Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 156

Thu, 11 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: why davka? amalek?? (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: why davka? amalek?? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: eiva (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Characterizing our era (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 5. Re: Post achronic (was shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???) (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Characterizing our era (was: Re: shabbas//mishum eiva, etc???) (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: God who knows the future (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 8. emes (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 9. Re: emes (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: emes (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: emes (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Ladies not making Havdallah (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: why davka? amalek?? (Harvey Benton)
• 14. Re: Napoleon ma'aseh, legend? (S.)

On 8/10/2011 10:29 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> why does Hashem say regarding the battle with amalek, that His throne will
> not be complete, until "amalek" is destroyed?
> 2 questions: what does amalek represent (so reprehensibly) that Hashem's
> throne won't be complete??
> weren't/aren't there more depraved, evil, etc, people(s) on the earth
> that have
> existed, that "quote/unqote" been in existence, stood against Hashem's
> glory
> and his teachings???
> Why davka Amalek??
> 2. do we hold that the battle of amalek is both a physical one (as well
> as a
> spiritual one?? or is one (you choose the one) sufficient a battle to
> engage in??
> 2a. some hold that amalek = doubt, or sowing the seeds of doubt (eg in a
> rational or philosophical way), but wouldn't that be more in the realm
> of "greek"
> philosopy?? where nothing, to a degree of 100% certainty (eg, our reality,
> torah's validity given that we weren't there, other philosophical
> constructs including
> the validity of math, reason, logic, euclidean geometry (basic building
> blocks
> of western societies' thinking, etc) can ever be proven..............

http://lamrot-hakol.blogspot.com/2006/02/israel-and-amalek.html

The quote that sums the article up is "Israel sees the sacred even in 
the profane. Amalek sees the profane even in the sacred."  It's always 
possible to look at the world through a lens of kedusha or a lens of 
"keri".  Amalek embodies the "keri" principle.

When we attacked Amalek in the days of Shaul, the tribal Amalekites of 
Moshe's time had settled down and become civilized.  We attacked the 
*city* of Amalek.  And when Shmuel has Agag brought before him, it looks 
like this:

Shmuel said, "Bring me Agag, king of the Amalekites."  And Agag walked 
to him, pleasantly, and said, "Surely the bitterness of death has passed?"

I've seen a lot of different explanations of this, some even translating 
"maadanot" as "in chains", but what it looks like to me is that Agag was 
aghast.  From his point of view, it would be like Israel attacking Spain 
today because of the expulsion in 1492.  He was like, "You have got to 
be kidding me.  You slaughtered all my people because of an attack in 
the desert 400+ years ago?!  Can't we just be friends?"

That's Amalek thinking.  There is no significance other than the 
immediate, prosaic, politics of the moment.  But we know better.  And 
Shmuel knew better.  And Agag may have figured it out himself in the 
moments before Shmuel hacked him to death.  But I doubt it.

Lisa

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:05:28AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> The quote that sums the article up is "Israel sees the sacred even in  
> the profane. Amalek sees the profane even in the sacred."  It's always  
> possible to look at the world through a lens of kedusha or a lens of  
> "keri".  Amalek embodies the "keri" principle.

Medrash Tanchuma also emphasize their being first. (See also Rambam,
Sefer haMitzvos, asei #188). "Asher *korkha* baderekh" -- they cooled off
the nations' awe of us the way the first person who enters an overly-hot
bath may get burned, but cools down the water for everyone else.

The world would have otherwise remained enamored of "kol Yaaqov", but
Amaleiq reasserted "yedei Eisav". (Amaleiq was Eisav's grandson through
Esav's son Eliphaz and Eliphaz's shifchah, Timna.) Moral voice was
again occluded to "might makes right".

This enhances, not contradicts, what Lisa cites. Amaleiq focuses on
worldly power, and thus physical might, ignoring qedushah, ethics,
or anything remotely related to bitachon or hashgachah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

 
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
>>   I would  have thought in EY of all places the danger [of not giving 
medical treatment to  goyim on Shabbos] is obvious and
direct.  We saw what the Arabs did  when their leaders made up a story of
poor little Mohammed al-Durah; imagine  what they would do if it became
known that the Jews didn't save some kid's  life because it was Shabbos!
In every blood libel the majority knew that the  story wasn't true; imagine
if the majority knew that this time the story  circulating *was* true! <<


-- 
Zev  Sero         
z...@sero.name   






>>>>>
 
IIANM the results of eiva are not only that goyim will conduct a pogrom  
against Jews (in Israel or in chu'l) if Jewish doctors or midwives don't take  
care of goyim on Shabbos, but ALSO that non-Jews (doctors, nurses,  
midwives) will refuse treatment to Jews in need -- all the days of the week --  if 
they perceive that Jews don't take care of goyim when they are in need of  
medical help.
 

