Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 22

Thu, 21 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Aveil as Sha"tz on Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: the word "gadol" (Joshua Meisner)
• 4. Re: New Brachos (Chana)
• 5. New Brachos (Chana)
• 6. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 7. Re: New Brachos (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. RSRH Digest - Bo (Yitzchok Levine)
• 9. listening to moshe (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 10. Re: Public displays of affection, was [Areivim] (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 11. Re: Bal Tashchit (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 12. Re: Bal Tashchit (t6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Bal Tashchit (t6...@aol.com)

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 05:07:54PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Since "bemakom she'ein ish" would lich'ora be operable, does he step up
: and would now be construed as a "pro" in this context - and therefore
: be permitted to be Sha"tz?
: Or Not?

I take your question to mean: Is the heter for an aveil who is a
professional chazan based on it being a paid-for position, or on his
competency?

I think it's based on the fact that he's usually up there, and therefore
the chazan's absence would be noted by the qehillah and would be aveilus
befarhesia.

Then there are the questions about the appropriateness of "the Carlebach
Nusach" altogether. Given your fealty to the Maharil, I was surprised
you would be involved in this question.

It's one thing to defy the Maharil WRT Qabbalas Shabbos, which is a new
invention anyway. But for Shacharis through Mussaf, I find it more
difficult.

But I also find it at odds with RSC's intent. He didn't have a standard
nusach -- the idea was to use music to aid davening. This reducation of
RSC's more creative approach to davening to create a new nusach sung
regularly... what's the point? After a few iterations, it's just
a new routine, and the power of nigun to aid hislahavus mostly
exhausted. (Speaking from experience.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 01:23:51PM -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
: I take your question to mean: Is the heter for an aveil who is a
: professional chazan based on it being a paid-for position, or on his
: competency?

The AhS YD 341:16 allows a sha"tz who is onein to serve as chazan on
Shabbos if there is no one else available "o inash be'alma". His reason
why is that while there is no aninus on Shabbos, "bedavar she'eino
hekhreich" one should certainly avoid doing it.

And Encyc Talmudit  "devarim shebetzin'ah", near the end, writes that if
he is the regular sha"tz, some write that it is mutar for him to take
the amud on Shabbos because his not doing so would be aveilus
befarhesia.
Fn 118 lists these sources:
    Gilyon Mahrasha 399, citing a maaseh with R' Tam and an aliyah
        laTorah
    Ibid 376 says even during shiv'ah
Earlier, we are told an aveil called up for an aliyah must take it
because it's befarhesia for him to decline, and fn 93 gives these
sources (assuming I chased all the "sham"s down to the right origins:
    Rosh Mo'eid Qatan 24a #28
    Tur OC 393
    SA 393:1

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Michael Poppers
<MPopp...@kayescholer.com>wrote:

>  In his shiur this past motzoei Shabbos on the transition from the N'vi'im
> (w/ Yirmiyahu being the last to speak in [these terms are mine] "rebuke
> mode" as opposed to "chessed mode") to the Anshei K'nesses haG'dolah,
> RYReisman spoke a bit about the meaning of the word "gadol." IINM, he quoted
> Rav Dessler z'l' as saying that this word in early times certainly referred
> to greatness in chessed/doing for others (as opposed to greatness in stature
> or, I would assume, honor), and he worked with that theme in explaining the
> thoughts of GRA on the first b'rachah of the Amidah as well as various other
> matters. Not that this needs my hasqamah, but p'suqim like the last one in
> M'gilas Estheir and the one related to the Shunamis of M'lachim Beis do IMHO
> make more sense with such a p'shat. However, and this is why I'm writing,
> how does one understand p'suqim like "gam ha-ish Moshe gadol m'od b'eretz
> Mitzrayim" of this week's parashas hashavua (P'Bo, for those reading this
> during a different week :)) in light of such a p'shat? Thanks.
>
> The Meshech Chochmah notes that the gadlus that the avdei Par'o - the
chartumim and sarim - would have seen in Moshe was different than the gadlus
that the hamon am would have seen in Moshe, and darshens the order of the
two groups in the passuk in this sense.  Had Moshe merely been an incredible
magician, his fame would have spread from the hamon am up to the leaders,
but the mention of the leaders first implies that they were the first to
recognize "his natural behavior, his wisdom, his humility, and all of his
middos in being concerned for the good of others and showing mercy in all of
his attitudes and actions", and that this respect trickled down to the hamon
am.

He doesn't explicitly mention chesed, but his pshat seems to be along those
basic lines.

