Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 7

Tue, 05 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Firing a Rabbi (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 6. electricity on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: electricity on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: how to reconcile (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (hankman)
• 13. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Seeing Policies Everywhere (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)

I believe that is a paraphrase of something that Abaya said.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
To: "Micha" <Mi...@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 10:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Firing a Rabbi


>R Chaim Brikser was reported to say:
> "Any Rav that they're not seeking to fire is failing at his job". [Too 
> mechaneif?]
> OTOH "Any Rav who IS fired isn't competent" [not clever enough?]
>
> KT
> RRW
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org 

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 08:11:45AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
: Micha Berger wrote:
: >Second, anything that almost inevitably sparks, even lo nikha lei, would
: >be bishul. That would include AC switches, many motors, etc...

: What if the sparks are too small to be seen with the naked eye?

Then not. However, at 110 volts, never mind 220, my impression is that
they aren't too small. Similarly, 9 volt motors. Perhaps lower voltage,
I never ran one without its casing.

:>Fourth, a radio, MP3 player, cell phone or TV are possibly within the
:>gezeira against keli zemer, since they're adjustable and can play music.

: Does this apply even if the adjusting is not inherently assur? ...

I would think so, because we're not talking about the inherent issur,
we're talking about whether they fit under the gezeirah of kelei zemer.
A gezeirah follows its wording, and isn't limited to cases where the
sevara applies.

:                                 OTOH I had understood the issur against 
: klei zemer to apply even to instruments which are not routinely tuned by 
: players (pianos fall into that category), and there is an additional 
: issur of hashma'as kol independent of music.

And that wouldn't apply to electrical devices that that make a kol?

I would argue that the vast majority of computing devices, as well
as all cell phones, would be a problem because of their sound-making
function. Nothing to do with the fact that they use electriticity to
do so.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Micha Berger wrote:

> I would argue that the vast majority of computing devices, as well
> as all cell phones, would be a problem because of their sound-making
> function. Nothing to do with the fact that they use electriticity to
> do so.

1. A computer's *purpose* isn't to make sound.  One is allowed to knock
on a door, because it is not a sound-making tool; one is not allowed to
use a door knocker, because it is.


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

Micha:
> I would argue that the vast majority of computing devices, as well
> as all cell phones, would be a problem because of their sound-making
> function. Nothing to do with the fact that they use electriticity to
> do so.

Makes sense - just remember the potential slippery slope here

Once it's "g'zeira" and not a true d'oraisso/d'rabbanan, certain kullos
may apply

EG
Lo sch'chee'ach
Bimqom Tza'ar lo gazrinan

EG See Chochmas Adam on waiting 6 hours for dairy followinf meat which
he posits is mishum "al titosh"

And then he exempts someone with gastric distress and falls back to one hour

This might explain why during crises [think 9/11] many frum Jews
left their radios on all shabbos which lich'ora is a hashma'os kol
problem. Setting aside real sakkanah, an argument to "feel" secure might
be enough to set aside a g'zeira bimqom tzorech - even M'At.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R' Avroham Yakov asked:

> With that, why can't one turn on a light?
> For an incandescent, we can understand that it gets hot.
> But with fluorescent, or some of the newer bulbs, they don't get hot.

Please see my post at http://www.aish
das.org/avodah/vol17/v17n093.shtml#04 where I quoted from Rav Moshe
Heinemann (of the Star-K), that the violation is d'Oraisa if the device is
intended for *either* heat OR light.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Small Business Tools
Learn how to save time and money. Click to find what tools your business needs now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=G9LnPW-LifTqkCMyeymAkgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARMQAAAAA=

Micha writes

<< Second, anything that almost inevitably sparks, even lo nikha lei, would
be bishul. That would include AC switches, many motors, etc...>>

Let me quote from the article of Rabbi Broyde and jachter in J Halacha
Contemporary
Society vol 21

