Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 82

Wed, 25 May 2011

• 1. standard opinion (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: standard opinion? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 3. Re: paskening by Nevuah (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 4. Re: paskening by Nevuah (Micha Berger)
• 5. and if it was a nedder? (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 6. Modim d'Rabbanan (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Upsherin (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Modim d'Rabbanan (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Modim d'Rabbanan (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: and if it was a nedder? (Goldmeier Family)
• 14. border issues.....pikauch nefesh?? (Harvey Benton)
• 15. Halachah regarding pants for women (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 16. Re: Halachah regarding pants for women (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Halachah regarding pants for women (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 18. Re: Halachah regarding pants for women (Micha Berger)

<<
Furthermore, RMM claims there IS Psak when it comes to Hashkofo, and we need
to follow the majority

Sure. Depends who you count. :-) >>

I am confused. Even in strictly halachik issues no one claims today that we
follow a majority, that is why one should follow his LOR, ie one follows
one's
Rav and NOT the majority.
A trivial example is the argument over worms in Salmon. The OU paskens what
they think is right not what the majority says, Every kashrut agency has a
posek who
decides. I don't think any kashrut agency exists that says we dont need a
posek we just follow the majority of poskim.

Take a "simple" issue like saying Hallel on YH either with or without a
bracha.
Who one counts is essential and even more when.
It seems that most of the gedolim in EY indeed said Hallel in the years
1948-1950.
Mizrachi was the dominant force in the 1930s. Does that mean that one's
hashkafa must change over the years?

If the "majority" of poskim state that one cannot learn the shiurim of RYBS
(which some
have indeed said) would RMM stop learning what his uncle has said?
Certainly RHS paskens what he thinks and does not look for the majority.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110524/a22df8dc/attachment-0001.htm>

I have not seen this new journal named "Dialogue" (a picture of the cover
of the premiere issue, Spring 5771, can be seen at http:
//somehowfrum.blogspot.com/2011/05/dialogue-review.html), but R' Saul
Newman commented:

> Furthermore, RMM claims there IS Psak when it comes to Hashkofo,
> and we need to follow the majority

I once heard the audio biography of Rav Y. B. Soloveitchik, z"l, by Rabbi
Aaron Rakeffet-Rothkoff (available from the OU at http://www.ou.org/torah/td/t
herav.htm). In that tape, he spoke at length of how the Rav concluded
that there is NO psak in haskafa, and we do NOT need to follow the
majority, and that this was the deciding factor in his breaking away from
Agudah and siding with Mizrachi.

Although Rav Rakeffet did explain Rav Soloveitchik's reasoning about how he
concluded that there is no psak in halacha, unfortunately, I do not
remember what it was. (My vague recollection is that it had something to do
with the Gemara often paskening on Halacha, but never paskening on
Aggadah.) If anyone else has that tape or remembers it, it would be very
relevant to this conversation.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city's best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ddba343e06be39ffst03vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote that we'll follow him...

> ... and because, pro forma, Eliahu haNavi has true semichah

I'm not sure how relevant that is. IIRC, there were still some Amoraim
(maybe even Geonim?) who had True Semicha, yet they did not pasken on these
questions, leaving the Gemara with Tayku. Or maybe they even *did* pasken,
but for some reason (such as opposing psakim) they were not generally
accepted. Either way, if the answer is based on this alone, Eliyahu is no
different than the other True Semicha chachamim.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Banks Forced to Forgive Credit Card Debt
See how much of your debt could be settled!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ddb9d8c2c0002dd3st04vuc

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:57:47AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Micha Berger wrote that we'll follow him...
:> ... and because, pro forma, Eliahu haNavi has true semichah

: I'm not sure how relevant that is. IIRC, there were still some Amoraim
: (maybe even Geonim?) who had True Semicha, yet they did not pasken on
: these questions, leaving the Gemara with Tayku...

But Eliyahu haNavi could thereby repopulate the Sanhedrin, which now
creates a whole new kind of halachic authority. That's why the pro forma
matters, even if we don't speak of any imparting of wisdom.

