Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 136

Fri, 15 Jul 2011

• 1. Re: soup (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: women and tefillin (Hankman)
• 3. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: women and tefillin (Hankman)
• 5. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: women and tefillin (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: women and tefillin (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: soup (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: women wearing pants (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Women and tefillin (Akiva Blum)
• 11. TWO COMPELLING QUESTIONS (Richard Wolberg)
• 12. Pronunciation of Hashem's Name (matthewjmille...@gmail.com)
• 13. Insanity (Daniel M. Israel)
• 14. Rabbi Meir Chayesh l'meutei versus Rav Meir in relation to separating terumah on shabbas (Chana Luntz)
• 15. Re: Insanity (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Pronunciation of Hashem's Name (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Pronunciation of Hashem's Name (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: Insanity (harchinam)

R' David Riceman wrote:

> Let me start by thanking RAM, both for nudging me to review
> hilchos berachos more carefully, and for inciting me to think
> about philosophy of psak.

And I too must thank RDR. I've never really understood the ideas behind
these halachos, but through our carefully picking them apart, I'm finally
starting to make some progress.

> There are two issues here.  The first is that the Hayyei Adam's
> specific examples are all things which dehydrate you when you
> consume them.  They are "appetizers" in the very specific sense
> that they make your body want more fluid in the mouth.  That's
> not true of fresh fruit.

I too noticed that he specifically mentioned *salty* olives, *salty*
pickles, and the like. But if the commonality is dehydration, that makes a
person want to *drink*, which heads us off in the wrong direction. What is
accomplished by stimulating the thirst?

When the poskim talk about appetizers, they've said that they make a person
want to *eat*. This highlights my difficulty in the whole concept of
"stimulating the appetite".

> I don't know of any experimental evidence, and I certainly don't
> think that people can eat more when they start the meal with
> fruit; in fact, since one of the cues the body uses to indicate
> satiety is the volume of food contained in the stomach, I would
> expect that fresh fruit make you eat less.

Instead of fresh food, let's suppose that one started the meal with salty
olives and salty pickles. Wouldn't this volume of food likewise make one
eat less of the main course?

> The second problem is, as I said before, that fresh fruit is,
> indeed, a food that the halacha clearly indicates requires a
> separate bracha.  The Hayyei Adam lists variants on fresh fruit,
> but he doesn't ignore this basic rule.  You do, by classifying
> food by function rather than type.  ...
>
> But, im kein, nasata d'varecha l'shiurin.  Of two people at the
> same table eating the same fruit cup, one might say a beracha
> and the other might not.  This wouldn't bother me, since I'm an
> anarchist, but in hilchos berachos we often say batlah da'ato
> etzel kol adam, which shouldn't apply if the category is
> psychological.  So I find your analysis discordant.

Yes, "batlah da'ato etzel kol adam". However, this "kol adam" is NOT all
people in all cultures in all times. Rather, it is the people in one's own
community, at that time and place. One very simple example of this rule is
foods which get a specific bracha only if they are raw or cooked, according
to the way most people eat it.

> Of two people at the same table eating the same fruit cup, one
> might say a beracha and the other might not.

Yes indeed. And I'll tell you the names of those two great people: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv.

I will quote from "Halachos of Brachos" by Rabbi Yisroel Pinchos Bodner,
published by Feldheim. (There are a few editions, so I'll omit the page
number. If you look it up, look under "Appetizer".)

<<< Bodner begins here >>>

[English text from the book:] Some poskim reason that since melon, fruit
cocktail and the like, do not in actuality whet the appetite (or start the
juices flowing), but rather are eaten as satiating first courses, a brocha
would be required.

[My translation of the footnote:] So I heard from Rav SZ Auerbach shlit"a.
He explained to me that calling these fruits a "forshpeis" does not
indicate that they are eaten to awaken [the appetite]. [He asked:] Can you
imagine if people would start serving ice cream as a "forshpeis"? Would it
even occur to you that this would exempt it from a bracha?

[English text from the book:] Other poskim rule that fruit such as melon or
fruit cocktail which is served as an appetizer are, like any other
appetizer, exempted by the bircas hamotzi.