Joshua Meisner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100120/c28074d4/attachment-0001.htm>

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > The Both Ben Ish Chay and Kaf Hachayyim state this in several places
> - that
> > bimqom minhag, s'feiq brachos l'haqeil does NOT apply.  And those
> Pos'qim
> > are quite tolerant of the Ashk'nazic position.
> >
> > HOWEVER, those S'phardim who protest Ashk'nazim for brachah on Hallel
> > b'dilug, or for women benching lulav etc. Would lich'ora reject that
> > position.  And it is to those "kitzonim" that I had addressed my
> question.
 And RSM replied:

> I had Hallel bedillug in mind when I added the qualification "at least
> when there is no specific ruling against the beracha in the SA",

Well *even where there is a specific ruling against the brocha in the SA"
you can find ROY etc allowing for it.  He does so in relation to hanoten
l'ayef koach (which Maran rejects), and also on saying all of the other
brochos every morning whether or not one heard a cock crow or puts on shoes
or clothing  the Yalkut Yosef to the latter is Chelek Aleph Birchat
Hashachar  paragraph 3 where he says "she habrachot hen al minhago haolam.
V'af al pi she ain zu da'ato shel Maran Hashulchan Aruch, mikol makom hoiel
v'pashat haminhag l'varech, safek bracha l'hakel b'mkom minhag lo amirinan
u'ma gam sheken svarat rabotainu hamekublim". And similarly in paragraph 4
(regarding hanoten l'ayef koach) he again goes against Maran, although this
time he adds in the fact that the geonim had this, and thus maybe it was in
their nusach of the gemora - but concludes with the fact that that it is the
minhag of all groups of Israel and hence should be said with Shem and
Malchut

Regards

Chana

RRW writes:

> 1 How come Sephardim no longer do Targum? [OK I understand why - but
> here's the kicker:]
> 2 And since they don't - how can they make a brachah on the Torah
> Reading - since the reading without Targum fails to conform to Hazal's
> requirements - it should be a doubtful brachah?
> 
> [OTOH For ashkenazim it's no problem. It's no worse than a Minhag]
> 
> IOW given that S'phardim have dropped the Targum, it's AT LEAST a
> safeiq if the q'riah still triggers a brachah as per Hazal's model! So why
not
> lain w/o a brachah - after all s'feiq brachos l'haqeil!

Why?  

To understand the strict constructionist (as you call it) position, you need
to look at their sources, of whom the primary source is the Rambam.  As I
have indicated, I have my own kashas on the Rambam, but they are not this
type.  The Rambam says (Hilchos Brachos perek 1 siman 3) "kshem shemvarchin
al haniah kach mevarchin al kol mitzvah v'mitzvah v'achar kach ya'aseh
otah".

The Rambam makes it very clear that a mitzvah needs a blessing.  The
fundamental reason why the Rambam and others have issues with women saying
brachos on mitzvas aseh shehazman grama, is because they hold these are not
mitzvos - women may do them if they want, but they do not count as mitzvos
(the Ran and the Ra'avid and others may have a different approach, but that
appears to be clearly the position of the Rambam).  Hallel on Rosh Chodesh
is a minhag, *not* a mitzvah and minhagim do not take a bracha (Hilchos
Brochos perek 11 halacha 16) even if it is a minhag of the Nevi'im such as
taking aravos on Hoshana Raba.

So in order for you to be right that no bracha is needed, or at least there
is only a safek bracha, then you would have to be saying that in fact kriat
haTorah without targum is not a mitzvah, it is merely a minhag.  But I don't
believe anybody says that.  Ezra etc were metaken kirat haTorah, it is a
mitzvah, and hence takes a bracha, whether or not other additions were added
by Chazal. On what basis those additions were dropped is indeed a question,
but it is not a question on the bracha.

> KT
> RRW

Regards

Chana

I respect each Minhag-nusach within its own sphere, but [generallly]
I oppose imposing from the outside. My only beef is with those Posqim
who construe a brachah l'vatalah for Ashkenazi women on Lulav, shofar,
sukkah, etc


Therefore -
Here is my "quasi-learned" opinion:

1. EG for S'phardic women to say a brachah on Lulav, shofar, sukkah,
etc. Would indded be an issue of "brachah l'vatalah"

2 Similarly for Ashkenazim to say a brachah on Hallel in shul on Seder
night - is the same issue because it simply is not the Minhag to do so.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

> To understand the strict constructionist position, ... you need
> to look at their sources, of whom the primary source is the Rambam.  ...