A Number of factorsindicate  that this prohibition is inaaplicable to sparks
created by turning mechanical switches on or off. First these are
created unintentionally
davar sheno mitkaven - no prohibition exists since it is not psik reisha.
Second the sparks are so small that one canot dtetect any heat when
touching them
and are usually not visible. Solid state technologies
and sparkless (arcless) switches frequently avoid the problem completely.
So RSZA states that lehalacha there isnt a rabbinic prohibition in the
uninentional
creation of sparks

<<Third, anything that is supposed to be constantly running, eg a clock,
would be makeh bepatish.>>

I am not sure what constantly running means. In any case an electric fan
that constantly runs would have no prohibition according to RSZA

<<Fourth, a radio, MP3 player, cell phone or TV are possibly within the
gezeira against keli zemer, since they're adjustable and can play music.>>

A cell phone is kli zemer? far fetched - thats not its usual function.
Listening to
a speech on radio or a fotball game on TV would probably also not be kle zemer.

To summarize CI introduces boneh and makeh bepatisch. RSZA disagrees and
the general psak is like RSZA especially bideved. RSZA also says that extra
fuel consumption at the (Jewish) power station is not a problem since
most likely
someone else is turning off an appliance at the same time and so the
total electric
consumption doesnt change.
As mentioned other poskim mention noad - creating something new and RSZA also
disagrees with that.

RSZA doesn't permit using electricity for items like fans on shabbat
since people
cant always distinguish which appliance has a heating element and is
prohibited from
the Torah and which don't. Furthermore complete use of electricity would turn
shabbat into a weekday and lead to zilzul shabbat.
Hence, RSZA allowed the use of nonheating electrical appliances only in cases
of great need, eg hospitals, wheel chairs etc. This is the basis of many of the
inventions of tzomet.



-- 
Eli Turkel

On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 07:59:17PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Second, anything that almost inevitably sparks, even lo nikha lei, would
:> be bishul. That would include AC switches, many motors, etc...>>

: Let me quote from the article of Rabbi Broyde and Jachter in J Halacha
: Contemporary Society vol 21

: A Number of factorsindicate  that this prohibition is inaaplicable to sparks
: created by turning mechanical switches on or off. First these are
: created unintentionally
: davar sheno mitkaven - no prohibition exists since it is not psik reisha.
...
: Second the sparks are so small that one canot dtetect any heat when
: touching them and are usually not visible. Solid state technologies
: and sparkless (arcless) switches frequently avoid the problem completely.

Notice that I wrote about "almost inevitably sparks". To which I will
add, visibly, if you could see inside the switch's casing. This is my
understanding of what happens inside a regular light switch. 110 volts
(lo kol shekein 220) is enough to throw a significant spark across air --
just think of what happens with a loose wire almost properly in a socket.

The switch goes from too far to touching -- at some point along the way,
you will certainly have an air gap that can be crossed by visible
amounts of current.

We discussed this in Elecrodynamics, when I studied for my MS in
Electrical Engineering.

IOW, I don't understand the metzi'us to be as RMS and RJJ describe it.
My opinion is informed enough for me not to assume they necessarily
consulted with someone who knows the topic better than the education my
parents bought.

I read many teshuvos that assume that flourescent bulbs pose less of a
Shabbos problem. In practice, a florescent bulb has two filaments rather
than the one in an incandescent one (assuming it's not a three-way bulb
on the brightest setting). And unlike an incadescent, where the cooking
of the metal is a bad thing -- it leads to the bulb blowing, here we
boil something we need boiled -- mercury. If gakheles shel matekhes is
bishul, that too makes the florescent bulb *more* problematic. Once I
found error on the electonics of one question, I have grown skeptical
about the quality of the expert consulted in general. (I picture the
poseiq asking the electrician in his qehillah, rather than someone who
studied the theory.)

: So RSZA states that lehalacha there isnt a rabbinic prohibition in the
: uninentional creation of sparks

Agian, this presumes that it's not close enough to inevitable to be
pesiq reishei. That has to be established. Where's RDBannet?

...
: I am not sure what constantly running means. In any case an electric fan
: that constantly runs would have no prohibition according to RSZA

Unless it's a brushless motor, it too sparks.

:> Fourth, a radio, MP3 player, cell phone or TV are possibly within the
:> gezeira against keli zemer, since they're adjustable and can play music.