[My translation of the footnote:] So I heard from Rav YS Elyashiv shlit"a.
I asked how we can say that such fruits are considered "foods which come to
stimulate the desire to eat". Doesn't common sense tell us [Halo hachush
me'id] - and I also heard it from scientists - that they *don't* stimulate
the desire to eat? He answered that even though they do not stimulate the
desire to eat, they *do* lead to preparation for eating [gormim l'hachanas
ha'achila]. And therefore they are considered as "coming because of the
meal" [ba machmas haseudah] and are exempted by the bracha on the bread.

<<< Bodner ends here >>>

Without analyzing every detail, it sounds like you are following RSZA, and I'm following RYSE. Baruch shekivantanu (or whatever the proper diqduq would be)

Finally, on my suggestion that "when people talk about 'the meal', what they often mean is 'the main course'", RDR responded:

> But then the category fits our style of eating quite well. Soup,
> fruit cups, the fish course, desert (not made of mezonos) all
> fit the category of "not part of the meal".
>
> So why don't we make a beracha on soup?

Excuse me? Did you just say that the fish course, since it is served prior
to the main course, is not really part of the meal, and therefore it needs
its own bracha?

If you really meant that, then I sincerely applaud your consistency. But
I've never heard of anyone saying a Shehakol on the fish at a Hamotzi meal.
From what I see, the whole world is following Rav Elyashiv's view (if I'm
understanding him correctly) that all the courses prior to the main course,
no matter what kind of food it is -- possibly even soups and other drinks
--  lead to preparation for eating and are exempted by the bracha on the
bread.

In RDR's previous post, he wrote:

> What bothers me is that you are proposing that we scrap an
> entire halachic category.

Yeah, I know. But so is RYSE. I'm not sure exactly how "Google Books"
works, but I think it will let you see most of Rabbi Bodner's sefer if you
follow these steps:
1) Go to http://books.google.com/books?id=J1eqIHzglmEC
2) Click on "Preview this book"
3) Use the scroll bar on the right to go to page 93
4) RSZA is footnote 25.1
5) RYSE is footnote 25.2, which is continued on page 94

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Refinance for 2.50%/3.03% APR
Loans under 729K usually qualify for US GOV backed refinance programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e1e78d16112a3a331ast04vuc

RMB wrote:
Simlas ishah can be violated by dying one's hair, plucking, etc.. It is
not an issur cheftzah.

Wearing tzitzis, when such is only done by men, could well be a violation
of keli gever. 

CM notes:
Then according to this logic this should also apply to ANY mitzvoh that
women have not been mekabel berov tefutsos Yisrael. So if an individual
woman wanted to do some mitsvoh that she is patur from and which was not
generally accepted as a chumra by most women (eg lulav, shofar etc) then it
should be asur as kli gever just like tsitsis? By this logic Michal should
have a problem with tefilin. Also for example, whether datan kalos or not
etc., women should be assur to do shechita because of kli gever. 

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110714/c3699c0e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 09:38:16AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
:> Wearing tzitzis, when such is only done by men, could well be a violation
:> of keli gever. 
: 
: Then according to this logic this should also apply to ANY mitzvoh that
: women have not been mekabel berov tefutsos Yisrael...

Assuming it's something about one's appearance, no?

Unlike, say, being the only woman in your community to light neir Chanukah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

First a note: In my previous post, I did not mean to imply that shechita is 
in the group of mitsvos that nashim are patur due to zeman grama, just that 
they do not practice shechita like men do. I imagine most understood me in 
that vein.

RMB wrote:

Assuming it's something about one's appearance, no?

CM responds:

Why? Tsitsis that are not exposed have nothing to do with your appearance 
either (but pulling out white hairs does).

Then you wil have to choose side between RMS and RMYG  on the issue of the 
application of simlas isha to the hidden from view.

Personally (prior to further research in sifrei halacha to determine the 
issue), I would go with RMYG on this. I find it difficult to imagine that a 
cross-dresser who restricts himself to feminine lingerie under his usual 
clothes is not oveir simlas isha.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
 

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 11:11:51AM -0400, Hankman wrote:
: Why? Tsitsis that are not exposed have nothing to do with your appearance 
: either (but pulling out white hairs does).

:    ... I would go with RMYG on this. I find it difficult to imagine that 
: a cross-dresser who restricts himself to feminine lingerie under his 
: usual clothes is not oveir simlas isha.

I wasn't saying "appearance" to exclude things that are covered, but
to exclude activities that don't involve clothing, personal accessories
and grooming. I simply couldn't think of another short way of conveying
the topic.

