Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 189

Wed, 21 Sep 2011

• 1. Re: shaliach?? (ownership??)//nafkamina (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: kol yisrael yesh..... (beis/lamed) (Poppers, Michael)
• 3. Re: Humanoids, Who Cares? What Difference Does it Make? (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg: Davening in English? (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Bais Ovi: Time Off From Torah For Weddings & Sheva Brachos (Prof. Levine)
• 6. Re: kol yisrael yesh..... (beis/lamed) (Poppers, Michael)
• 7. Re: Humanoids, Who Cares? What Difference Does it Make? Probably not Talmud Torah. (Ari Kahn)
• 8. Re: Nar NaAr (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg: Davening in English? (Simon Montagu)
• 10. Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg: Davening in English? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: shaliach?? (ownership??)//nafkamina (Arie Folger)
• 13. Re: Humanoids, Who Cares? What Difference Does it Make? (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Evolution, Hashgachah and Tehillah (Rich, Joel)
• 15. Re: Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg: Davening in English? (Simon Montagu)

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 04:15:44PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: if someone sends a message or payment (eg reuven to shimon) via a
: shaliach, and then retracts...

This is the inyan of sheliach leholakha vs sheliach leqabalah. No?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

In Avodah V28n188, R'Micha replied:
> Is a day of the omer a unit, and the omer period as a whole a
> collection; or is the omer the unit, and the day a part? We say "the
> United States is..." but in the antebellum South they said "... the
> Confederate States are..." A state would be counted "be-US" but
> "le-CS".
>
> I don't see how this reasoning would apply beyond countables. If you
> can't point to units, how can you ask whether one has a collection of
> units or parts of a whole? <
I'm aiming for a holistic explanation.  "BaOmer": we're in the midst of it; "laOmer": we're looking at the period as a whole.

> The Ritva (on Berakhos 64a) explains that "lekh beshalom" implies that the shalom is limited to the halikhah, not the destination. <
Right, because the halichah is seemingly in the midst of shalom rather than looking at Shalom as an entity to reach.

> About areivim, this is what I wrote last May:
>> Areivim zeh *ba*zeh means that all Jews are mixed up one within the other.
>> The Ohr haChaim invokes it to explain why cheit ha'eigel would impact 
>> the quality of MRAH's nevu'ah.
>>
>> Areivim zeh *la*zeh is a blander statement of mutual hischayvus, without 
>> any metaphysical basis posited for it.
[emphasis _and_ correction of your original quote mine --MP]
Similarly, when we're in the midst of one another, we're truly together;
when we're on the outside looking at each other, we're not (at least,
relatively speaking).

> Last, as for le'olam habah:
>
> Are we saying they have a cheileq of olam haba? According to the Ran
> and the Iqarim, the "only" difference between gehenom and gan eden is
> the state of the soul when it enters olam haba. One will burn in
> shame, the other will enjoy the ziv hashechinah. If genehom is also
> part of olam haba, what kind of promise is "yeish lahem cheileq
> be'olam haba"?
>
> So I think the mishnah means "yeish lahem cheileq [in the sechar of
> being Yisrael, applicable] toward olam haba." And thus their gehenom
> is limited. (Until you read further in pereq Cheileq and see the
> cheileq only applies to Jews who didn't forfeit their title
> "Yisrael".)
>
> But if one referred to the sekhar explicitly it would be "cheileq besechar", not "lesechar". <
I don't think you need to go farther than our t'filah b'chal-yom: "Atah hu
ba'olam hazeh, v'Atah hu la'olam haba."  I see it as saying, "You, H', are
[with us] now, in the olam we can discern, and You will be [with us] in the
future, in the olam which we're looking forwards to."

All the best (including wishes to all for a shanah tovah umsuqah) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

 

From: Meir Rabi <meir...@gmail.com>
Subject: [Avodah]  Humanoids, Who Cares? What Difference Does it Make?
Probably  not Talmud Torah.


>>The new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari Kahn .... that Adam  Harishon
>>co-existed with non-human humanoids. This says Rabbi   Moshe Eisemann, is 
the
>>position of the  Ramban.

Who  Cares?
What Difference Does it Make?
Angels dancing on the head of a  pin.
Must I accept/believe these positions?

Why does anyone bother  with these types of inquiries?
Is it Talmud Torah? and I don't accept that  the Ramban's including it (if 
he
did indeed include it) as a comment proves  that it is TT.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi

 
>>>>>
 
Certainly you are not required to accept or believe these positions!   And 
what doesn't interest you -- you should not waste your time with.  I  think 
it says in the Gemara somewhere that a person should study those aspects  of 
Torah that appeal to him.
 
However, you are making a couple of dubious assumptions here.  
 
