Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 75

Wed, 17 Mar 2010

• 1. Re: timtum halev (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Ilanot Tobot/Tobim (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: More on the Seder (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 4. Re: More on the Seder (Micha Berger)
• 5. Timtum HaLev (Zvi Lampel)
• 6. What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Meir Rabi)
• 7. Re: The Yeshivas and the Seder (Ben Waxman)
• 8. several questions (Tal Moshe Zwecker)
• 9. Re: timtum halev (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Zev Sero)
• 11. Is Hand Matza Matza? What does the ShaAr HaTziYun Mean - It can be used for the Mitzvah of Matza? (Meir Rabi)
• 12. Re: several questions (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 13. Re: several questions (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: The Yeshivas and the Seder (Allan Engel)
• 15. Re: Timtum HaLev (Micha Berger)
• 16. popcorn on Pesach (Jonathan Baker)

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:08:00PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: As I thought I said before, I don't think that these rishonim thought it 
: was a metaphysical issue, I think they thought that non-kosher food is 
: physically different and produces milk which is physically different, 
: and that there is a presumption that a non-Jew eats non-kosher food.

Sorry for missing that. Now what about the implications...

Given that they thought there was a physical difference in the milk that
caused a character change,
and
Given that we could prove there is no such difference (assuming we can),
and
Given that it isn't taken as an issur, but as pragmatic advice...

would the whole concept be ignorable as based on a mistake in metzi'us?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Nusach Toedelheim P. 291
    Uvara vo briyyos tovos v'ilanos tovim

Thus, proving the Yekke Nusach is indeed "lo chaseir b'olamo davar". ;-)

ZP
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RMBerger writes: 

<Acording to R' Hai Gaon, they were darshening Yetzi'as Mitzrayim in order
to come up with a pesaq on backing Bar Kochva. All 5 end up being among
BK's supporters.

(snip)

All that said, I don't know if this R' Hai Gaon nor the nusakh "Amar
lahem R. Elazar ben Azaria harei ani k'ven shivim shana" (which REMT
brings) is a raayah for REMT. After all, they were up all night. But
the mitzvah is when "pesach matzah umaror munachim lefanekha" (kein
tihyeh lanu!). Perhaps they switched from the "ki yish'alkha binekha"
format of sippur to something more lomdish after chatzos?>
     Rav Hai's comment, as quoted, doesn't mean that they were not m'kayeim
     the mitzva of SYM by their darshening, even if its purpose was a
     practical one, rather than merely historical. The m'sader of the
     haggada apparently considers it a kiyum of SYM, since it is quoted in
     support of "afilu kulanu chachamim . . . mitzva aleinu l'sapeir . . 
     v'chol hamarbeh . . . harei zeh m'shubach."
     As for the "pesach, matza umaror," it is not clear that they must be
     present to fulfill the mitzva; from the context, they might be the
     trigger for the mitzva (as opposed to Rosh Chodesh or mib'od yom),
     which then continues even after all three have been eaten.  As for the
     matzo being "lechem she'onin alav d'varim harbei," that may well be a
     condition on the matzo -- that it be present when maggid is said --
     rather than its presence being a condition for the fulfillment of SYM.
 <This explanation of what they were up all night studying would explain
"Raboseinu, higi'ah zeman Qeri'as Shema shel Shacharis". Who would have
the temerity to correct 5 of the greatest rabbanim of all history on a
matter every Jew knows? And why there were talmidim who could see that it
was sunrise, rather than being with their rabbeim who couldn't? Rather,
it was the talmidim stationed as lookouts against the Romans were the ones
who informed their rabbeim. The rabbeim were in a closed room, in hiding.>
     Lav davka.  If talmidim see their rabbeim involved in Torah to a point
     where they unaware that they are in danger of violating a mitzva
     overes, it would be incumbent on the students to point it out,
     regardless of the stature of the chachamim. 

<As REMT also writes:
: If the story cited is accurate, perhaps the learning being done by
: the guests was unrelated to Pesach and its mitzvos. The "proliferation
: of lomdishe haggados," on the other hand, is meant to elicit discussion
: which is part and parcel of sippur.