--Toby  Katz
================




_____________________  






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/ac9ac649/attachment-0001.htm>

In sum, RMYG is right: we are now in the era of the roshei yeshiva.

---this may be more an areivim comment , but i think it should be 
characterized that the   -haredi- communities  may be in the era of the 
roshei yeshiva.
it is not clear that  other segments of halachic jewry  hold to such an 
allegience/characterization....

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/2ab907b2/attachment-0001.htm>

RZS wrote:

>The era of Acharonim is usually reckoned to have stopped at about 1800 or a
bit earlier.  The Chasam Sofer is not an Acharon.

> RMB replied:
> I didn't even know there /was/ a post-acharonic, although I have argued
> that history would someday draw a line at the Shoah.
> ------------------

And MYG further replied:

> I like drawing the line at R' Chaim Volozhiner, and calling everything
> afterward the era of the Roshei Yeshivos.

I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

I spend a fair bit of time reading teshuvos, and I just don't see any
distinction made between the period pre and post the Chatam Sofer, or the
Shoah, or R' Chaim Volozhiner in the way the  various authors of the shutim
relate to the various authorities that precede them.

a) For example, today the Igeros Moshe continues to be highly influential.
But Rav Moshe had no qualms with disagreeing with anybody he considered an
achron, but would not take the same approach to a rishon.  Indeed, some of
his most noted piskei teshuva involve such disagreement - eg his stance on
abortion meant disagreeing strongly with Rav Ya'akov Emden (clearly achronic
by all the definitions above) and in his position on hair covering he
disagrees with the Chatam Sofer (an achron according to the last two
definitions).

b) as another example, Rav Ovadiah Yosef is highly influential (not just
amongst Sephardim these days).  But in his famous assessment and listing of
the views of others who have written on a particular topic (the
encyclopaedic aspect), he makes no distinction between those who are pre and
post either the Chatam Sofer, R' Chaim Volozhiner or the Shoah (he will
quote Rav Moshe, for example, clearly post Shoah, along with others pre
Shoah).

And I could go on and on.  I cannot recall a modern set of teshuvos that I
have seen where the author of the shut says, as we would say with a rishon,
well we cannot debate him, he is an achron, and we are post achronic.  RSZA
famously was reluctant to go against the Chazon Ish on electricity vis a vis
hilchos shabbas - but that is not a pre and post Shoah or any of these other
time line debate. 

And indeed, the few times I have ventured into the Chazon Ish, he takes on
Achronim with gusto and disagrees with their psak based solely on his own
reasoning, and not on setting off some other achron against those whom he
takes to task.  That is not the attitude of somebody who considers himself
living in a post achronic era.

Historically I agree that most of the people who wrote shutim were the Rav
of a town or city, rather than a Rosh Yeshiva (although to be fair, I am not
sure how many "roshei yeshiva" while they may posken for those who go to
them, write shutim that get quoted in the same breath as ROY or the Tzitz
Eliezer.  Note that of the various modern people listed in the Bar Ilan data
base Rav Shternbach, for example, is Av Beis Din of the Eidis Charedis, not
just a rosh yeshiva, and even Rav Eliyashev spent a fair bit of time in
dayanus).  And I think it is the shutim which are the real comparison of
like with like, and I don't see any such distinction being made there.

Regards

Chana

I was actually thinking in entirely different terms.

Speaking historically, we can speak of Anshei Kenesses haGedolah, the
Zugos, the tannaim, amoraim, savora'im, ge'onim, rishonim, acharonim,
and...?

But I was thinking halachically. (And I just paused to approve a post
by RnCL who appears to be thinking along the same lines.) A world in
which the zugos are a subclass of tannaim, because tannaim felt free
to consider them baalei pelugta. Similarly, rishonim didn't feel a
particular requirement to justify differing with geonim, as long as
they were consistent with their understanding of Chazal. We can argue
whether the lines are mandatory, convention, mandatory only in the case
of tannaim vs amora'im, etc.. but in practice, we do find these eras of
halachic authority.

