Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 20

Fri, 04 Feb 2011

• 1. Re: Ayil Meshulash (Micha Berger)
• 2. Ayil Meshulash (Prof. Levine)
• 3. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (David Riceman)
• 4. Re: Secular knowledge (Hankman)
• 5. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. false/true prophecy (Simi Peters)
• 7. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 8. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 9. Re: God of Love, vs. Just God (David Riceman)
• 10. ERASE ME, PLEASE! (Rich Wolberg)
• 11. R Chiyya Raba (Eli Turkel)

On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 09:45:38AM -0500, Sheldon Krause wrote:
: I don't see any evidence for what Micha is saying at all. If you look at
: the shaar blatt it says that the manuscript was found "b'amtachat kitvei
: Hagaon Hachasid ....... Elyahu M'vilna ...."

Back a step... Bichlal, how much do we have from the Gra that is really
from the Gra? Some of the sefarim we attribute to the Gra were collected
notes. Most, like the peirush on Y-mi, are expansions of what was in
the notes. I think only the peirush on the SA is actually his, but I
can't swear to that. But here we have something different -- the Gra
actually asked this book to be written and provided a list of theorems
to cover. It wasn't a student posthumously trying to preserve the Gra's
notes. But it still wasn't the Gra himself, either.

The intro says that the book has 400 theorems that are found among the
notes of the Gra. Not that they /are/ the notes of the Gra. To begin
the quote earlier (and to translate, due to the unreadability of long
transliterations:
    Sefer
    Ayil Meshulash
    on the wisdom of triangles and engineering and in it are also some
    principles of techunah [no rigidly literal translation will work]
    and algebra. Altogether 400 principles which can be found [and here
    is RSK's quote] among the packages of writings of the Gaon, the
    Chassid...

No claim the Gra wrote the book, or even that the notes were pieced
together like a puzzle, literally his words.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

>Micha's response
>
>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
><http://books.google.com/books?id=LeVDAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PT4> >. I know later
>editions attribute it to the Gra, but that's simply incorrect.

"When I was in the illustrious city of Vilna in the presence of the 
Rav, the light, the great Gaon, my master and teacher, the light of 
the eyes of the exile, the renowned pious one (may Hashem protect and 
save him) Rav Eliyahu, in the month of Teves 5538 [January 1778], I 
heard from his holy mouth that according to what a person is lacking 
in knowledge of the 'other wisdoms,' correspondingly he will be 
lacking one hundred portions in the wisdom of the Torah, because the 
Torah and the 'other wisdoms' are inextricably linked together ..."

 From the Introduction to the Hebrew translation of Euclid's book on 
geometry, Sefer Uklidos [The Hague, 1780] by R. Barukh Schick of Shklov.

R. Barukh Schick of Shklov translated Euclid's book on geometry,  he 
did not write Ayil Meshulash. YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110203/9564f038/attachment-0001.htm>

RMYG:

<<This is in the context of the question I was addressing, "How can a Loving

God do ___(many terrible things)_____ to me?" My answer to the gentleman, in
a nutshell, was that although Hashem loves us and has mercy on us, he is not
a Loving God, which, I think, is a Christian conceit, but a Just God. As
humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire scope of the
human experience so as to understand the justness of what Hashem does, but
He is always just, our perceptions notwithstanding.>>

"Ein menahamim es ha'adam b'sha'ah shemeiso mutal l'fanav".  If the gentleman was really in distress, it may not have been the best time for this discussion.

The classification of an event as mercy or justice is not an objective one,
but a subjective one.  As you correctly note, it can change depending on
how wide your perspective is.  My experience is that wider perspective
makes events seem more like mercy.  As evidence I cite the above ma'amar
Hazal; distress narrows a person's horizons, making him less able to take
the wider perspective which may make him realize that something was really
good, and thus less able to accept nehamah.

David Riceman

I (CM) wrote in my last post:

If not, where do you draw the line between Torah ideas and non-Torah ideas?

I speculated on this topic after I sent the post:

I shifted my thought to the methods we use for Torah analysis to delve into
Torah. The obvious such methods are the Midos SheHaTorah Nidreshes Bohen. 
I had always taken it for granted that these are the only means of delving
into the depths of Torah. It ocurred to me that perhaps there are other
means of logical Torah analysis that may also have a valid basis (that
result in truth) but perhaps do not have the designation of being "Torah"
by vitrue of the fact that they involve "unsanctioned" means of Torah
analysis. since there are several Tanaitic opinions on how many (and which)
midos there are, then those left off the list of one Tana, but on another's
might be a first shot for some such methods of analysis (that lead to truth
but do not have the force of Torah) - at least according to those Tanaim,
and there may well be others.