> The Rambam says (Hilchos Brachos perek 1 siman 3) "kshem shemvarchin
> al haniah kach mevarchin al kol mitzvah v'mitzvah v'achar kach ya'aseh
> otah".

> The Rambam makes it very clear that a [every]  mitzvah needs a blessing. ?

EG Talmud has a brachah on ner hanukkah Ner ish uveiso

How does the m'chabeir legislate a brachah on ner Hanukkah in shul?

Hacham Zvi asks a similar question. See SA O"C: 671:7,
Be'er hagolah 80
[Apparenly in the name of Rivash]
baer hetev 10
Shaarei t'shuva quoting HZ 88

My point about q'rias hatorah is similar. If laining no longer conforms
to Hazal's parameters it becomes problematic AISI to attach a brachah
to it I at leas for "strict constructionists."

EG:
Wouldn't all agree that if laining devolved somehow to a "humash" we
would still lain - but w/o a brachah? IOW since Hazal required laining -
and when this is the best we can do - then would we still say a brachah
is still triggered somehow?

Back to niddan didan, we have stripped a fundamental of laining - a
fundamental that EG Teimanim still apparently adhere to as did Rambam
AFAIK. AISI it no longer STRICTLY adhering to Hazal's parameters -
which brings to mind a potential safeiq. Certainly lain! The question
is s'feiq brachos l'haqeil - or restore the Targum.

KT
RRW

Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

[RYL posted two RSRH posts this week. -mi]


Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:54:25 -0500
Subject: The Genealogy of Moshe and Aaron

In Parshas Va"ra Shemos 6 the Torah interrupts the telling of the story
of how Hashem took the Jews out of Mitzrayim to detail in 6: 14 - 30 the
genealogy of Moshe and Aaron. The obvious question is "Why?" Rav Shamshon
Raphael Hirsch gives a most interesting answer to this question that
provides insight into the nature of prophecy as well as the prohibition
of deifying a man. (This piece is long, but, in my opinion, well worth
the read since it gives a number of fundamentals in Yahadus.) YL

In his commentary Shemos 6:14-30 he writes:

    1430 Immediately conspicuous is the interruption of the narrative
    by a genealogical register interposing in its midst and concluding
    with the words: hu Aaron u'Moshe (v. 26), haim hamedarbrim, hu Moshe
    v'Aaron (v. 27) as though these people were complete strangers to us,
    with whom we were becoming acquainted here for the first time. Only
    in verse 29 does Scripture return to the beginning of the narrative,
    repeat it, and continue it! Let us now consider this genealogical
    register. It is not limited to the lineage of Moshe and Aharon;
    rather, it briefly outlines the two preceding tribes. So, too, in
    the tribe of Moshe and Aharon, the register shows not only their
    direct lineage, but also the side branches: uncles and cousins,
    great uncles and second cousins. Thus, we are shown the relationship
    of their tribe with the preceding ones, and the relationship of
    their family and house with the families and houses of relatives,
    in previous generations and among contemporaries. We are also told
    the advanced age reached by their father and their grandfather,
    which shows us that not much time separated their demise from the
    rise of Moshe and Aharon. Then, pointing to these two in the midst of
    this wide circle of family and friends, Scripture repeatedly says:
    these were the same Moshe and Aharon on the day that God spoke to
    them! (see vv. 2628).

    If we further consider the point at which we are given this list of
    their lineage and family relations, we can perhaps come to understand
    the significance and purpose of all this information.

    Until now, the efforts of Moshe and Aharon have been completely
    frustrated. Were it not for later events, there would be no need
    for such an exact list of their lineage and family relations. Now,
    however, begins their triumphal mission, the likes of which no
    mortal had ever accomplished before them or will ever accomplish
    after them. Now it is of critical importance to present an exact
    list of their lineage and relations, so as to attest thereby for all
    time to come that their origin was ordinary and human, and that the
    nature of their being was ordinary and human.

    Right from the earliest times it has happened that men who were
    outstanding benefactors to their people were, after their death,
    divested of their human image and, because of their godlike feats,
    were invested with a Divine origin. We all know of a certain Jew,
    in later times, whose genealogical record was not available, and
    because it was not available, and because he brought people a few
    sparks of light borrowed from the man Moshe, he came to be considered
    by the nations as begotten of God; to doubt his divinity became a
    capital crime.