You suggest in an earlier post:
: Then according to this logic this should also apply to ANY mitzvoh that
: women have not been mekabel berov tefutsos Yisrael...

I think I was more clear in the example I gave in my reply (snipped from
your consequent reply):
> Unlike, say, being the only woman in your community to light neir Chanukah.

Neir Chanukah isn't keli gever, even if women in your mileau generally
don't light them. Because the topic isn't one of personal accessories
or grooming. One can't generalize from tzitzis or tefillin to mitzvos
asei shehazman gerama that women were not mequbalos in general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

RMB writes:


> >We still have a pardigm gap.
>
> >Simlas ishah can be violated by dying one's hair, plucking, etc.. It is
> >not an issur cheftzah.
>
> >Wearing tzitzis, when such is only done by men, could well be a violation
> >of keli gever. I said nothing about the cloak in that statement.
>
> To slightly marry two threads together, the Sridei Eish (chelek 2 siman 41
in Bar Ilan, although I find that my hardcopy Sridei Eish differs from the
Bar Ilan location of varius teshuvos quite dramatically so it may be
elsewhere in the hardcopy versions) asks why the chachimim did not protest
Michal's use of tephilin on the basis of keli gever?  He answers that when
the kavana is l'shem mitzvah, there is no issue of keli gever, only when it
is l'kishut.  (I think others have similarly distinguished between noy and
toeles in matters of keli gever and weaponry, eg women in dangerous places
in Israel carrying weaponry and it being mutar l'shem toeles).

If you follow the Sridei Eish's distinction, then the cloak would be mutar
if a woman put on the tzitzis l'shem mitzvah, but assur if she was doing for
the sake of a fashion show (eg the fashion designer that deliberately
utilised "chassidik fashion" a few years ago on the catwalk, if that had
included tzitzis).


> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> regards


Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110714/2d7a1cf2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:36:32PM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
: To slightly marry two threads together, the Sridei Eish (chelek 2 siman 41
: in Bar Ilan, although I find that my hardcopy Sridei Eish differs from the
: Bar Ilan location of varius teshuvos quite dramatically so it may be
: elsewhere in the hardcopy versions) asks why the chachimim did not protest
: Michal's use of tephilin on the basis of keli gever?  He answers that when
: the kavana is l'shem mitzvah, there is no issue of keli gever, only when it
: is l'kishut....

Makes sense to me, not that the SE needs my approval. Although I'm not
clear which is the 2nd thread you're touching upon (other than the
one named in the subject line).

I'm posting more to share the sidenote that yes, there are two very
different editions of the Seridei Eish -- one by Mosad haRav Kook and
one by the Committe for the Publication of the Writings of R' Yechiel
Yaaqov Weinberg. The "Committee" edition has a table that maps back
cross references to the MhRK edition. The reason for the change is that
the original edition came out uding the author's lifetime, meaning that
topical structure was compromized by the fact that pieces were finished
later. (Much the way the Igeros Moshe revists topics in later volumes.)
The new edition is more organized, being postumous (2003, Y-m ih"q). But
by then many mar'eh meqomos were already printed using MhRK citations,
so the Committee had to provide mappings if their new layout was to sell.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The fittingness of your matzos [for the seder]
mi...@aishdas.org        isn't complete with being careful in the laws
http://www.aishdas.org   of Passover. One must also be very careful in
Fax: (270) 514-1507      the laws of business.    - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 05:02:59AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I too noticed that he specifically mentioned *salty* olives, *salty*
: pickles, and the like. But if the commonality is dehydration, that makes
: a person want to *drink*, which heads us off in the wrong direction. What
: is accomplished by stimulating the thirst?

The commonality could be things one keeps in the pantry. Before
refrigeration, a lot more of the foods kept around the kitchen were
salted (a/k/a pickled or corned).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 11:46:01PM +0000 (yes, a month and a half ago),
R Yitzchak Schaffer wrote:
: From: Rabbi Y. H. Henkin
: Sent: 05/30/11 03:30 PM
...
:> See Bnei Banim ... vol. 4 p. 141 (concerning pisuk raglayim).