And I'll note but not dwell on the question of whether savoraim should
be considered amoraim or geonim (ie very very early rishonim).

Then we get to the acharonim, who with few exceptions (the Ari, the Besht
and the Gra are the only three that I can think of) would not take a
position based on amoraim without taking "rishonim" (including geonim,
as per above) into account.

Until recently. Posqim born before the Shoah were and are willing to
argue their understanding of the rishonim without much worry that they
were disagreeing with an earlier acharon. Eg the IM.

Addressing that post from RnCL that didn't yet reach my inbox, to
paraphrase the gemara, "RMF acharon hu upalig". You can't cite
those who straddled both eras as counter-examples.

But now among the gedolim who weren't deciding halakhah before 1945,
it seems to me attention has shifted to following our understanding of
the pre-War acharonim, turning only to directly referring to rishonim
when there is no clear acharonic position. A parallel:

    An acharon would pasqen based on rishonim, and turn to chazal only
    when that fails to produce a clear answer

    A post-WWII poseiq tends to (always?) pasqens based on acharonim,
    and turn only to rishonim when that fails to produce a clear answer

I said this is something historians may someday decide. I wrote that
because I feel it's all too new to see if a real trend is emerging.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
mi...@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

R' David Riceman wrote:

> See Mishna Berachos 9:3 "If someone petitions about a past event
> (tzo'ek l'she'avar) it is a false prayer.  For example (keitzad),
> if his wife was pregnant and he prays that the child is a boy, that
> is a false prayer." Bartenura: "It is a false prayer because what
> happened happened (mai d'haveh haveh)".
>
> If what you say is correct it should be equally wrong to pray for a
> boy before his wife got pregnant; after all, it was predetermined.
> What distinction is the mishna making?

The reason some people are bothered by Hashem's foreknowledge (or,
alternatively, those who would be bothered by the presence of tomorrow's
newspaper, even if it stays unread) if that they think the foreknowledge
determines the choice. In other words, that there is no free choice,
because it is forced to be whatever the foreknowledge says it will be.

I say those people have it exactly backwards. The foreknowledge doesn't
determine the choice --- The foreknowledge is determined BY the choice. I
have total free will to go right or to go left, and when I make that
choice, that's when Hashem's foreknowledge will be determined. Until then,
the contents of the newspaper will be indeterminate. (If that foreknowledge
becomes revealed somehow, such as by a navi, this would present perplexing
psychological questions that I have not given much thought to.)

Similarly, if a woman is not pregnant, or is in the beginning stages of her
pregnancy, it is perfectly okay to pray for the gender of the child. While
it is true that Hashem *does* know what gender the child will end up being,
He has not yet - so to speak - made this decision. There is still time to
pray and influence this future choice of His. At some point in the
pregnancy (40 days, IIRC) He will make that decision, based on whatever
factors He uses for this sort of thing, at which point the child's gender
will not be an undecided thing that one may pray for, but it will be an
accomplished fact, which no one may pray for (except for those tzadikim who
are allowed to pray for miracles, which this would be).

Although our "now" is nothing like Hashem's, he does deal with us on our
own terms. For more information on this topic, a good place to start might
be "Ba'asher hu sham". (Rashi et al on Bereshis 21:17)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e4410cd8e9e2573896st05vuc

rMB::    that caring about historicity is itself a non-mesoretic
attitude

-----  how does that jive with   the midah of Emes ?   is Truth to be 
defined within a parameter  of falseness that is acceptable?  [lie for the 
purpose of mesorah=Truth ?]  it would seem to be difficult to defend 
'orthodox' dogma   if they can't be considered 100%  Truthful......

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/1df9c100/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:35:04AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: rMB:
:> that caring about historicity is itself a non-mesoretic
:> attitude

: how does that jive with the midah of Emes ? is Truth to be
: defined within a parameter of falseness that is acceptable? ...

If you insist that all these stories are historical, that's sheqer
and assur (midevar sheqer tirchaq). But if you use the story about
Napolean without caring if it really happened or not, you simply
aren't looking into the question of history. Ignoring the topic.

Halakhah doesn't deal in true/false propositions, but in law. Halakhah,
and in fact, the Torah as a whole, isn't the ultimate Emes but the path
one takes to Emes. The original intent of the rav who made a statement
is a fact; how the statement is interpreted by the flow of mesorah is
law. And halakhah is law, and thus is defined by the flow of mesorah,
not historical fact.