A quick search online turned up the below:

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


ht
tp://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/kornfeld/archives/simchat1.htm from R.
Mordechai Kornfeld.

....
But the 13 Midos are not the end. In a Tanaitic text, Rebbi Eliezer, son of
Rebbi Yosi Haglili, lists *32* Midos through which the Torah may be
elucidated! The commentaries (Sefer Kerisus; Rav Yakov of Emden) explain
the difference between the two lists of Midos. The 13 Midos are to be used
to deduce Halachic rulings from the Written Law (or, "Drash"), while the 32
are used to explain the simple, non-Halachic, meanings of verses (or,
"P'shat"), as is clear from Rebbi Eliezer's own application of his rules.
Perhaps for this reason, although applications of the 32 Midos are
relatively rare in the Talmud, they are found quite often in Midrashic
literature, which concentrates more on the meanings of verses than on the
Halachot that are to be learned from them.

Rebbi Eliezer's list of 32 includes some, but not all, of the previously
mentioned 13 plus an entirely new batch of methodologies, such as the
familiar Gematria and Notarikon (Midot #29,30). In Gematria, each of the
Hebrew letters of a word are assigned a numerical (or sometimes
alphabetical) value, based on certain rules. When the letters are then
added up (or reread), they are shown to yield a value (which may be the
value of another Hebrew word) which sheds insight into the meaning of the
verse. Notarikon includes both acronyms, in which each letter of a word
represents an entirely new word, and breaking down a long word into two
smaller words which have meanings of their own.


III
When we extend our search for non-explicit teachings of the Torah to
Kabbalistic Midrashim (such as Zohar and Tikunei Zohar) and other
Kabbalistic works (such as those written by the Rishonim and the school of
the Arizal), we find an entirely new set of methodologies. For example, one
popular method to derive hidden meaning from the verse is by demonstrating
that the beginning-letters or end-letters of a group of consecutive words
spell an entirely new word, shedding light either on the verse in question
or on the new word through the context of the verse. The reverse of an
acronym, this method produces one word from many instead of many words from
one.

Although the classical Midrashim do not make explicit reference to such
methodologies, it seems clear that the Midrashim did indeed employ them to
understand the deeper meaning of a verse. To take an example from the
beginning of the Torah, the Midrash (Bereishit Raba 1:7) explains that the
Torah begins with a reference to "Emet" (truth). It infers this from the
fact that Hashem is referred to as "Elokim" in the first verse of the
Torah, a designation which is associated with Emet other verses (such as
Yirmeyahu 10:10). Although the Midrash does not mention that the
end-letters of the three words which immediately follow the word
"Bereishit" spell out "Emet" (as Matnot Kehunah ibid. points out), it is
obvious that the Midrash had this in mind as well.

"Nifla'ot Mitoratecha," a wonderful book recently printed by Rav Mordechai
Aran (a neighbor of mine) in memory of his late father, makes use of the
power of computers to seek out words that are represented in the Torah,
Nevi'im and Kesuvim through strings of consecutive beginning-letters or
end-letters. His well-documented and well-researched findings provide a
striking list of some 250 words that fit amazingly well into the verses in
which they are found. (The book can be ordered from the author directly at
17 Mishkelov St., Har Nof, Jerusalem, tel. 02-6518088, for $10+shipping.).

To offer just a few examples of some season-appropriate findings:
1)SHOFAR: The word Shofar appears only once as a string of
beginning-letters (and not even once as end-letters) in Melachim I:5:18,
"There is no Satan, nor any harmful occurrence." As the Talmud tells us
(Rosh Hashanah 16b, and Tosfos), blowing the Shofar thwarts the Satan and
prevents mishaps from affecting the Jewish People.
2)TESHUVAH: The same applies to Teshuvah, whose sole appearance is among
the words (Yirmeyahu 6:1), "Blow the Shofar...." The Rambam (Hil. Teshuvah
3:4) tells us, "The blowing of the Shofar hints to us that we must awaken
ourselves from our slumber, investigate our deeds, and return to Hashem
through *Teshuvah*."
3)LULAV: The word Lulav appears 4 times in beginning-letters, in verses in
the Pentateuch. (It can be found once more as beginning-letters and once as
end letters, but only by combining words from separate verses.) All four of
the appearances are in words dealing with the Jews' freedom from, and even
dominion over, the other nations. (Bereishit 27:29; 45:8; Vayikra 26:5 are
obvious. In Bereishit 40:9, "Lulav" appears as the butler begins to relate
his dream to Yosef, an event which spurred Yosef's freedom from the
Egyptian prison and his meteoric rise to power.) Such appearances provide
sensational support for the Midrash which attributes this exact
significance to the Four Species:
The Jewish People and the other nations both come to lobby before Hashem on
Rosh Hashanah. It is not clear who the winner is. But when the Jews leave
the presence of Hashem with their Lulavim and Esrogim in their hands, we
know that the Jewish People have won. (Vayikra Raba 30:3)

(The word Lulav, it should be noted, may refer specifically to the palm
branch or, in a general sense, to the entire set of Four Species. An
example of the latter is the blessing that is recited before taking the
Species in hand.)