According to Mamrim 2:2, the later beis din must be greater bechokhmah
uveminyan to overturn gezeiros, taqanos and minhagim. (Even if batelah
ta'am -- 2:3). However, according to 2:1, this is not true for pesaqim!

So just having a Sanhedrin, even an inferior one, might change the entire
dynamic of how halakhah is done. I would ask whether they can justify
their power by their own decision to hold like the Rambam, but dwelling
on that thought makes my head hurt.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/05/interesting-psak-f
rom-rav-elyashiv_24.html 

could her  promise of celibacy be annulled?   is it a bad omen to try?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110524/af5cbd83/attachment-0001.htm>

Our shul has, up on the front wall, a framed copy of Modim 
d'Rabbanan.  I've seen this particular one all over the 
place.  There's a note on the bottom that says it was donated by the 
Shlomofs, if I'm not mistaken.

My question is this.  Every siddur I've ever seen says "...al 
she'hecheyitanu v'kiyamtanu, ken t'chayenu u-tekaymanu..." 
(...because You have kept us in life and kept us going, may You keep 
us in life and keep us going..."  But this wall copy says "...al 
she'hecheyitanu v'kiyamtanu, ken t'chonenu u-tekaymanu..." 
(...because You have kept us in life and kept us going, may You be 
gracious to us and keep us going..."

I asked the rabbi and the gabbai about this, and they both had the 
same reaction.  They'd never noticed it.  And they had no idea if it 
was problematic.

So I figured I'd ask the brilliant folks here.  (a) Have you noticed 
this?  (b) Is this problematic?

Shavua Tov,
Lisa

In v28n81, Mon 5/24 3:48pm EDT, R Prof Levine asked about my cryptic
reply to an earlier post:
: > > Since Lag BaOmer is almost here, I think that people should be aware of
: > > the article
: > > Cutting A Boy's Hair Without Doing a Chalaka (Upsherin)  Please see
: > > http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/shorshei_
: > > hair_cutting.pdf

: >What exactly do you believe is the role of minhag in determining my
: >practice?

: >Does minhag trump my personal reasoning, as you appeared to advocate
: >early today when it comes to the siddur?

: I do not understand what you are referring to.  What did I advocate 
: according to you regarding "when it comes to the siddur"?

On Wed the 18th, the day you sent the original above-quoted (after the
":>>"s) post about upsherin, you also posted "Thinking Of Editing Shmoneh
Esreh? Not So Fast". That post pointed us to <http://tinyurl.com/3wrtegd>,
which (as you quoted) reads (in part, transliterations still mine):
> Recently, it was reported that a Rabbi from Israel, on a visit to
> America, spoke at a (nusach Ashkenaz) Shul and urged the people there to
> add the word [le'artzeinu] at the end of the [berakhah] of [Teqa beShofar]
> in the [Shemoneh Esrei]. This Rabbi is a lover of [Eretz Yisrael] and
> presumably he wanted to strengthen the audience's connection to our holy
> land in some way with such a gesture.

>   ... And where does it end? ...

So, on the Upsherin thread you ask some East Europeans who have the
minhag of upsherin to reject it on the grounds of an argument that it's
not a valid minhag. Sevara trumping minhag.

But WRT adding "le'artzeinu", which is an ancient nusach for the berakhah
albeit not Ashkenazic, you argue that this rav was wrong to tell people
to change from their minhag because of a sevara.

The sevaros have many points around which one can contrast them. I'm sure
the minhagim do too. So, I have no doubt you can make a chiluq between those
two cases. I asked where exactly you personally place that chiluq. You
are of East European ancestry, and yet so support minhag Ashkenaz that you
advocate here repeatedly for various Yekkish practices. (I think you
forwarded all 6 of the last 6 posts on the "Treasures of Ashkenaz" blog.)
Given how much time you spend discussing minhag with us, I fished for
more detail on your position.

