Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 18

Wed, 02 Feb 2011

• 1. Secular knowledge (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Vayhi bachatzi halayla (Gershon Dubin)
• 3. bracha on tallit (LReich)
• 4. Re: Brain Death (David Riceman)
• 5. Can a Sefer Torah Be Donated or Lent to a Reform Temple? (Prof. Levine)
• 6. The Netziv on "draft dodgers" (Doron Beckerman)
• 7. Re: Secular knowledge (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: The Netziv on "draft dodgers" (Rich, Joel)
• 9. Re: IDF Conversions (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: yes he did kill him (Aryeh Herzig)
• 11. Re: yes we did kill him (Zev Sero)
• 12. secular knowledge (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 13. Chanukah Min haTorah? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Brain Death (Micha Berger)

At 06:35 AM 2/1/2011, R. Saul Z. Newman wrote:

>http://revach.net/avodah/o
>lam-hatorah/Parshas-Truma-Maharsham-A-Talmid-Chochom-Must-Have-Worldly-
>Wisdom/4950
>so if anyone says the gdolim lack secular knowledge, he is really
>impugning their tora learning.....

There it says

The Maharsham (Tcheiles Mordechai) explains that these seven branches 
represent the seven secular wisdoms of the world. The Menora 
represents Torah and a talmid chochom must know all these wisdoms. If 
each branch was developed separately and then added to the menora, 
one would think that a talmid chochom must study each one of these 
subjects independently in order to complete his wisdom.

Hashem commanded Moshe to make the seven branches by shaping it out 
of one piece, the Torah. One must study Torah, and from plumbing the 
depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world, if he is 
willing to work hard and bang and shape himself.


----------
Question:  If this indeed the case, namely, that "from plumbing the 
depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world,"  then 
why is there no mention in the GRA's sefer Aiyel Meshulash of Torah 
sources for the mathematics he presents?  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110201/92ff816f/attachment-0001.htm>

The answer to that is actually pretty clear (I didn't yet discuss this with
RYR) that Rus/Boaz was not an instance of downfall, or at least reverses,
of our enemies, as are the others.


Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

---------- Original Message ----------
From: "Poppers, Michael" <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
To: "'avo...@lists.aishdas.org'" <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Cc: "'gershon.du...@juno.com'" <gershon.du...@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Vayhi bachatzi halayla
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 00:02:58 -0500

In Avodah V28n16, RGD asked:
> My feeling is that not all of the events described in the piyut said
> at the seder Vayhi Bachatzi Halayla, were at midnight.
> &#65533;Avrohom Avinu's victory over the 4 kings, and makas
> bechoros, definitely were, but such events as Haman's writing his
> letters, Belshazar's downfall, Hashem's appearing to Lavan, etc. are
> at night, but not necessarily midnight. Can anyone
> confirm/deny/comment? <
One can also ask RYReisman's implied (from his shiur this past motzoei
Shabbos on the subject of n'qamah) Q on the piyut: why isn't the incident
with Rus reclining next to Boaz (see Rus 3:8) mentioned....

All the best from
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110201/b705256c/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Elozor Reich

I remember hearing from R' Moshe Schneider (of Frankfurt & London Yeshivah fame) that when
he wed the adopted daughter of the Chafetz Chaim, he had a Shaaloh about a brocho. (Can't
remember precisely what) He consulted the CC, who replied "I'll have to look in the Mishnah
Brurah!

This gells neatly with stories about the CC I was privileged to hear from the last Rav of Radin
in Yerushlaim in the 1950s, who told me that the CC used to ask him Shaalos, which he looked
up in the MB.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110201/67860c6e/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:

<<My point is that there are two, or perhaps three issues here:

1- Chai vs meis, which for all we know may not be a physical issue.<snip>

2- Diagnosis --<snip>

2b- Chazaqah --<snip>

I still think the machloqes is on the first level.>>

And I think it's on the second level.

An interesting methodological question is whether we can find evidence
about which of these opinions is correct.  I tried to do that with the
example of the drowned husband, arguing that, according to your opinion,
that is equally appropriate as a definition.  You responded

<<that's a
different question.