IV
Recently, much turmoil has been caused by the discovery that Equidistant
Number Sequences (ELS) -- known to most people by their popular name, the
Bible Codes -- seem to produce meaningful patterns in the Pentateuch in a
statistically significant manner. For all the novelty of the approach, it
actually has its roots in ancient works. Although there does not seem to be
any mention of ELS in Midrashic literature, Kabbalistic or otherwise,
nevertheless it is mentioned in the works of the early commentators. The
first recorded mention is in Rabbeinu Bachye, Bereishit end of 1:2. The
Roke'ach (Rav Elazar of Mainz, c. 1210) includes ELS (or "Dilugin") in a
list of the *73* methods of elucidating the Torah (in "Sefer Hachochmah,"
his introduction to Bereishit). How do these 73 methods fit in with the 13
and 32 methods mentioned above (section II)? And why are some of them not
mentioned anywhere in Midrashic literature?

We are taught that there are four distinct approaches to the Torah: P'shat
(simple meaning of the verses), Drush (Halachic derivations), Remez (veiled
hints, which serve as the jumping point for Kabbalah) and Sod (which
includes the body of Kabbalistic teachings) -- see Maharsha to Eruvin 21a.
Just as the 13 methods are exclusive to Drush and the 32 to P'shat, so too
are the 73 exclusive to Remez, and another group exclusive to Kabbalah.
This, it appears, is why the Midreshei Kabbalah only use the Kabbalah
methodologies, while the Roke'ach, who specialized in Torat Haremez, used
the 73 methodologies of Remez.

The recent revival of ELS findings was launched by the ingenious
discoveries of Rav Michoel Ber Weismandel (d. 1958). With his brilliant
mind and flawless memory, he managed to find ELS patterns in the Torah that
nobody could possibly have dreamed of before him. For example, Megilat
Ester (one of the Ketuvim) contains 12,110 letters, asserts Rav Weismandel.
If you were to count exactly that number of letters from the first Aleph of
the Torah (Ber*ei*shit), you will find a Samech, another 12,110 letters and
you find a Tav, then a Reish. Altogether, that spells "Ester!" (This and
numerous other ELS's that Rav Weismandel discovered, such as the famous
"Menorah," are recorded in Torat Chemed, written by a student of his.)

The champions of the modern version of ELS are Doron Witzum (the
discoverer) and Pfr. Eliyahu Rips of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem
(the leading mathemetician). Their model attempts to show that ELS's of
words that belong in the same group are indeed grouped together in the
Torah in a statistically significant manner. The key words here are
"statistically significant" - a typical word four letters in length can
appear as an ELS some 300,000 times in the Torah. In order to show that his
method produces statistically significant ELS's, Dr. Witzum *first* chooses
pairs of words that seem to be thematically related (such as "hammer" and
"anvil," or the name of a Torah authority and the date on which he passed
away, or the name of the death-camp "Auschwitz" and the names of its
daughter camps). Then, he looks for the following factors: (1) Does their
ELS occur in relatively *close proximity* with each other? (2) Is he using
relatively *short ELS's* (that is, one of the lowest
  ELS's in the Torah for any particular word), (3) Dr. Witzum takes into
  consideration the *infrequency* of the words with which he is dealing in
  order to produce a formula for what length ELS and what proximity is
  considered significant.

Although the mathematics gets complicated, the positive side is that the
results can be presented in clear and impressive graphic format. (The
mathematical equations themselves were presented for peer review and
printed in a recent issue of Science.)

Certainly, we still haven't discovered, and we probably will never
discover, all of the methods for revealing the hidden teachings of the
Torah. But at least we can get a taste from all of this of the full depth
and breadth of the Torah.




http://hashkafacircle.com/shiurim/thirteen-midos/thirteen-midos-01-in
tro/ 
Thirteen Midos 01 intro   from Rabbi Triebitz
....