    Our Moshe was human, remained human, and will never be anything but
    human. When his countenance had already become radiant from what
    he was allowed to see of God; when he had already brought down the
    Torah from Heaven, and had already miraculously led the people through
    the wilderness and won for them victories of God, God here commanded
    him to present his genealogical record and thereby affirm the fact
    that b'yom deber HaShem el Moshe b'eretz Mitzrayim (v. 28), on the
    day that God first spoke to Moshe in the land of Egypt, everyone
    knew his parents and grandparents, his uncles and aunts and all his
    cousins. They knew his whole lineage and all his relatives. For eighty
    years they had known him as a man of flesh and blood, subject to all
    the failings and weaknesses, worries and needs, of human nature, a
    man like all the other men among whom he had been born and raised. hu
    Aaron u'Moshe (v. 26), haim hamedarbrim, hu Moshe v'Aaron they were
    flesh and blood like all other men, and God chose them to be His
    instruments in the performance of His great work; they were flesh
    and blood like all other men, and they carried out His great work.

    This certificate of origin is meant to negate in advance and
    forevermore any erroneous deification, any illusion of an incarnation
    of Deity in human form. It is meant to uphold this truth: Moshe,
    the greatest man of all time, was just a man, and the position he
    attained before God was not beyond the reach of mortal human beings.

    The list of names is also meant to negate a second illusion, the
    opposite of the first and no less dangerous. Thus the genealogical
    register is not confined to the direct line of descent of Moshe
    and Aharon viz., Yaakov, Levi, Kehas, Amram, Moshe but lists
    also the tribes that preceded Levi, with their descendants, and
    lists also the other branches of the tribe of Levi. For although
    the certificate of origin establishes as a fact the human nature
    of Moshe and Aharon, it might also have fostered the belief that
    everyone, without exception, is fit to become a prophet. A person
    who today is known as a complete idiot could tomorrow proclaim the
    Word of God. Gods spirit could suddenly descend upon an ignorant and
    uneducated person and teach him to speak in seventy languages. Indeed,
    this phenomenon of imagined or pretended prophecy is not uncommon in
    other circles. In their view, the more intellectually limited and
    empty-minded the prophet of today was yesterday, the more clearly
    this sudden transformation attests to a Divine call.

    This dangerous illusion, too, is negated by the family register. True,
    Moshe and Aharon were men and nothing but men, but they were chosen
    men. Had God wished simply to pick the first comer, there were other
    tribes, besides Levi, who stood at His disposal; and within Levi,
    there were other branches besides Kehas; and within Kehas, there
    were other houses besides that of Amram; and among Amrams children,
    Aharon was the elder son and, like Moshe, was a worthy candidate.
    God, however, chooses the worthiest and most exemplary to be His
    emissaries who do His bidding. Before he receives his call, the
    human being must attain the heights of human virtue. It was not
    Avraham or Yitzchak but Yaakov who became the true founder of the
    House of Israel. It was not Reuven or Shimon but Levi who became
    the chosen tribe. It was not Aharon or Miryam but Moshe who became
    Gods emissary. (This idea is the essence of our Sages comment on the
    verse halo kasavti l'cha shalishim [Mishlei 22:20]; see Tanchuma,
    Yisro 10.) One is chosen only if he has matured on his own to the
    point that he has become worthy of being chosen.

    We have already noted (above, 2:1112) that, according to the Jewish
    conception, neither weaklings, nor simpletons, nor those who are
    dependent on others are chosen to be the bearers of Gods spirit. On
    the contrary, even before he is chosen, God's emissary must be gebor
    chochom v'asher healthy in body, mind, and social standing. Healthy
    in body: so that deluded impostors (whose ill-health affects their
    mental outlook) should not disseminate morbid hallucinations which
    will be presented and regarded as visions of God. Healthy in mind:
    because only a mind that has developed to its full human capacity
    can grasp and transmit the Word of God. Healthy in social standing:
    because only a person who is independent, who requires nothing for
    himself and seeks nothing for himself, can understand people and
    assess situations objectively, as befits an emissary of God.


Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 16:52:12 -0500
Subject: Omnipotence of Hashem - Cessation of Plagues

RSRH writes in his commentary on Shemos 9

    29 Moshe replied to him: As soon as I have gone out from the city
    I will spread out my hands to God; the thunderclaps will cease and
    the hail will be no more, so that you may know that the earth is God's.