: Almost all of what I post on Avodah is from sources and is not my 
: own.  I feel that it is important for people to realize that a lot of 
: what is done today has either no basis or the basis is shaky at 
: best.  For example, Upsherin has become the "in thing,"  even amongst 
: Ashkenazim....

Upsherin is a generations-old minhag for many Ashkenazim. Albeit not
Litvaks or Yekkes, but still, you can't say there is no basis. Similarly,
if you feel free, as a "BT" to pick your minhagim, why can't others pick
their minhagim as well? What makes it "wrong" that you need to comment
on what they do?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12:16AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/05/interesting-ps
: ak-from-rav-elyashiv_24.html 
: 
: could her  promise of celibacy be annulled?   is it a bad omen to try?

Could it ever take hold? For a man, given that it's a neder that is
keneged halakhah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. But if the neder were
made by a single woman (such as this widow), is it sufficiently against
the Torah to be inherently non-binding?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:16:14PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> My question is this.  Every siddur I've ever seen says "...al  
> she'hecheyitanu v'kiyamtanu, ken t'chayenu u-tekaymanu..." (...because 
> You have kept us in life and kept us going, may You keep us in life and 
> keep us going..."  But this wall copy says "...al she'hecheyitanu 
> v'kiyamtanu, ken t'chonenu u-tekaymanu..." (...because You have kept us 
> in life and kept us going, may You be gracious to us and keep us 
> going..."

As for contemporary nusachos: That plaque is Istalian. Similar,
Nusach Edot haMizrach is (my Ashk transliteration) "kein techayyeinu
uschannienu".

Going back to the gemaras' discussion of Modim deRabbanan...

The words R' Acha bar Yaaqov had (Sotah 40a) were "kein kehayeinu
uschaneinu veqabtzeinu vese'esof galuyoseinu lechazros qodshekha..."
(And then R' Papa strung together all the suggested nusachos.)

The Y-mi had a greater variety. R' Simai has "shehischayeinu usqaymeinu
uzakhiseinu usiyateinu iqarvaseinu lehodos leshimkha" (not kein
ti-). R' Simai is quoted in the Bavli, but only a smaller piece of his
berakhah. And no one in either shas appears to have another variant of
this phrase.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On 24/05/2011 1:16 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Every siddur I've ever seen says "...al she'hecheyitanu v'kiyamtanu,
> ken t'chayenu u-tekaymanu..."

That's Nusach Ashkenaz and Ari.  Nusach "Sfard" and Sefarad/Edot Hamizrach
is "ken t'chayenu ut'choneinu".


> But this wall copy says "...al she'hecheyitanu v'kiyamtanu, ken
> t'chonenu u-tekaymanu..."

I've never heard of that nusach, and Google doesn't come up with an
example, but that doesn't prove it's a misprint.  But that would be
my guess: that someone started with the Nusach Ashkenaz version and
was told to substitute "t'choneinu" and misunderstood which word
was to be replaced.  However, before determining that that's the most
likely explanation, the first thing I'd look at if I had it available
would be a Georgian and/or Bukharan siddur, to see whether that is
the genuine nusach of the Shlomof family.

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

On 24/05/2011 5:01 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12:16AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> : http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2011/05/inte
> : resting-psak-from-rav-elyashiv_24.html
> :
> : could her  promise of celibacy be annulled?   is it a bad omen to try?
>
> Could it ever take hold? For a man, given that it's a neder that is
> keneged halakhah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. But if the neder were
> made by a single woman (such as this widow), is it sufficiently against
> the Torah to be inherently non-binding?

*Is* it against the Torah?  You've quoted several times a psak din that
the widow of a kadosh may not remarry.  And of course the widow of a king
may not remarry.  So we see that the Torah does accept such a concept.
Why then is it against the Torah (rather than merely a bad idea) for a
widow to regard her husband as if he were of such a stature that it would
be wrong for her to remarry?  Why is it against the Torah (rather than
merely selfish and pretentious) for a man to want his wife to regard him
in such a manner?  And therefore why should she not take such a neder?