: A cell phone is kli zemer? far fetched - thats not its usual function.

RZS argued similarly. All I know is that people do download ringtones even
for the simplest cell phones -- never mind one that also has MP3 player
functions.

Laptops as well are regularly used to hold MP3 collections, watch concert
snippets on YouTube, etc... In the past few years they make a point of
having stereo.

: Listening to
: a speech on radio or a fotball game on TV would probably also not be kle zemer.

You're switching from noun to verb. The keli is a keli zemer since a
usual use is for music. At least, that's what I'm arguing. The maaseh
you want it for may not be zemer, but the cheftzah was already prohibited.

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

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> This might explain why during crises [think 9/11] many frum Jews
> left their radios on all shabbos which lich'ora is a hashma'os kol
> problem.

Please explain what you mean here by "hashma'os kol problem".  I'm
aware of two unrelated issues on shabbos that can be called "hashmoas
kol":

1. The prohibition on using a noise-making device.  A radio is surely
not included in that prohibition, since one doesn't use it to make
noise - one simply turns it on and it makes noise on its own.  Kal
vachomer leaving it on before shabbos can't be included.

2. The prohibition on having ones mill running on shabbos, or any
similar machine that makes noise heard by passersby, who will think
that one is breaking shabbos.  This doesn't apply if there are no
Jews within a techum shabbos.  It also would seem not to apply to
any machine that is not audible from outside ones property, such as
a radio.  And it surely wouldn't apply if a Jewish passerby's first
thought would be that it was on from before shabbos, or was on a timer
(e.g. a clock radio in the morning). 

Did you mean one of these two issues, or something else?

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

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> If Par'oh had been a nice guy, a liberal, and HE let us
> go -- then we would be m'shubad to him, just as American
> Slaves became meshubad to Abe Lincoln! While instead we
> became Avdei Hashem because par'oh REFUSED to let us go
> until he was forced to -- kicking and screaming.

My friend Rabbi Joe Oratz, Principal at Bruriah HS, says the same thing, and extends the mashal, linking it to the experience of blacks in recent South Africa:

The emancipation of American blacks was a long arduous process. Note how
long it was from Lincoln's day until we got a black President. In contrast,
he says, there were no "nice guy, liberal" politicians in South Africa for
the blacks to remain meshubad to. Those whites "were forced to -- kicking
and screaming" acknowledge the equality of the blacks - and note how
*short* it was from then until *they* got a black President.

So it was for us in Mitzrayim - even we today would still be meshubad to
Paroh, if he had "let" us go. But he did not "let" us go, and were are not
meshubad to him.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Sm6mHBhBXjBaSpS-JSosSwAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> When did ner shabbos get a brachah? As per Maggid Mishnah
> [hilchos shabbos 5:1] it's Seder Rav Amram Gaon. If so this
> list is NOT Talmudic. - but a bit later. 

The Maggid Mishnah's actual words are: "Kach kasuv b'Seder Rav Amram,
v'chen hiskimu kol ha'acharonim z"l." In my view this falls far short of
something like "Rav Amram tiken bracha al ner Shabbos".

RRW seems to be interpreting the Maggid Mishnah to mean that until Rav
Amram's time, no bracha was said on Ner Shabbos. I do not see that from
this source. All I see from here is that there is no sefer older than Rav
Amram which *documents* the saying of this bracha. It is quite possible
that the bracha was established long before Rav Amram, perhaps even long
before the Mishna, but we don't have any record of it.

[begin sci-fi mode] I have a friend who quotes an explicit Gemara that
"Shlomo Hamelech and his Beis Din established a bracha on Ner Shabbos". He
can't remember if it was in the Bavli on Shvi'is 15b or in the Yerushalmi
at the end of the first perek of Tamid. He had to take his time machine
back past quite a few book-burnings until he finally found that gemara. And
now, unfortunately, the time machine is malfunctioning, and we may never
find out which daf it was. [end sci-fi mode] Daven for the archeologists;
maybe they'll find it yet. Who knows?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=Ls6NzTB-fa6CuGTdQZVkTgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

At 11:22 AM 1/5/2010, R. Michael Mirsky wrote:

>I don't think it's a matter of how nice the beard looks.  I remember
>being told that there is something in Kabbala that says that it's
>preferable for a man to grow a beard.
>
>Michael Mirsky

I recall seeing a reference to a teshuva of the Chasam Sofer in which 
he permits shaving.  One of his reasons is that the Kabbalists in 
Italy did not have beards, because they felt that there was not 
sufficient kedusha in Chutz Laretz to merit having a beard!