: Thank you very much! Available at:
...
: http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20023&;st=&pgnum=141 

RYHH discusses pisuq raglayim in terms of horseback riding in contrast
to walking, citing the Me'iri. But what does the Me'iri do with the
need for a keves; doesn't the issur "lo yaalu bemaalos" imply that

1- There is a pisuq raglayim issue when climbing stairs, and
2- it's not specific to women?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 44th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        6 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Malchus: What type of justice
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            does unity demand?

> From: avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org [mailto:avodah-
> boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> 
> 
> If you mean (as the last sentence implies) that one can't assume women
> would have a similar problem with kavanah, that distinction isn't made
> WRT Ashrei and Birkhas Avos. When they discuss no longer following
> chazal's pesaq about repeating Ashrei if "Poseiach es 'Yadekha'..." is
> said without kavanah, because we aren't likely to do much better the
> second time anyway...

The din that do not have kavanah is only said WRT Avos. See SA OH 91 Ramo.
I know of no where that suggest anything similar by Ashrei. See 51:7. You
can say the possuk of posei'ach as many times as necessary to get it right.
There are no issues of bracha levatolo.

Akiva

In Pinchas 27:18 it states: ''...v'samachta es yadcha..." (lean your hand [singular]). 
Five p'sukim later 27:23 it states: ''Vayismoch es yadav alav...'' (He leaned his hands [plural]). 
And the pasuk immediately preceding (vs.22) states ''Vayaas Moshe kaasher tziva HaSem oso...'' 
How could it say that he did as he was commanded? He was commanded to lean ONE hand and 
he leaned TWO hands. Such a big deal is made out of his striking the rock instead of speaking to it, 
so how come he wasn't penalized for following the exact instructions (laying ONE instead of TWO
hands) and how could the Torah state that he did as HaShem commanded him?

Regarding speaking to the rock, the Torah commands Moshe to gather the eidah 
and Aharon and speak to the rock so that it will give its waters. First, the Torah 
doesn't tell him WHAT to say and the commandment is ''v'dibartem'' which is the
plural. Logistically, how were they all to speak together when they weren't even 
told what to say? Perhaps, Moshe was so overwhelmed not knowing what to say
or how they could all speak together that his frustration led him to strike the rock. 
(B'midbar 20:8).

In Orach Chaim Siman 5, the Shulchan Aruch discusses the kavanos of
Hashem's name. The commentators (e.g. the MB, Shaarei Teshuva,etc.) use
this short siman as an opportunity to talk about the pronunciation
of Hashem's name. One opinion, brought down by the Be'er Heitiv from
the MA from the Bach says some pronounced Hashem's name with a tzerei.
What is this talking about? Also, in what other ways were different
communities acustomed to pronounce Hashem's name (e.g. some speak of a
shva na instead of a chataph patach under the alif in Hashem's name)?

There's been some discussion of insanity pleas on Areivim.  I'm just
wondering, is there any basis in halacha for such a plea?  In secular law
the delicate line we tread is a realization that some of the more heinous
crimes one can commit seem to require the perpetrator to be insane by
definition, OTOH, we do see some people who are clearly so clinically
impaired it is hard to hold them responsible for their actions.  We do have
a Torah concept that one does not sin except in a spirit of "insanity", but
is there a source to distinguish between the craziness that lies behind
every sin and a level of impairment that might actually be considered
extenuating circumstances?

--
Daniel M. Israel
President, Kol BeRamah Torah Learning Center
dan...@kolberamah.org

Something on the recent daf yomi at the moment, that I am sure somebody
discusses somewhere (and I may even have come across it somewhere so any
pointers would be appreciated):

On Chullin 14b the sugya discussing breira is brought, including the
machlokus between Rabbi Meir and others regarding whether one can drink wine
on shabbas from which one had only designated the wine which will remain
after shabbas as the trumos and ma'asros.  And the others object to Rabbi
Meir's solution to use breira on the grounds that the wine cask may break,
and then it will result that no trumos and ma'asros ended up being taken,
while Rabbi Meir is not concerned for this possibility.

But how does that reconcile with Rabbi Meir's other famous position, namely
that he is chayesh l'meutei - ie concerned for minority cases (brought most
recently on daf 11b).

Why is the barrel breaking not a minority case, just like a katan or katana
turning out to be an ailanis? And surely both are cases where it is possible
to be mevarer, if you wait long enough, so the exception to the rule brought
on daf 11b doesn't help.