In this shiur he gives an introduction to why it is important to learn
about the midos, and discusses where the midos are found. He then shows the
contradictions between Hillel's 7 midos and Rabbi Yishmael's 13 midos (and
Rabbi Yossi Ha-Gelili's 32 midos), and explains how they developed and for
what purpose.

It is worth learning through Pesachim 66a which is the story of Hillel and Bnei Beseira, which a lot of the shiur is based upon.

You can also have the Toras Cohanim with the commentary of Raavad in front of you if you click on this link: Toras Cohanim


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110203/5d468ce2/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:

> although Hashem loves us and has mercy on us, he is not a Loving
> God, which, I think, is a Christian conceit, but a Just God. As
> humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire
> scope of the human experience so as to understand the justness
> of what Hashem does, but He is always just, our perceptions
> notwithstanding. 

My feeling is that He is a just God, as RMYG writes, but in addition, He is also a loving God. Here's my logic:

As humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire scope of
the human experience so as to understand the love of what Hashem does, but
He is always loving, our perceptions notwithstanding.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
$65/Hr Job - 25 Openings
Part-Time job ($20-$65/hr). Requirements: Home Internet Access
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d4b26441fd92b508cst04vuc

The source R' Aryeh is referring to is in Melahim I 22, not 18.

I believe that R'Aryeh's reading is mistaken.  See Radak (on pasuk 20) who
says that Mikhayhu ben Yimla is speaking figuratively and that he did not
see the spirit volunteer to go mislead the false prophets.  

From context, it seems pretty clear that Ahav has a stable of prophets that
he keeps around to tell him what he wants to hear, and Mikhayhu ben Yimla
is mocking their "prophecy" by ascribing it to a spirit in the Heavenly
Court (identified by Hazal as the spirit of Navot) that sets out to
deliberately deceive them.  In fact, read carefully, Mikhayhu's choice of
images is meant to caricature the ridiculous scene of 400 false prophets
doing a street theater rendition of prophecy for Ahav on the threshing
floor by comparing it to the true judgment of the Heavenly Court as to
Ahav's guilt.  Hazal's identification of the spirit with Navot is meant to
show us that Ahav is being punished for the sin of kerem Navot.  (The
Malbim has a nice analysis of how the false testimony that killed Navot is
being repaid by the false prophecy of the phony prophets.)  It is hard to
see how the spirit of Navot could literally be a prophecy (true *or* false)
in anyone's brain or mouth.  Clearly the
  use of the image is figurative.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110203/96933bc6/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Akiva Miller:
My feeling is that He is a just God, as RMYG writes, but in addition, He is
also a loving God. Here's my logic:

As humans we suffer from not having the ability to scan the entire scope of
the human experience so as to understand the love of what Hashem does, but
He is always loving, our perceptions notwithstanding.
--------------


unless it is going completely over my head; it seems more like conjecture
than anything else. Could you elaborate?

KT,
MYG

R' David Riceman:
"Ein menahamim es ha'adam b'sha'ah shemeiso mutal l'fanav".  If the
gentleman was really in distress, it may not have been the best time for
this discussion.

The classification of an event as mercy or justice is not an objective one,
but a subjective one.  As you correctly note, it can change depending on how
wide your perspective is.  My experience is that wider perspective makes
events seem more like mercy.  As evidence I cite the above ma'amar Hazal;
distress narrows a person's horizons, making him less able to take the wider
perspective which may make him realize that something was really good, and
thus less able to accept nehamah.
------------------


objective. We may not - and generally do not - have the facts necessary to
be able to correctly analyze it. Your experience notwithstanding, sometimes
"zooming out," so to speak, makes events seem _less_ like mercy. 
I also disagree with your last sentence, above. Or, at least, the
implication I'm reading into it - that if something ultimately leads to a
good result then it is "really good." It is not, usually, so - it might be
more accurately described as something that happened that is really _bad_
but that had a good result coming as a result of it, anyway. 

KT,
MYG

On 2/3/2011 7:08 PM, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> I disagree; the classification of something as mercy or justice is
> objective.
See MN 1:2.  This is a recurring theme in Sefer Meor Einayim, see, for 
example, Breishis s.v. "al kein ne'emar" and the following paragraph as 
well, Parshas Lech L'cha s.v.  "v'hinei k'mo shehu b'tovas haborei" and 
the following paragraph (especially "ki be'emes hakol hu tovah, afilu 
hara hahu"), Sefer Yismah Lev at the beginning of Masseches Pesahim.

<<It is not, usually, so - it might be
> more accurately described as something that happened that is really _bad_
> but that had a good result coming as a result of it, anyway.
>
See Derech HaShem 2:8:1 "hamishpat v'hadin atzmo mim'kor ha'ahavah hu 
novea".