Someone who almost definitely drowned is meis by whatever that word means.
The question of being very specific in our definitions isn't the central
one to knowing whether or not this woman is an almanah.>>

The problem with this argument is, again, the tshuvah of RMF which RAM
cited.	He argues there that, by definition, someone who has been
decapitated is dead, and cites ma'amarei Hazal as evidence.  According to
you, what's the point?	Someone who has been decapitated is also "meis by
whatever that word means".  And in Hazal's time someone whose heart had
stopped beating for a sufficient length of time was
"meis by whatever that word means".

If you insist that Hazal must have defined death somewhere, you need a method to distinguish definition from description, and you need to justify that method.

Incidentally, in my previous post I should have cited Shlomoh HaMelech (Koheles 3:19 - - "k'mos zeh kein mos zeh") rather than RMF.

David Riceman

I am sure that anyone who subscribes to RSRH's Austritt will answer a 
resounding "No!" to this question.

Many years ago I asked Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L, about my speaking in 
a Conservative temple.  Rav Schwab was a very wise man and knew me 
somewhat. He replied, "I will not pasken for you. I hold that one is 
not even allowed to set foot in such a place. Anything that you do 
like this strengthens them, and one should not be doing this. I know 
that Reb Moshe permits Orthodox people to teach in the talmud Torahs 
of Reform and Conservative temples. I do not."

Given this, I have no doubt that if he were here for us to ask him 
the would say that one should not lend or donate anything to a Reform 
temple.  YL

Harchev Davar to Terumah (Shmos 25:20):

[This piece appears only in the back of the older (Vaad Hayeshivot) edition,
but is in the body of the newer (Volozhin 5759) edition]

"It is the will of the king that all who are fit for war become soldiers,
and one who dodges this (mishtamet mizeh), although it is in accordance with
the laws of the kingdom, wherein he is not obligated to be a soldier, but
nevertheless that is not the primary will of the king. So too, the will of
Hashem is that all Jews who are fit for toil in Torah should become Bnei
Torah, and one who dodges this, even though he has reasons that bring him to
this, nevertheless he is called one who is not performing the will of
Hashem, both in Berachos and Bava Basra. Even though there are those
involved in Avodah (Temple service and prayer), nevertheless since they were
not toiling in Torah as they were when they were in the desert, this is not
called doing the will of G-d."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110201/741c36c4/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 06:39:15AM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Question:  If this indeed the case, namely, that "from plumbing the  
> depths of the Torah he can know all the wisdom of the world,"  then why 
> is there no mention in the GRA's sefer Aiyel Meshulash of Torah sources 
> for the mathematics he presents?  YL

The Gra didn't write Ayil MeShulash, he pushed R' Barukh Shklover to
do it. The book was finally completed by R' Menachem Man (R' Barukh's
son) and R' Simchah Ziml (grandson). C.f. this 1833 edition title page
<http://books.google.com/books?id=LeVDAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PT4#v=onepage>. I know
later editions attribute it to the Gra, but that's simply incorrect.

I cannot tell you if the Gra, had he written it himself, would have been
able to find the Torah sources. However, since this is clearly an ability
one finds attributed to the Gra, the CI, and other yechidei segulah,
I don't understand the usability of the idea.

It's nice hashkafah to say that all of the other wisdoms come from
the middle trunk of the menorah, the Torah. (And that all the neiros
should face the middle neir, applying all those wisdoms back into what
is ultimately the service of Torah.) But if only the most brilliant
can actually derive the other wisdoms from Torah, this *increases*
the desirability for the rest of us to learn them directly. The direct
opposite of the Maharsham's conclusion.

And I think that's exactly a lesson RSRH takes from the menorah, no?
Quoting CW (III, sec: The Menorah, ch: 5 - The Tree and the Branches, pg 217
-- and you really must see the whole chapter at
<http://books.google.com/books?id=_821HGqz74QC&;pg=RA2-PA217#v=onepage>):
    ...
    Let us now examine the individual components of the menorah. First,
    the fact that there are seven lamps implies that the spirit nurtured
    here is not restricted, so that one lamp would have been sufficient
    to represent it, but that this spirit encompasses a great diversity
    of elements. If we recall the symbolic significance of the number
    seven, which we already have noted in the essay on milah, we will
    see at once that this is not simply a random number but is meant to
    signify the depth of all spiritual perception and moral volition. If
    we consider the lamps more closely, we will note that this character
    of diversity is joined by the ideal of utmost harmony and unity. We
    can see that the lamp in the center turns its light to shine upward,
    or straight ahead, while the lamps with their lights on either side,
    to the right and to the left, shine toward the center lamp. All the
    lamps are, accordingly, united in the same direction. Thus, the light
    in the center represents the ultimate goal of all the other lights
    on the menorah; or, that object upon which this central light shines
    is the goal common to all the other lights on the menorah. These
    lights, in turn, are borne by six branches. However, none of these
    has a separate base or shaft of its own. Rather, they all stand
    upon one base; they all have one root, and one shaft supports them
    all. Indeed, a more detailed examination will show that, as specified
    also in Scripture, the shaft on which the center light rests and which
    rises straight upward from the root stock, is the menorah itself,
    from which starting only at midpoint the other six branches sprout
    forth upward in pairs on either side.