History inspires. Some (R Prof Y Levine) more than others (me). But it
isn't the central topic of Torah. So, why is this the particular emes
we need to explore? Why can't we just leave the question open, and
focus on those things the mesorah does?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The thought of happiness that comes from outside
mi...@aishdas.org        the person, brings him sadness. But realizing
http://www.aishdas.org   the value of one's will and the freedom brought
Fax: (270) 514-1507      by uplifting its, brings great joy. - R' Kook

On 8/11/2011 2:24 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:35:04AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
> : rMB:
> :>  that caring about historicity is itself a non-mesoretic
> :>  attitude
>
> : how does that jive with the midah of Emes ? is Truth to be
> : defined within a parameter of falseness that is acceptable? ...
>
> If you insist that all these stories are historical, that's sheqer
> and assur (midevar sheqer tirchaq). But if you use the story about
> Napolean without caring if it really happened or not, you simply
> aren't looking into the question of history. Ignoring the topic.
>
> Halakhah doesn't deal in true/false propositions, but in law. Halakhah,
> and in fact, the Torah as a whole, isn't the ultimate Emes but the path
> one takes to Emes. The original intent of the rav who made a statement
> is a fact; how the statement is interpreted by the flow of mesorah is
> law. And halakhah is law, and thus is defined by the flow of mesorah,
> not historical fact.
>
> History inspires. Some (R Prof Y Levine) more than others (me). But it
> isn't the central topic of Torah. So, why is this the particular emes
> we need to explore? Why can't we just leave the question open, and
> focus on those things the mesorah does?

I don't agree.  If implications differ from historical fact, that's 
fine.  But if an actual statement of fact is factually untrue, I have a 
real problem with that.

When I teach classes, one of the first things I do is tell the people 
there that as far as I'm concerned, every single midrash and aggadeta is 
true, without exception.  But not every one of them is factual.  That, 
in fact, if they're factual, that's all but a matter of coincidence. 
But if the Gemara said (for example) that Abbaye had red hair, and a 
reliable historical source was found that said he wasn't, I'd find that 
problematic.  That doesn't mean I'd automatically accept the other 
source -- maybe it's mistaken -- but it would be something I'd need to 
see resolved.  In the name of emet.

Lisa

Lisa

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 03:31:47PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I don't agree.  If implications differ from historical fact, that's  
> fine.  But if an actual statement of fact is factually untrue, I have a  
> real problem with that.

My point is that the only people claiming these stories are necessarily
fact are people today. Chazal, when they told an aggadita, took the
attitude must like yours:
> When I teach classes, one of the first things I do is tell the people  
> there that as far as I'm concerned, every single midrash and aggadeta is  
> true, without exception.  But not every one of them is factual...

(Personally, I would say "historical", but that's just quibbling
over which language is more clear. True vs fact is more confusing
IMHO than true vs history. "Fact" has multiple definitions, and much
epistomological garbage goes on by people who switch meanings mid-course
without noticing -- a "Definist Fallacy". Something I realized following
some scjm debates.)

This is why I do not consider the question of historicity of an aggadic
story to be one of emes. Much the same reason you don't. Which is why I
question if you really "don't agree".

>> History inspires. Some (R Prof Y Levine) more than others (me). But it
>> isn't the central topic of Torah. So, why is this the particular emes
>> we need to explore? Why can't we just leave the question open, and
>> focus on those things the mesorah does?

Isn't this the same thing you'r saying? I phrased it as mesorah cares
about the lesson, and doesn't bother determining which meshalim were
created by taking a historical event to illustrate the point, and which
are invented stories.

Torah isn't history, studying it usually doesn't require deciding
historical questions. And someone who thinks it does revolve around
historicity means they're not placing emphasis on the same topics as
chazal did.

What part of that would you disagree with? As far as I can tell from
your reply, you are actually agreeing.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

 
From: Aryeh Herzig <gurar...@gmail.com>
"

>> I  have a theory.

Yerushalmi Berachot says we say Havdallah in Chonen Hadaat  because : Im Ein
Daath Havdallah Minayin".  Since Nashim Daatan Kaloth  they can not make
havdallah. ( Maariv is reshus so ladies don't daven Maariv  anyway so it is
only relevant on Havdallah al HaKos.)