David Riceman
>

 The Torah portion a week from now will be Tetzaveh. Very interestingly as
 you all know, there is no mention whatsoever of the name Moshe. This is
 the only Sidra from the beginning of Moshe's birth where his name is
 omitted. I saw a beautiful commentary regarding the verse 32:32:  "And now
 if You would forgive their sin -- but if not, erase me please from Your
 book which You have written."	The word "from Your book" is misif'r'cho.
 The commentary points out it could be read misafer chof, which would be
 translated "from Book 20." The portion Tetzaveh is the 20th parsha in the
 Torah, and lo and behold, that's the portion that the name of Moshe is
 absent.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110203/d66e0ecc/attachment-0001.htm>

In Bet Yisha R. Fisher quotes the CI explicitly without stating where it
appears in CI. Hence, my regret that I cannot quote the exact source.

"Nevertheless, he quotes the CI as stating that the generation after the
Mishna
they saw the dimuntion of their abilities (miut ha-levovot) against the
authors of
the Mishna and they understanding that the truth is always with the early
generations.
They were required to do this since they realized they were not on the level
of the
earlier generations and they said 2000 years of Torah which hints to the
Tannaim"

So again from this quote CI says explicitly (not Bet Yishai) that we start
from the
generation after the Mishna and not from the minute the Mishna was finished
(assuming there was such a moment). R Fisher claims that no one before CI
gave that explanation to the 2000 years of Torah, including Rashi

<<
: He brings several gemarot where in fact amoraim outweigh tannaim. One
famous one
: is the discussion (yoma 85b) why we violate shabbat to save a life. After
the gemara
: bring several tannatic suggestions it concludes with Shmuel who brings
: the pasuk of "ve-chai bahem" and that is the one the gemara accepts.

But is there a nafqa mina lemaaseh that one can discuss halachic
authority?>>

The point Bet Yishai brings is that the gemara here and also in Megilla 7a
whether the
Megillah was written with Ruach Hakodesh states clears that a sharp pepper
(an Amora)
is better than a basket full of melons Itannaim). According to CI the truth
is always
with the early generation and therefore what difference does it make if
there
is a nafha mina lehalachah


: R. Fisher also asks that if Rav is so great that he can disagree with
Tannaim how
: come we pasken like R. Yochanan against Rav.

<<R' Yochanan was a tanna for part of his life. Perhaps we pasqen like R'
Yochanan against Rav because the two only met before the compiling of
the mishnah. (A test for this theory -- do we ever hold like R' YOchanan
in one quote over Rav cited from someplace else?)>>

R Yochanan was a child when he sat before Rebbe many rows back. He
was never a Tanna. His rebbeim were R. Oshiya (an Amora )and Chizkiya.
Again the Tosefta was written after the Mishna (R Chiya and R. Oshiya)
and is considered Tannitic.

RSF objects that CI takes for granted his explanation of 2000 years of Torah
with no attempt to deal that no one else thought of this idea before him.
I find that this occurs other places in CI. In discussing damages from
smoke CI states that it doesnt apply to internal damages (ie smoke
inhalation) without bringing any support. His interpretation of boneh as
being
turning something "dead" into something "alive" is also a major chiddush
which
is simply taken for granted.

As to my and Micha's struggles with the details of CI when the Mishna was
written, I
find that CI never concerns himself with such details. In the case of  the
semen and urine
tracts CI clains "nishtane hateva". Ignoring the scientists that man's
anatomy could
not change in 2000 years how would the CI explain this internal change. Did
it
occur suddenly or was there an evolution over generations. Only to Jews or
even goyim?

The CI invalidates the use of recently discovered manuscripts. However, in
reality
manuscripts of rishonim were "discovered" over many centuries.  Pnei
Yehoshua
is one of the first to use rishonim like Ramban etc that are not quoted in
the Bet Yosef.
Kzot and Netivot argue over issues which we know is a machloket rishonim
which they did not have access to. So do we ignore all the chiddushim of
Ramban, Rashba, Ritva etc because some achronim did not have access to them?
When do we draw the line? I recall RYBS once saying that he saw the
chiddushei Ramban
for the first time when he went to Berlin.
In fact until very recently the chiddushim of many of the rishonim were
mislabeled.
If so why pick on Rabbenu Chanenl or Tosafet HaRosh or Meiri as recent
discoveries.

In summary some of these are sweeping statements which CI never got into
the details of how to implement them. Again as R. Fisher points out many of
these
are great chiddushim which the CI simply states and takes for granted
without
proving them or pointing to earlier authorities.



-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110204/f1c272ac/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 20
**************************************

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..."