    Our attention is repeatedly called to the fact that these six branches
    emanate from the center shaft. Thus the light in the middle is not
    only the ultimate goal of all the lights, which serves to unite
    them all, but also the starting point from which all other lights
    emanate. All the lights go forth from the one central shaft and
    all of them together strive toward the one central light. Thus we
    must interpret the presence of seven lights not in terms of simply
    seven, but in terms of one and six, as the single entity from which
    six lights come forth, and within which these six eventually come
    together again.

    In our essays on milah and tsitsith we described the number six as
    symbolizing the physical world of creation, with the number one the
    seventh representing the One Being Who stands outside the physical
    world, yet remains linked to it. Thus the number seven stands for the
    One God and for the godly elements that emanate from Him. We would
    therefore have to interpret the one central shaft and its one central
    light as symbolizing the spirit of cognition and volition that aspires
    toward God, the spirit that strives to recognize and to serve Him.

    As for the six branches with their six lights, we are to see them
    as symbolizing mans spiritual endeavor of cognition and volition
    that are directed toward the physical world. But then it is the
    one central shaft itself that branches out into these six lateral
    branches; the six lateral branches all emanate from the same central
    shaft and, with their six lateral lights turn in the direction of
    the one central light.

    This teaches us that the concept of the recognition and service
    of God is not an abstraction, or a concept isolating us from the
    general knowledge and aspirations of the outside world. Rather,
    it is a concept that is fully activated in endeavors to understand
    and build the world. Thus, no motive of thought and deed is alien
    to God and His Service, because both source and goal are rooted in
    God and give basis and sanctity to thought and action. All that is
    truly moral and spiritual has only one base, one root, and one goal:
    God is its beginning, God its end, tkhilat khokhmah yirat hashem
    (Prov. 9:10) and reishit khokhma yirat hashem (Ps. 11:10). The fear
    of God is the beginning, and the crowning glory of all wisdom is the
    fear of God. The text clearly stresses the distinction between the
    one central shaft the candlestick proper and the lateral branches;
    - vasitah mnorat zahav vshishah kanim yotzim mitzidehhah. But
    the text repeatedly speaks of the lateral branches themselves,
    dividing them into two sections: Three branches of the candlestick
    out of its one side and three branches of the candlestick out of
    its other side. This distinction is further defined by showing that
    two branches each project from the same point on the candlestick
    above one knob; vkaphtor takhat shnei ha kanim mimehnu vgomer. In
    this manner the central seventh light, the light of Spirit, that
    is turned toward God also dominates the physical world (symbolized
    by the number six). By turning its light toward the physical world,
    it seems to support a dichotomy between the spiritual and physical,
    which, however, is reconciled by the harmonious reunion of all the
    lateral lights at their central point of origin.

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

"It is the will of the king that all who are fit for war become soldiers,
and one who dodges this (mishtamet mizeh), although it is in accordance
with the laws of the kingdom, wherein he is not obligated to be a soldier,
but nevertheless that is not the primary will of the king. So too, the will
of Hashem is that all Jews who are fit for toil in Torah should become Bnei
Torah, and one who dodges this, even though he has reasons that bring him
to this, nevertheless he is called one who is not performing the will of
Hashem, both in Berachos and Bava Basra. Even though there are those
involved in Avodah (Temple service and prayer), nevertheless since they
were not toiling in Torah as they were when they were in the desert, this
is not called doing the will of G-d."
========================================
Fascinating definition of Bnai Torah excluding those involved in Avodah. 
See here for another take: http://vbm-torah.or
g/archive/values/14values.htm
 JEWISH VALUES IN A CHANGING WORLD    By Harav Yehuda Amital zt"l   LECTURE #14: OCCUPYING ONESELF WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY \
KT
Joel Rich
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/20110201/c3dc7bea/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Chaim Manaster wrote:

> some in kiruv find a special imperative to be "mekarev" such
> "zera Yisrael" to geirus. But I know of no such halachic notion
> for consideration in geirus. I would appreciate any broadening
> of my horizons in this regard that anyone can offer from sifrei
> rishonim, achronim or tshuvot.