Certainly R' Hai Gaon's notion was in the morning, thus the lookouts at
Shema time.>
     Again, lav davka.  If they were noheig to daven k'vasikin, "higia z'man" would be before haneitz.  Sfter all, they didn't say "higia sof z'man."
EMT 

 
____________________________________________________________
Hotel
Hotel pics, info and virtual tours.  Click here to book a hotel online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=om2C-DBQ9j01edVBtk7lwwAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATRAAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/90029a91/attachment-0001.htm>

Thinking about it more, it would seem there are 3 distinct pieces to
Maggid as described in the Mishnah (Pesachim 10:4):

1- Q&A, where the answer is lefi daato shel ben and maskhilin begenus
   umesaymim beshevakh (whether that's Avadim Hayinu or Bisechilah
   Ovedei AZ)

2- VEDOREISH mei"Arami Oveid avi"...

3- Then we have the next words (10:5), Rabban Gamliel's "kol shelo amar
   3 devarim eilu". This is actually presented in the mishnah as tied
   to the first part of Hallel. It lists the three mitzvos, and then
   "Bekhol dor vador chayav adam lir'os/lehar'os es atzmo... Lefikhakh
   anachnu chayavim.."

   IOW, the mitzos are part of lir'os / lehar'os which necessitates
   Hallel at night. It's all one topic.

As RAEK notes:
    *Vayar* Yisrael es hayad hagedolah asher asah H' beMitzrayim
    *Vayir'u* haam es H'
    *vayaaminu* baH' uvMoshe avdo.
    Az yashir Moshe uVenei Yisrael...
Re'iyah leads to yir'ah leads to shirah.

But in any case, it would appear that Arami oveid avi requires derashah,
not just hagadah. In fact, we could summarize the chiyuvim as hagadah,
derashah and re'iyah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

Timtum HaLev

A factor to consider in this discussion:

The Drashos HaRan (#5, I think) writes (regarding the imperative to 
follow the Sages):

''We believe that everything the Torah warns us against is indeed 
harmful to us, and creates a negative imprint on our souls, even though 
we may not know the mechanics behind that process. Therefore, if the 
consensus of the Sages is that something [actually tamei] is tahor--so 
what? Won't it harm us and produce its natural effect, whatever it 
is?...How could the nature of that thing change itself just because if 
the Sages' consensus that it is permissable? This is imposssible short 
of a miracle.

(He answers that the spiritual gains in obeying the mitzva of following 
the Sages counteracts the harmful consequences of the rare instances 
where the Sages may be wrong.) The point relevant to this discussion is 
the Ran's presumption that anything forbidden (things or actions) 
carries direct spiritual damage regardless of intent. Also relevant, of 
course, is the role of innocent intent (if one may generalize from 
intent of following the Sages--maybe not?) of counteracting the damage.

Zvi Lampel

Rabbi Rich said - The premise seems to be Since it's not Hametz therefore it
must be OK as matzaas Mitzvah.
Elu yochichu: What about matzah ashira? Matzah M'vusheles? Rebaked matzah
meal in the form  of a matzah ball?
While they're not Hametz they're still not available for the mitzva!
It's not necessarily black-and-white - although I have no clue as to the
ShZ's cheshash here.

Yes Rabbi Rich has hit the nail on the head. There seems to be no argument
to explain how this Matza is anything like  Ashira, Mevusheles or a Kneidel.
So what secret thought is harboured by the acharonim quoted by the
ShHaTziyun, to suggest that this Matza baked in the ashes is NOT Matza?


R Z Sero said - Sun-baked loaves are not bread, and one cannot say hamotzi
on them or use them for the mitzvah of matzah.  (Yet another proof, if one
were necessary, against the children's story of our ancestors taking unbaked
dough out of Egypt and the sun baking it into matzos on their shoulders.)
 Ka mashma lan that damper is not in that category, that even though it's an
inferior kind of bread it still counts as bread.