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100105/b5dd0539/attachment-0001.htm>

Just based on my own svarah (with which you may feel free to disagree) I
would say that it is the idea of shleimus ha'adam and of the Tzelem Elokim
it represents. Removing the beard could be seen as a certain chesoron in
this shleimus. This notion is too straight forward so I would be surprised
if some of the the meforshim do not use it, but I do not know, as I have
not looked into this.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100105/e95ff8a2/attachment-0001.htm>

Has anyone considered historical parallels in non-Jewish cultures and the
possibility that once "accepted" into the Mesorah (or done by default) that
some explanation would be developed (e.g. the whole siman vs. siba issue)
KT
Joel Rich
________________________________
In late February 2010, our NY Office is moving to :
333 West 34th St.
New York, NY 10001-2402
All telephone and fax numbers (and e-mail addresses) will remain the same.
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/20100105/70675b25/attachment-0001.htm>

Soap Box:
    OK since many in the Chevra are uptight [I think unreasonably so]
    with my use of g'zeira so Mipnei Darchei Shalom I will now use
    POLICY where POLICY might include
        Bans
        Standards
        Policies of qehillos, institutions etc.
End-soap-box

Offline we've had a great discussions, I cannot possibly encapsulate them all

Here's an interesting heirarchy
I'l go left to right concerning POLICY re: College
YU: Required lechatchila
Ner Yisroel: allowed/tolerated while @ Yeshiva. Not necessarily
    encouraged l'chatchila.
Lakewood: No college while @ Lakewood - [but AIUI some exemptions allowed
    while not there - my source is confidential - and I was told that
    RAK's policy ws no college WHILE LEARNING].
Other Hareidi-Hassidic communities: College is always passul.

So we have a range of sheetos re: the policy WRT college
__________________


Ploni I
> Rabbi Moshe Heinemann allows coffee makers.[On shabbos] Other poskim
> I've spoken to do not, seeing a slippery slope problem, but they admit
> there's no real issur

AISI just Like bicycles - a policy due to slippery slope but no real issur
[source EG Ben Ish Chay]

Ploni II
Re: my nomenclature of local g'zeiros
[Editorial: I was hoping somone would defend this on list, but I'll take
what I can get! ;-)]

> Anyone who reads the second half of the Rambam's hakdama knows you're not making it up. 

> However, it could be argued that the rambam was talking about his theory
> that the world is now split up into distinct Beis Din jurisdictions,
> not stam each moreh horaah on his own initiative.

The reisha matches  my point
The Seifa addresses RAMiller"s issue of the SCOPE of Authority
EG if RRW uveis dinni banned smoking I'm saying as per reisha I have that purview
And as per seifa no one would heed it. ;-)

BUT OTOH RMF-Agudas Rabbanim did have some clout 
And even today Hassidic q'hilos and KAJ + Elisabeth, and Yeshivos still
behave using a q'hilah model.

Remember the POLICY banning ostentatious S'machos? [and fwiw as an
austere New Englander and a quasi- Yekke I heartily endorse this policy!]

Back to soap-box:
Policies L'migdar milsa imho are legit and positive. [Source Choshen
Mishpat 2] and to my hashqafa - superior to dochaq pisqei Halacha that
I fear engender cycnicism.



RZS: 
> Gelatin is a different issue, and gedolei haposkim did permit it (R
> Chaim Ozer, R Tzvi Pesach, Dayan Abramski, R Ovadia Yosef, etc.).

> In America the minhag [I call this policy] is not to pasken like that,
> out of respect for RMF and RAK; but in other countries many do,?