IIRC, if a Jewish man has children from a non-Jewish woman, and then they convert, he *is* considered as their father for purposes of Mitzvas P'ru Ur'vu.

My personal feeling is that this strongly suggests some sort of familial connection, all other halachos notwithstanding.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Shocking Refinance Secret Discovered
If you owe under $729k, you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d484939c5e9c41d75st06vuc

>"But the thesis that a person can be both a "nevi sheker" *and* a true
prophet at the same time, IOW that Hashem might actually reveal Himself
to someone and give him a false nevuah in order to test us, is disturbing.
Zev Sero"

Sorry to disturb you, Zev, but open up to Melachim I 18   13-23.
Please read carefully.

I have always struggled to understand these Pessukim.
The story what ChaZa"L call the Spirit of Navoth.
It wasn't a test.
Nevertheless, it was a prophecy initiated by HKBH, yet a false one.

Aryeh Herzig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/2560b851/attachment-0001.htm>

On 2/02/2011 5:46 AM, Aryeh Herzig wrote:

>> But the thesis that a person can be both a "nevi sheker" *and* a true
>> prophet at the same time, IOW that Hashem might actually reveal Himself
>> to someone and give him a false nevuah in order to test us, is
>> disturbing.

> Sorry to disturb you, Zev, but open up to Melachim I 18   13-23
> I have always struggled to understand these Pessukim.
> The story what ChaZa"L call the Spirit of Navoth.
> It wasn't a test.
> Nevertheless, it was a prophecy initiated by HKBH, yet a false one.

I have no problem understanding that one, any more than I do with Hashem
hardening Par`oh's heart, or Hashem's disastrous messages in the battle
of Ai, and in the civil war with Binyamin.  The nevuah was "true", it
just wasn't good.  Hashem wanted us to fight those battles, and to lose.
What's different here is the idea that Hashem would send a true prophet
with a message that He *doesn't* want us to accept.  What is the navi
himself supposed to think?  Is he supposed to listen to his own nevu'ah?
Surely not.  He's commanded "lo tishma" just as we are.  So how can he
relay it to us?

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

http://parsha.blogspot.com/2011/02/should-one-study-secular-subjects.
html  
a followup to the maharsham's pshat.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110202/22961f92/attachment-0001.htm>

So, daf Y-mi yomi got to Bikkurim, and I started wondering...

Bikkurim brought before Sukkos are brought with qeri'ah (saying "Arami
oveid avi..."), those brought between Sukkos and Chanukah are brought
without qeri'ah, and after that, anything designated bikkurim for that
year couldn't be brought. (You just let it rot.) See Bikkurim 1:6.

So, the date of 25 Kislev has halachic significance mideOraisa.

Does this mean that the Chashmonaim were more interested in lighting
shemen tahor rather than relying on tumah huterah betzibur over giving
people a few hours to bring bikkurim?

Note also this implies a connection between Sukkos and Chanukah
that preexists Sefer haMakabiim telling us that the first Chanukah
was celebrated with 4 minim being used for hoda'ah, or Beis Shammai's
parallel between the decreasing number of parim in the musafos for Sukkos
and the number of neiros Chanukah to light.

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

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:13:54AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> RMB:
>> 1- Chai vs meis, which for all we know may not be a physical issue.<snip>
>> 2- Diagnosis --<snip>
>> 2b- Chazaqah --<snip>
>> I still think the machloqes is on the first level.>>

> And I think it's on the second level.
...

WRT the case of someone lost in mayim sheyeish lahem sof and assuming he
is dead so his wife my remarry:
>> Someone who almost definitely drowned is meis by whatever that word means.
>> The question of being very specific in our definitions isn't the central
>> one to knowing whether or not this woman is an almanah.

