat seems to depend on whether Eilat
> is in the halachik boundaries of EY

Huh?  Who even suggests that it is?


> (some say that extends to the Euphrates)

What has that got to do with Eilat?  The Euphrates is the *northern*
boundary, not the southern one!

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

http://kosherspirit.com/Article.asp?Issue=17&;Article=217
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/737755//Rosh_Hashana_To
-Go_5770 
 from pg  27 

the  chazzan of  LSS  discusses the  proper  nusach,  here with some 
online  musical samples.


[ for  a  website of  all davening  nusach, see   josh sharfman's 
www.virtualcantor.com ] 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20091005/fec093c7/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 198
***************************************

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..."