Thanks and Shabbat Shalom

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110715/fcad5a44/attachment-0001.htm>

Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 12:28:40AM -0600, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
: There's been some discussion of insanity pleas on Areivim. I'm just
: wondering, is there any basis in halacha for such a plea? ...

I want to bump this thread, just to motivate someone who might have an
answer to bother to share.

I could recast the question: We repeatedly encounter the "cheireish,
shoteh veqatan" when it comes to maaseh; what about oneshim?

Can a shoteh be forced to repay a debt?

What about making a shoteh who stole a sheep pay the qenas?

Back a second... The shoteh can't be qoneh. So, if he takes the sheep
off the owner's property, is it still technically geneivah?

If a shoteh damages another's property, is is din nezeq or nistapchah
sadeihu?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:30:55AM +0000, matthewjmille...@gmail.com wrote:
:                   One opinion, brought down by the Be'er Heitiv from
: the MA from the Bach says some pronounced Hashem's name with a tzerei.

The Bach says (as is quoted verbatum in the MA) "miqtzasan qorin bepatach,
umiqtzasan qorin notin letzeirei". Not quite a full tzeirei. Continuing
the Bach: "vekhein minhag haAshkenazim." In any case he says it's pashut
from how the word is written when written out (not as a replacement for
Havayah) "shetzarikh liqroso bepatach".

Note the MB wants you to be maqpid to make that a chataf-patach, not
a full patach.

:                             Also, in what other ways were different
: communities acustomed to pronounce Hashem's name (e.g. some speak of a
: shva na instead of a chataph patach under the alif in Hashem's name)?

A chataf patach is a kind of sheva na. Alef, hei and ches can't take a
sheva na, probably because it's too much silence between the letter and
the sheva, so the sheva instead gets "colored" by the neighboring vowel.

So I don't think sheim adnus would ever take a sheva na rather than a
patach.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 03:30:55AM +0000, matthewjmille...@gmail.com wrote:
:                   One opinion, brought down by the Be'er Heitiv from
: the MA from the Bach says some pronounced Hashem's name with a tzerei.

The Bach says (as is quoted verbatum in the MA) "miqtzasan qorin bepatach,
umiqtzasan qorin notin letzeirei". Not quite a full tzeirei. Continuing
the Bach: "vekhein minhag haAshkenazim." In any case he says it's pashut
from how the word is written when written out (not as a replacement for
Havayah) "shetzarikh liqroso bepatach".

Note the MB wants you to be maqpid to make that a chataf-patach, not
a full patach.

:                             Also, in what other ways were different
: communities acustomed to pronounce Hashem's name (e.g. some speak of a
: shva na instead of a chataph patach under the alif in Hashem's name)?

A chataf patach is a kind of sheva na. Alef, hei and ches can't take a
sheva na, probably because it's too much silence between the letter and
the sheva, so the sheva instead gets "colored" by the neighboring vowel.

So I don't think sheim adnus would ever take a sheva na rather than a
patach.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org        -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org   inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507      ourselves.      - Victor Frankl (MSfM)

I can assure those of you who are concerned over the issue of pleading
insanity, that sometimes even if the criminal pleads insanity justice can be
done.

I am very familiar with a certain case in which a Jewish [but non-frum] boy
who was suffering from schizophrenia murdered his father by stabbing him
something like 35 times or more. He definitely was insane, was having
definite psychotic issues at the time, and was still convicted of murder by
a judge who was very wise. The judge said that while the young man [I think
he was 21 or 22 at the time] was definitely schizophrenic and had been
diagnosed as such years before, he was aware of what he was doing at the
time, planned the attack in advance, ditched the knife, and lied to police
and his mother in order to get away with the murder so he could not be
judged innocent by reason of insanity.

To be judged innocent by reason of insanity the defense must prove that the
person could not understand the difference between right and wrong and did
not understand what he was doing at the time. Just because a criminal is
insane does not mean that they can use this to get out of being judged
guilty of a crime.

In the case I mentioned above, the murderer has up until this time been
refusing his medication and is so psychotic that he cannot even attend his
sentencing hearing and so it has been postponed for a long time now [more
than a year or so IIRC] but it will eventually happen and until that time he
is serving his time locked up in a well-known state mental institution in
Maryland.

To bring this back to Avodah relevance, I have never heard of a case in
Torah in which a murderer has been set free because they were insane.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110715/919cadba/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 136
***************************************

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..."