    Let us note that not only the onset of the plague but also and
    primarily its cessation at Gods Will constituted the most striking
    os of Gods omnipotence. For even the most sublime revelation of His
    creative and productive power would be insufficient, even today, to
    convey to the nations the pure conception of the God of Israel. At
    most, such a revelation would present Him as the highest power of
    all powers, the most forceful of all forces, whereas, in the Jewish
    conception, God is the free Master over His work, Whose creations do
    not escape His control. It was primarily through the cessation of the
    plague at Gods command, its cancellation, and its differentiation by
    Gods order between Egypt and Goshen that God revealed Himself. No
    other power can regain control of elemental forces, once they have
    been released.

    In this spirit the Jew celebrates the last of the days of Creation,
    the Sabbath. The non-Jewish world, in thoughtless contrast, celebrates
    the first day, Sunday. The outlook that considers the universe a
    result of natural forces can perhaps explain the Sunday of Creation,
    but it cannot explain the fact of the Sabbath of Creation. For why
    has the creation of new creatures ceased? After all, the same creative
    forces of nature still exist. That is why God established the Sabbath,
    the Shabbos with which Creation ceased, and not the days of Creation,
    as a monument to the Creator.

http://divreichaim.blogspot.com/2010/01/torah-shebaal-peh-bef
ore-matan-torah.html

by what  force do  bnai yisrael listen to moshe.....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100120/76184af3/attachment-0001.htm>

The Rema from SA, EH 21:5 does not permit a sponge bath of the body if you
see the lashon of the Mechaber it is clear that rechitzah refers to panav
yadav veraglav (face hands and feet) see for example GRA 20 who explains
that this was a custom of servants and maids the example given is Avigail
washing Adoniyah's feet.

Either way it should be clear from Beis Shmuel and Chelkas Mechokek that whoever's yetzer hara will be aroused must distance himself from this.

Lets not get carried away folks :)

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135

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

My point was that just like there are things which the Rema permitted (e.g. 
getting a sponge bath from a non-Jewish woman) and which are forbidden 
today, so too there can be things which he forbad which might be OK today.

Ben

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/927305de/attachment-0001.htm>

For Halachic applications of Baal Tashchis see Piskei Tshuvos, Simon 171.

or point your browser to:
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/balTashchis.pdf

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: Liron Kopinsky <liron.kopin...@gmail.com>




>>  2) If someone holds by a particular chuma - say an  Ashkenazi who only
eats glatt meat. If someone gives them non-glatt meat as a  gift are they
allowed to throw it out or is it Bal Tashchit?...

3) If  someone is very health-conscious with their food and get given
a gift of a  pack of hotdogs, can they throw it out or is it Bal
Tashcht?   <<

 
 
 
>>>>>
If you don't like the food?  If you're allergic?  If it has a  hechsher you 
don't rely on?   If it's not cholov Yisrael, or not  yashan, or it's 
shmitta produce from a heter mechira farm?  You could  spin out a million 
scenarios but I'm not sure it makes a difference /why/ you  don't want or can't use 
the gift.  
 
I am a few avodah's behind so please excuse me if somebody has already  
anticipated me.
 
Here is the solution to them all:  put the dubious product at the  back of 
your fridge and forget about it for a few  months.   When it grows 
penicillin, you can toss it with a clear  conscience.  This is mutar.  The fridge is 
not even necessary, it's  just a convenient place to store food nobody is 
ever going to eat.  At  least that's what I mainly use /my/ fridge for.....
 
 

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

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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100121/ee47cfcd/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: Micha Berger _micha@aishdas.org_ (mailto:mi...@aishdas.org) 


>> R' Yaakov Moshe haKohein Lessin, the Slabodka alumnus who was  mashgiach 
at
YU (short bio  <http://www.yu.edu/riets/index.aspx?id=28202>), famously
never finished  a dessert. As an exercise in self-discipline, there was
always a bit of cake  (or whatever) left on his plate. <<





>>>>>>>
 
 
This is a common minhag -- to always leave a little something on the plate, 
 never eat the last crumb.  Is it a chassidishe minhag?  I don't  know.   I 
grew up with it.   It's based on a pasuk somewhere  that I can't quite 
retrieve from my memory box -- something about thanking  Hashem because you have 
enough food to be satisfied and even have food left  over.  It is 
considered unrefined to eat every last crumb on your  plate.  It suggests that you 
would really like more food and are not  satisfied.  It is rude to the hostess 
(if you're a guest) and seems  ungrateful to Hashem.
 
Of course leaving too /much/ on the plate is also rude to the hostess as  
well as wasteful....
 
 
We Jews have remarkable guilt mechanisms in place for every occasion, don't 
 we?
 
 

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



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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20100121/230391b2/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 22
**************************************

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..."