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

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 05:14:25PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Could it ever take hold? For a man, given that it's a neder that is
>> keneged halakhah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. But if the neder were
>> made by a single woman (such as this widow), is it sufficiently against
>> the Torah to be inherently non-binding?
>
> *Is* it against the Torah?

IF I knew, I wouldn't have asked!

>                             You've quoted several times a psak din that
> the widow of a kadosh may not remarry.

Just once, than with iteratively more mar'eh meqomos as I was challenged
on it. I think it was RMPoppers who posted the idea here first, which is
where I learned of it.

>                                         And of course the widow of a king
> may not remarry.  So we see that the Torah does accept such a concept.

But showing that it's allowed in certain circumstances doesn't show that
it is allowed when those circumstances aren't met.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On 25/5/2011 12:01 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Could it ever take hold? For a man, given that it's a neder that is
> keneged halakhah, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't. But if the neder were
> made by a single woman (such as this widow), is it sufficiently against
> the Torah to be inherently non-binding?

i would think she would later be able to absolve herself of the nedder 
by claiming she had an amasla when she said it - to calm her terminal 
husband and not upset him. I would think that would be enough of an 
opening to allow for a hattara at a future point.

kol tuv
Rafi Goldmeier

there is a difference in kedusha and halachic status between areas of eyisrael 
conquered by yehoshua, later by David (different categories, etc) and those 
promised to Avraham as a yerusha....
do any of these distinctions make a difference nowadays to possibly giving up 
land for peace (as was rightly or wrongly done with the egyptians/in the 
sinai). 
--------
or do we say, that for now, that even though these territories were conquered by 
a non-torah, non-moshiach dika state, the inyan of pikuach nefesh takes 
precedence???
hb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110524/b89beb29/attachment-0001.htm>

Hello all,

Is anyone aware of halachic sources regarding women wearing pants? I am 
particularly interested in the question of tsenius, as opposed to 
whether pants are a beged ish. The Avodah archive search does not seem 
to be working.

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:49:01PM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> Is anyone aware of halachic sources regarding women wearing pants? I am  
> particularly interested in the question of tsenius, as opposed to  
> whether pants are a beged ish. The Avodah archive search does not seem  
> to be working.

Yeah, it hasn't worked for a while. AishDas.org 2.0 is in the works,
so I didn't bother attacking the problem.

In any case, RETurkel asked the same question, with the same emphasis
back in v5n88. See
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=P#PANTS>.

R Yitzchok Zirkind's and R Daniel Eidensohn's answers are of value (kedarkam
baqodesh), as they refer to sources.

RYZ <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol05/v05n089.shtml#10>:
    WRT Pissuk Raglayim it was discussed a while back here, based on
    the Rashi in Pesachim 3a (although there it is more pronounced),

    As to the general issue, the following is a quote from the "Halichos
    Bas Yisrael" by Rav Yitzchak Yaacov Fuchs (Targum press) 7:5 footnote
    # 7.

    " 7. The issue of women wearing pants is discussed at lentgh
    in Minchath Yitzchak, Vol. 2, No. 108. The author concludes that
    pants are forbidden for two reasons: they are immodest because they
    outline the lower half of a women's body; and, they are considered a
    male garment. According to Minchath Yitzchak, pants may not be worn
    under ANY circumstances, and even pants specifically manufactured for
    women are "men's clothing". See also Tzitz Eliezer, Vol. 11, No. 62;
    Shevet Halevi, Yoreh De'ah, No. 63; Sdeh Chemed, Vol. 4, Ma'arekheth
    Lamed 116, Yaskil Avdi, Vol. 5, Yoreh De'ah, No. 147. A number
    of contemporary authorities take issue with Minchath Yitzchak,
    maintaining that the injuction against weraing male garments does
    not apply if the pants are specifically manufactured for women; the
    only reason for prohibiting them is that they outline the lower half
    of the body. According to these authorities, who include HaGaon
    Rav Yosef Sholom Eliashiv and HaGaon Rav Chaim Pinchus Sheinburg,
    womens pants may be worn where there is no issue of modesty - for
    example, in a gym where there are no men present."