Here is my take 
    A The case above 
    B The case of no eruv in manhattan out of respect for RMF 
and 
    C No megillah reading by women for women @ Stern College out of
      respect for RYDS

Are all 
    1 Cases of Policy 
    2 not classic s'yaggim 
    3 therefore LEAST of my g'zeira like cases 
    4 still localized and not P'saq 

By localized and not P'saq I mean 

A The same Kashrus agency people might themselves consume Gelatin
  in Israel

B The same Rabbonim who adhere to no Manhattan Eruv might allow it in
  an island like Montreal [assuming it's not part of RMF's p'saq]

C Dr. Norman Lamm himself might permit women reading megillah for women
  outside of YU and not feel bound for k'vod RYDS

IOW they are not absolute P'saq but location or institution-bound policies
[to follow an old P'saq]

Summary: these are the LEAST g'zeira-like because there is AIUI no s'yag
or slippery-slope.

But the tzad hashaveh is there and they're not P'saq either in that they
are policy.

-- 

Now m'chabeir does use IIRC "v'chein haminhag v'ein l'shanos" on occasion
The Rema uses it more 

Palginan Dibbura 
"V'chein Haminhag" is an observation of existing practice 
"Ein l'shanos" might be a P'saq. But AISI it's a policy to keep that minhag 

Rema was successful for the most part but an intersting exception is about
washing. Before qiddush -- which the Hayei Adam still has [IE for all
EXCEPT the baal habbayyis] and Kitzur SA seems to no longer know about.

[IOW it was either location dependent or it simply went-out-of-business
during a 50 year period -- except for a subset of Yekkes]

KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RAM
> The Maggid Mishnah's actual words are: "Kach kasuv b'Seder Rav Amram,
> v'chen hiskimu kol ha'acharonim z"l." In my view this falls far short
> of something like "Rav Amram tiken bracha al ner Shabbos".

> RRW seems to be interpreting the Maggid Mishnah to mean that until Rav
> Amram's time, no bracha was said on Ner Shabbos. I do not see that from
> this source. All I see from here is that there is no sefer older than Rav
> Amram which *documents* the saying of this bracha. It is quite possible
> that the bracha was established long before Rav Amram, perhaps even long
> before the Mishna, but we don't have any record of it.

Look it's MM's job to find the most authoritative [usuually earliest]
source! And if he Could credit it to Mishnah or Talmud he Would have. It
MIGHT have preceded Rav Amram Gaon, but stay tuned...

[I have some historical data to bring to bear this out but here I can
stay in the box]

Talmud
Sheiltos
Behag
Rif

All have brachah on Ner Hanukkkah
YET
NONE have brachah on Ner Shabbos!

WHY?

Now, Silence from ONE source is perhaps not proof positive OTOH
Silence from that collective is aisi solid indication.

Ein kan M'komo but the TUR orach hayyin 263 says yeish omrim ein
l'vareich.. Ayein sham. EG: R"T has to prove that chova triggers a
brachah for ner shabbas but chovav does NOT trigger brachah for mayyim
acharonim.

Here's another point:

Behag:
Upon Lighting candles one accepts Shabbos

Mordechai:
Upon BRACHAH of Lighting candles one accepts Shabbos

Notice this shift, it dovetails with BeHag not knowing about that brachah!

As far as Post-talmud brachos see Ta"z Orach Hayyim 46 re: "hannosein
laya'eif ko'ach" and how he treats the Ro"Sh here. It's highly informative
about my positions of post-talmudic "policies", too - and as Ta"z answers
the steera in the Ro"Sh, so too would I suggest that this applies to
the Ro"Sh on g'zeiros.



Now, I realize this all sounds radical, but it's important to get
the valence of 7 derabbana's accurately and not retrofit our minhag
ho'olam NOW to presume it's any earlier than we know for certain. This
is "hazakkah d'hashta" thinking. Since WE do it, that's the way it's
always done!

However, note that on NishmaBlog I started a series of "what's the
earliest source" and bracha on Ner Shabbos is in line for a post.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 7
*************************************

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..."