Does this theory  make sense?  <<

Aryeh Herzig




>>>>>
 
No it does not.  "Nashim daatan kalos" does not mean that women have  NO 
daas!
 
Daas is basic intelligence, including the ability to make distinctions  
(e.g., between day and night, between Shabbos and weekdays, between kodesh and  
chol).  
 
"Nashim daatan kalos" means either that women are easily persuaded, or that 
 they are easily misled, or that they are easily seduced -- but not that 
they  have no daas at all and are unable to tell the difference between 
Shabbos and  motzai Shabbos!
 
Your theory would seem to imply that women are not obligated in havdallah,  
and while there does seem to be some such opinion, the consensus is that 
they  are obligated.  Even according to the opinion that women are not 
obligated,  I can't imagine anyone saying the reason is that women have no daas and 
can't  make the necessary distinctions.  
 
After all, regardless of whether they make (or hear) havdallah or not,  
women are still obligated to keep Shabbos.  So I guess they have enough  daas 
to know when it is Shabbos and when it isn't.

 

--Toby  Katz
================




_____________________  






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/e6536f89/attachment-0001.htm>

Lisa, I understand what you are saying, about keri being "cold" or
happenstance, while we, in our better state(s) should be zrizim, l'mitzvot
(eg. "hot"?for Hashem"), however, my original question of why would their
derech?meakev, or hold back Hashem's glory, or as it were His Throne" from
being complete??? wasnt' really addressed. 

?
>>>That's Amalek thinking.? There is no significance other than
>>>the immediate, prosaic, politics of the moment.? But we know
>>>better.? And Shmuel knew better.? And Agag may have figured it
>>>out himself in the moments before Shmuel hacked him to death.?
>>>But I doubt it.

Lisa
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110811/dc0bea14/attachment-0001.htm>

As the one who posted it, a couple of points.
I did not debunk *this* story. Although I have many doubts about it (not
the least of which is the fact that frankly there are loads of Napoleon
legends in folklore, and I can't see why davka this one is more plausible
than the others, many of which are certainly just mayselach and fanciful)
all I did was show that there are actually two versions (one which is far
less frum and, incidentally, seemingly more in character with what Napoleon
would likely say when confronted with a Tisha B'av scene) and that you see
that it was well known in 1891, when I find a reference to it in print. It
would be nicer to see that in 1830 it was already well known, of course.
Who knows, maybe we will yet find an earlier source. I may have been the
first one to look.
All that said, legends are of course important in that they express what
people feel are important and true. So the story expresses what people feel
and felt is important and true about Tisha B'av. Why we should care what
Napoleon's opinion was, given his megalomania, his other opinions about
Jews with which we certainly do not agree, I don't know, but I guess he is
as good a foil for a good story as anyone. En meshivin al hadrash, asking
these questions only means that you don't enjoy stories. If you ask on
Chicken Soup for the Soul, then I'm guessing your soul doesn't get soothed
by Chicken Soup stories in the first place.
Still, another angle is that a certain percentage of the hamon, especially
nowadays, are actually annoyed and cynical about stories that didn't happen
but happened to have been repeated in an echo chamber, with no one ever
looking to see if it was true, or even any reflection on whether or not the
story even happened. This doesn't necessarily bring honor to the rabbinate,
for example, if it is rabbis and talmidei chachomim who repeat such
stories. So whether or not alienating such people is a consideration is
also something to think about, in my opinion.
SW


From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] napoleon ma'aseh: legend?
Message-ID: <20110811163812.GB31...@aishdas.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 08:13:54AM -0700, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote to
Areivim:
: http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/08/on-napoleo
: n-tisha-bav-legend-tracing-it.html 

: 
: i don't know if this is better on avodah...

This reply does, so I'm moving it here.

: if the napoleon story [like the Golem] is made up, does it matter after
: after it has been incorporated in countless drashos over the years?

Li nir'eh that for the purpose of talmud Torah, the fact that this is
what Jews over the generations were willing and capable of believing,
and considered important enough to incorporate into divrei Torah is more
relevent than history.

This fits both with what I said in the past about chazal's attitude toward
aggadic stories (that caring about historicity is itself a non-mesoretic
attitude), and with what I've written about halachic process being more
about how an opinion is developed down the generations than what the
baal mesorah originally intended. So, at least I am consistent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110811/7b289a6e/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 156
***************************************

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..."