R Zev is referring to the need for Matza to be baked by FIRE. But one can
hardly suggest that the hot coals and ashes of the fire are not fire.

meir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100317/1f368d45/attachment-0001.htm>

Perhaps if one learns the halachot in the context of Sippur Yetziat
Mitrayim. But if one gets into a discussion of some Mishna Bruria about this
or that and do not relate it to what is going on, then I can see the
arguement that those people are missing the point.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
>
> > [the rabbi] was upset one year when a group of guests at his
> > seder table were learning rather than paying attention to
> > the proceedings.
>
> It's not clear what you mean by "learning". Inattention to the proceedings
certainly sounds rude, but isn't it true that learning Hilchos Pesach counts
as Sippur Yetzias Mitrayim in this context?
aishdas.org

What is the purpose of the bride wearing a heavy veil (dech tikel) ?

Tznius 

it is considered not tznius for people including the chasan to see and gaze
at the bride (since everyone is looking towards during the chuppah I know
many rebbes who wont officiate or accept brachos at weddings if the veil is
see thru)

The Taamei HaMinhagim quotes the Maharil as the source that this is similar to Rivka who covered herself when Yitzchak approached

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
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
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here: 
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim 
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/a9c41407/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> Sorry for missing that. Now what about the implications...
> <snip>
> would the whole concept be ignorable as based on a mistake in metzi'us?
>   
(a) I don't know how you would prove it wrong and
(b) as far as I know no one of my acquaintance uses a wet nurse of any 
religion

so I'd guess that it's moot.

David Riceman

Meir Rabi wrote:

> R Z Sero said - Sun-baked loaves are not bread, and one cannot say 
> hamotzi on them or use them for the mitzvah of matzah.  (Yet another 
> proof, if one were necessary, against the children's story of our 
> ancestors taking unbaked dough out of Egypt and the sun baking it into 
> matzos on their shoulders.)  Ka mashma lan that damper is not in that 
> category, that even though it's an inferior kind of bread it still 
> counts as bread.
> 
> R Zev is referring to the need for Matza to be baked by FIRE. But one 
> can hardly suggest that the hot coals and ashes of the fire are not fire.

How do you know?  They're waste heat, so this is an afiyah pechusa.
What's wrong with sun-baked bread?  That it's not a derech afiyah.
Baking in waste heat is also not derech afiyah, so how do we know that
the same din doesn't apply.  Ka mashma lan that it doesn't, and the
matzos are still hamotzi and still kosher for the mitzvah.

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

If two twin pats of hand made Matza dough are separated, one is baked in an
oven and the other is freeze dried after which it is 'toasted' with a blow
torch - would anyone be able to tell the difference between the twins when
they are both at room temperature?

I suspect not.

Is the freeze dried brother Matza?

I suspect not.  Dehydrated dough is not Matza

Dehydrated dough may not be Chamets but it certainly is not Matza.

Slow baking, i.e. baking in the hot coals and ash of a fire may not be
hot/fast enough to be considered baked, perhaps it is just dehydrated.

It is this suspicion that is addressed by the ShaAr Hatziyun, that it is NOT
just dehydrated but is in fact BAKED and may be used for the Mitzvah of
eating Matza. If it was dehydrated then it is would NOT be Matza.

Today hand Matza is manufactured to be baked in as short a time as possible.
The ChIsh says that the test of dough being stretchy and forming threads
when pulled apart, (DIGRESSION which the MB says is not an effective test
when the Matza is cooled down - can anyone explain this to me? the dough can
be thread forming when hot but not when cold?) is not applicable to the even
the raw dough we use these days.
So we add as little water as possible to the hand made Matza dough; we roll
it as thin as possible and we bake it in as hot an oven as possible. People
who should know have told me that the ovens are heated to in excess of 600C
and 1300F.
This is all done in order to 'bake' the Matza as quickly as possible. This
is the Hiddur being pursued. Bake it BEFORE it has a chance to become
Chametz.

Here's a question: how do we know such Matza dough is baked by this process
perhaps - as in fact it appears to me to be the case - this is nothing more
than instantaneously dehydrated dough. It may not be Chametz but it
certainly is not Matza.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100317/81905f79/attachment-0001.htm>

RETurkel asked

<1. Why is av haracamim not said on the shabbat of the 4 parshiyot.
Obviously not connected to tachanun since Tzidchadcha is said>
     Apparently, it's not the date, it is the occasion -- which is
     commemorated only at the morning t'filla, not at mincha time.  It's in
     the same category as Shabbos M'vorchim: Av Harachamim is not said,
     Tzidkas'cha is.
     