RDE <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n003.shtml#07>:
    [Quoting R' Harry Maryles:]
    > It is my understanding that even RMF Matirs pants on women with the
    > following conditions:
    > I did not see a Teshuvah by RMF but I have been told by reliable people
    > that this is his Shitah .

    There have been a number of references to poskim who permit women
    to wear pants - in particular Rav Ovadiya Yosef and now Rav Moshe.

[The citation from ROY ended up being to Yabiah Omer VI YD 14, where
he writes that pants are better than miniskirts. Not they're okay for
women's wear. RMF would permit wearing (non-beged ish) pants under a
skirt, or as traditional Moslems and Indian women do, as a shalwar kameez
(shalwar = loose trousers, kameez - long blouse) where there is another
covering that goes well below the top of the leg. Continuing with RDE...]

    I would really appreciate knowing the source of such
    pronouncements. The one Tshuva (Yabiya Omer (6 YD 14) I found of Rav
    Yosef addressing the issue concerns "Which is worse - a mini skirt
    or pants?" He concludes that mini skirts are worse. I don't see
    that as a hetair to wear pants. Now we have another pronouncement
    that Rav Moshe permitted pants - I was not able to find such tshuva
    in the Igros. If Rav Moshe in fact poskened on the issue I would
    assume it was in a similar context to that of Rav Yosef. [Names of
    the reliable people who have testified to the existence of a hetair
    would be greatly appreciated along with their telephone numbers].Thus
    according to the evidence I have seen neither would be considered
    the source of a hetair to wear pants.

    Rabbi Bleich has a discussion of the issue in volume II of
    Contemporary Halachic Problems. He notes that there are two issues
    in the literature 1) "Does the wearing of such attire involve
    a transgression of the biblical prophibition "A woman shall not
    wear men's apparel..." 2) Does such garb violate halachic norms
    of feminine modesty?..."Rabbi Yosef and Rabbi Hadaya do not view
    the wearing of slacks as a violation of the prohibition against
    donning male attire. Nevertheless, both decry the wearing of slacks
    by women ...they maintain that wearing such garb constitutes a
    breach of feminine modesty, particularly if the slacks or pants
    are tight-fitting in nature.....Similarly argues Rabbi Yosef,
    miniskirts are more objectionable attire than are slacks although
    both are immodest dress. [A review in Journal of Halacha 1982 v4 also
    concludes"It should be noted that Rav Ovadia Yosef does not permit
    the wearing of slacks by virtue of questions of modesty and gentile
    practies. The question posed to him was a 'lesser of two evils'
    situation in a school setting where girls would otherwise attend in
    far less appropriate skirts and dresses".] Ohr Someach February 18,
    1995 Issue #56 Says that Rabbi Scheinberg permits wearing pants if
    a knee length skirt is worn over them.

    Apparently some poskim permit pants when there are no men present
    since their is no problem of tznius.

    For those who have been asserting the existence of major poskim
    who permit pants, please provide the names and references of those
    poskim who in fact say that there are no halachic objects to women
    wearing pants (rather than it is not as bad as mini skirts or that
    it can be worn under a knee length skirt).
>
> -- 
> Yitzchak Schaffer
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

Here's some more discussion
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/would-rashi-necessarily-condem
n-pants.html

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:17:27PM -0400, Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
> Here's some more discussion
> http://parsha.blogspot.com/2008/08/would-rashi-necessar
> ily-condemn-pants.html

Since we're reviving old discussion, I believe it was Rn Chana Luntz
who raised this topic, for which I haven't heard a good answer (by my
own taste in defining "good").

The maqor for the problem of pisuq raglayim is the Torah's explanation
for the kevesh up to the mizbeiach. IOW, the problem in its origin is
with MEN wearing pants and climbing steps in public.

So, how it is mutar for those of us men who do not wear a lange rekel
(kapote, bekkishe, etc...) to wear pants? And, since the evidence is
that we do have a heter, why can't we assume the same heter would apply
to women? Why the need for a long blouse or outer skirt?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 82
**************************************

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..."