> The problem with this argument is, again, the tshuvah of RMF which
> RAM cited. He argues there that, by definition, someone who has been
> decapitated is dead, and cites ma'amarei Hazal as evidence. According to
> you, what's the point? Someone who has been decapitated is also "meis
> by whatever that word means". And in Hazal's time someone whose heart
> had stopped beating for a sufficient length of time was
> "meis by whatever that word means".

> If you insist that Hazal must have defined death somewhere, you need
> a method to distinguish definition from description, and you need to
> justify that method.

I am not insisting that we have a text that tells us what any of Chazal
held was the definition of misah. Actually, the only sources I know of
from chazal are Ohalos 1:5 (a/k/a 1:6) and the cases in Yuma 85a. If
anyone can point me to more, I would appreciate it.

What I am saying is that Chazal give pragmatic diagnostic tools
for determining whether one is dealing with a chai, or the body of a
meis. Now we have a wider potential toolkit. In order to know which tools
are usable and which aren't, we need to reverse-engineer a definition of
misah from those tests and how their discussion is phrased. Otherwise,
we simply can't know what we're measuring.

Ohalos says that a body (of a person or animal) with no head is meis,
even if it still is jerking around.

Yuma: How do we establish if someone died, that we must stop digging
them up on Shabbos:
    1- Breathing -- check under nose
    2- Heartbeat -- so you have to dig out the body until the navel
       to see motion

(This then gets tied to a non-diagnostic question -- a *rejected*
hava amina. The gemara asks if this machloqes related to the beraisa
where the tana qama says the baby is formed from the head, and Aba Shaul
says from the middle. (And that /everything/ was created from the middle
outward). IOW, the gemara asks whether it's head vs body because life is
about top vs middle. But as I said, that hava amina is rejected bedavqa
because the order in which something was made doesn't correlate to which
part does the central function of living.)

R' Papa's version of the machloqes is that the body is being dug out
feet first. Therefore, it becomes
    1- Don't rely on heartbeat, check breathing too
    2- Relying on heartbeat is enough

The gemara sites a pasuq -- "kol asher nishmas ruach chayim be'apav"
to probe it's about breathing. Close of sugya.

R' Papa's explanation of the machloqes fits that closing:
    1- Heartbeat is insufficient to establish a chazaqah of misah, you
       have to do the actual dianostic.
    2- Heartbeat is sufficient chazaqah.

Notice the issue I raised, that souls are spoken in idioms of breathing,
is also implied by the gemara's choice of pasuq. As an implication, one
might say: alive = the soul leaving the body, which happens when the body
breathes for the last time. But that's implication from chazal's choice
of pasuq, not their own words, nor is it *compelled* by the quoting of
that pasuq.

So, lemasqanah, what I get from Chazal is:
Ohalos: someone with no brain is dead
Yuma: someone who is not breathing is dead, with a machloqes as to whether
   you need to actually check breathing once heartbeat was ruled out


Someone who drowned is dead by all the suggested definitions. Our question
for the agunah is truly one of chazaqah: can we presume he drowned,
and thus dead (by any definition one holds)?

Chazal tell us someone who is decapitated (which is taken to include
one whose brain went to mush -- moach tefuchah) is dead. You asked how
I know this is not the definition of "meis" -- well, I know of people
(and I bet you do too <grin>) who were buried with the full knowledge of
numerous poseqim, with their brain attached and having the usual viscosity
(or even less liquidy).

Thus, whatever feature meisim have in common that makes them meisim,
the mishnah in Ohalos is obviously not giving it.

I am taking it as a diagnostic statement:
    A body in such a condition can't support chayim.
Or in the chazaqah (2b) form:
    We can at least presume that a body in such a condition isn't
    supporting chayim.

This gives us another data point as to what chayim is, by which we can
assess new tests like EEG, not being able to elicit swallowing/gagging/
couphing/corneal etc... reflexes (all brain stem functions), radionuclide
cerebral angiography, etc...

And, since Yuma makes a point of telling us checking breathing is primary
based on a pasuq, I was looking for ways to tie brain activity to breathing.
Possibilities:

1- Until the 20th cent, it was a valid chazaqah that people whose chest
wasn't connected to a normal brain weren't breathing.
2- It's not breathing, it's autonomous breathing.
3- Nishmas chayim links to breath that supports the moach in particular.
etc...

Was I clearer this time?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
mi...@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 18
**************************************

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..."