<2. With regard to wearing hats - why do some were hats during the
dinner at a wedding and even while dancing (and sweating). One is
not saying beracha (independent of recent link that one
doesnt a hat while davening)>
     At least in Litvishe circles, this is a fairly recent hanhaga. (I
     hesitate to dignify it as a minhag.)  Fifty-two years ago, I was
     present at a wedding attended by Reb Aharon, Reb Moshe, Reb Ya'akov
     and Rav Gifter, and all ate and danced while wearing yarmulkes.  I am
     convinced that wearing the hat began because in the summer, when there
     was no coat to check, it was easier to wear the hat than have the
     bother of using the coat room -- and the talmidim saw, and thought it
     was a hiddur of some kind.

<3.. What is the purpose of the bride wearing a heavy veil (dech tikel)>
     The dektuch, to the best of my knowledge, was a chassidishe practice.
     It may be intended as a matter of tz'nius, to prevent gazing at the
     kalla's face.  I doubt that the reason was hinuma.  The hinuma was
     apparently worn during the meal, when a kalla whose eyes were covered
     might drowse momentarily.	It is difficult to picture her dozing off
     during the chuppa -- which is the only time the dektuch is worn. 
EMT
____________________________________________________________
Diet Help
Cheap Diet Help Tips. Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=jB-vCuE4kf4QQEdwgp2HlQAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYQAAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100316/fcd69d19/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:25:02PM +0000, R Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:                                                         I am convinced
: that wearing the hat began because in the summer, when there was no coat
: to check, it was easier to wear the hat than have the bother of using
: the coat room -- and the talmidim saw, and thought it was a hiddur of
: some kind.

My own theory (and not mutually exclusive):
Since hats and jackets are worn every Shabbos and Yom Tov, they've come
to represent formalwear within the community.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

"Ve'af ato emor lo k'hilchos hapesach..."

Surely the halachic minutiae are part of the Sippur?

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Perhaps if one learns the halachot in the context of Sippur Yetziat
> Mitrayim. But if one gets into a discussion of some Mishna Bruria about
> this
> or that and do not relate it to what is going on, then I can see the
> arguement that those people are missing the point.
>
> Ben
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
> >
> > > [the rabbi] was upset one year when a group of guests at his
> > > seder table were learning rather than paying attention to
> > > the proceedings.
> >
> > It's not clear what you mean by "learning". Inattention to the
> proceedings
> certainly sounds rude, but isn't it true that learning Hilchos Pesach
> counts
> as Sippur Yetzias Mitrayim in this context?
> aishdas.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100316/e56bdad7/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 05:59:27PM -0400, Zvi Lampel wrote:
: The Drashos HaRan (#5, I think) writes (regarding the imperative to
: follow the Sages):
...
: (He answers that the spiritual gains in obeying the mitzva of following
: the Sages counteracts the harmful consequences of the rare instances
: where the Sages may be wrong.) The point relevant to this discussion
: is the Ran's presumption that anything forbidden (things or actions)
: carries direct spiritual damage regardless of intent. Also relevant,
: of course, is the role of innocent intent (if one may generalize from
: intent of following the Sages--maybe not?) of counteracting the damage.

But this Ran is about sechar va'onesh, and explicitly not about other
metaphysical mechanics. Personally, I would argue that the Ran and the
Ikkarim (his talmid, who describes a very similar hashkafah) don't
actually believe there is such a thing.

It's interesting, because implied is the notion that Chazal could be wrong
in an Emes sense (permitting something dangerous), but they define Din
and following Din is of such value as to compensate for not conforming
to Emes.

In general, the Ran and the Ikkarim are sources I lean on heavily in my
booklet for Yamim Noraim, the section on teshuvah, "baasher hu sham",
and sechar va'onesh. This is of a piece with the Ran's general
mehalekh. E.g. from http://www.aishdas.org/10YemeiTeshuvah.pdf pg 4:
    If one puts a cup in the sink, and the cup doesn't fill as it ought,
    it could be fore at least one of two basic reasons. The first is
    that the cup's mouth isn't properly in the stream; this is the
    assumption that the utensil is fine, but not properly connected to
    the Source. Taking this approach to the human condition is suggested
    by the notion of the Ran (Derashos haRan ch. 10) and his student R'
    Yosef Albo (Seifer haIkarim 4:13), who hold that the effects of sin
    are to dirty the soul and that the punishment of sin is that barrier
    blocking the soul's access to Divine Good.

    The implication is that the sinful soul itself is fine, but it
    made for itself a layer blocking it from the Light. And in fact,
    the Ramchal (in the opening paragraphs of Mesilas Yesharim), among
    many others, articulates this as the goal we seek to accomplish
    with mitzvos, that they are acts that bring us closer to G d. In
    contemporary terminology, we would call this a deveiqus (/dbq/ =
    attach) approach.

    The other approach would be to assume the cup is flawed, perhaps
    its mouth could be widened, or there is a hole to repair. In this
    opinion, the purpose of life is to give us opportunities to perfect
    the self. Apparently this is the position of Rabbeinu Yona....

Or from the Ikkarim (quoting myself, pg 2):
    The Ikkarim describes gehennom a natural consequence of one's
    actions. He writes that the "'fires' of gehennom" are those of
    shame. (Ikkarim 4:33) Rabbeinu Yonah compares a sinful soul to a
    sick person. Just as a sick person suffers from his illness, the
    sinner suffers from his sins. (Sha'arei Teshuvah 4:2)

    R. Chaim Vilozhiner shows the same idea from a gemara in Eiruvin.
    "The wicked deepen gehennom for themselves." (Eiruvin 19a) What
    you get in the World to Come is the consequence of the mitzvos you
    do. R. Chaim takes this one step further. Each sin, he writes, causes
    a flaw in your soul. In true Divine Mercy, the punishment is both
    the natural consequence of this flaw and a key tool for healing it.
    (Derech HaChaim 1:21).

    The Ramchal writes, "Sin detracts from one's perfection." (Derech
    Hashem 1:4:5) Rav Eliyahu E. Dessler explains the expression
    "aveirah goreres aveirah -- one sin is followed by [another] sin"
    by saying that after repeatedly doing a given sin, it becomes part
    of one's nature; so that no conscious decision is required next time
    the situation arises. (Michtav MeiEliyahu vol 1 pp 113-114)

    We read on Rosh HaShanah that when Hagar and Yishm'ael were kicked
    out of Avraham's home, and were on the verge of death from thirst
    in the desert, G-d gave them a well. Yishma'el was not judged for
    the evil he did that made him unacceptable to Avraham's home, or the
    evil he will do, and his children still do. Yishma'el was repaid in
    terms of "ba'asher hu sham -- as he was there." (Bereishis 21:17)
    The way your soul stands at that moment is the direct cause of reward
    or punishment.

    Notice that this implies a major statement. We are not judged for
    what we did, we pay the consequences for who we are. ...

The question before us, though, isn't the existence of this kind
of metaphysical causality, it's whether there are other mechanisms
(in systems of machashavah other than Chassidus). As I wrote earlier,
I think the Nefesh haChaim explicitly excludes them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

PS: If the above sounds to mechanistic, almost removing HQBH from the
whole concept of sechar va'onesh, I have an essay in that booklet (pp
9-11) about how the difference between this kind of causal view and a
"Hashem responded" view is purely in the eyes of those who are lemata
min hazeman. In actuality, both describe the same theodicy -- to the
best people can understand it.

-- 
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

So I gotta question.  I look at most online sites that talk about pesach,
and I note that popcorn is generally considered assur for Ashkenazim.

My question is why:  why should we outlaw air-popped popcorn, or microwave-
popped popcorn, if it takes way less than 18 minutes to pop the popcorn?
We don't outlaw all wheat products, for instance, just those that involve 
water being in contact with the wheat grains or flour.  Which is not the
case by popcorn.

Or is it just that most people don't think about it, or don't want to 
think about it, and it's easier to asser than to permit specific cases?
Which seems a silly excuse on Pesach, which is all about limited approved
cooking methods.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjba...@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 75
**************************************

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..."