Dubious Assumption #1: that if some area of study is not "Talmud  Torah" it 
is of no use and of no interest and should not be studied.  Yet  there are 
many pesukim that could be quoted to indicate that the study of the  world, 
of nature, is or can be part of Talmud Torah.  Maybe the most famous  is 
Yeshayahu 40:26, "Lift up your eyes and see, who created these?"   Another 
would be Tehillim, "Mah gadlu ma'asecha Hashem."  There is a huge  difference in 
depth and appreciation between a child's knowledge that "the world  is 
amazing" and a scientist's knowledge of the same.  The more you know,  the 
higher and deeper is your awareness of "mah gadlu ma'asecha."
 
Now you may argue that this does not apply to those things of which we  
cannot have certain knowledge -- what happened before the world was created, 
for  example -- but in principle, the attempt to study what happened in the 
distant  past is not different in principle from the attempt to study the vast 
distances  in the universe that we can "lift up our eyes and see" each 
night, but will  never be able to traverse.
 
You may also argue that a child's awareness -- "There sure are a lot of  
stars and they sure are pretty" -- is all that Yeshayahu or Dovid Hamelech had 
 in mind.  I would disagree with that position but it is not an 
unreasonable  position.
 
But then there is your dubious assumption #2:  that just because the  
Ramban wrote something in his commentary on the Torah, does not prove that what  
he wrote is Talmud Torah.
 
This becomes a sticky wicket indeed -- if you hold that what is not Talmud  
Torah should not be studied, and also that whatever the Ramban wrote is not 
 necessarily TT -- because you would have to wade through a LOT of 
meforshim  all over the margins of your Chumash and Gemara, penciling out all of the 
things  that are "not Talmud Torah" so that you don't waste your  
Torah-learning time accidentally studying  that-which-should-not-be-studied.  You 
might begin, if you like, by  crossing out all the French words in Rashi.  As 
for Abarbanel, Hirsch and  Malbim, I'd skip them entirely if I were you.
 

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




_____________________
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110920/bcad0bee/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2324

In 1954 a Rov in New York sent a question to Rav Yechiel Yaakov 
Weinberg the Baal Sridei Eish in Montreaux, Switzerland.  He wanted 
to know if it was permissible to allow saying the "Mizmorim" from 
davening in English as a congregation.

The Sridei Eish (OC 9) answered that the question is a very sensitive 
one.  Min HaDin there is no issur since L'Halacha, Tefila can be said 
in any language.  Even according to the opinions that a Yochid must 
use Lashon Kodesh when davening alone, the Mishna Brura (101:18) says 
that for women it is permissible to use other languages. Nevertheless 
he says, this act will cause an uproar among the "frummer" and they 
will slander the Shul.  Why he asks, should you cause great pain to 
the pure and innocent people to whom any change in religious practice 
causes so much grief.

In addition he says, the Mishna Brura (OC 101:13) says that Chasam 
Sofer holds that davening in any language besides Lashon HaKodesh in 
only permitted on occasion and not on a regular basis.

Lastly he said since the "Shul" is the last remaining bastion of 
Yiddishkeit it is imperative to make sure that Lashon Kodesh is the 
language of use there.  Its impact on the Kedushas HaTefila and of 
the Bais HaKnesses is dramatic.  Moreover, our religion is deeply 
rooted in Mesora and the tradition of forefathers and any change this 
drastic, is not good.

In summation he says that while women can look at the English 
translation while davening, he strongly recommends not to implement 
any change in the way we daven and to steadfastly make sure that all 
Tefilos are conducted in Lashon Kodesh, our Holy language that is 
soaked with the blood of our hearts and tears of our eyes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110920/9b480f3c/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=3528

The gemara says that you stop learning for Hachnasas Kallah.  What 
does that entail, going to a Chupah?  Staying for the meal?  What 
about Sheva Brachos?  Also the gemara says that you may not indulge 
in the se'uda of a Choson and Kallah if you do not gladden their 
hearts.  Does this include Sheva Brachos?

Rav Yitzchok Eizek Liebes in Shu"T Bais Ovi 5:14 says that when the 
gemara allows for Bitul Torah for Hachnasas Kallah it is specifically 
to escort the Choson to his Chupah as per the wording of the Rema (EH 
6:1).  The heter of bitul torah does not go beyond that.  Similarly 
says the Bais Ovi, it is logical that the gemara that talks about not 
enjoying the meal of a choson without making him happy refers to the 
wedding meal and not the Sheva Brachos.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110920/542ea92a/attachment-0001.htm>

Earlier, I had written [in response to R'Micha]:
---
> The Ritva (on Berakhos 64a) explains that "lekh beshalom" implies that the shalom is limited to the halikhah, not the destination. <
Right, because the halichah is seemingly in the midst of shalom rather than looking at Shalom as an entity to reach.
---


> Which is appropriate for a meis, who is headed for peace no matter what, and it's only the road that is in question. <
And a meis is already with/in the midst of Shalom, while we who are still ba'olam hazeh wish to (and wish that our rei'im) reach it.

All the best (including wishes to all for a shanah tovah umsuqah) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

Regarding humanoids; the question of their existence independent of
analysis of certain verses and statements of Chazal would possibly not be
part of Talmud Torah, but the discussion of those verses and commentaries,
and maamerie Chazal are certainly within the realm of Talmud Torah,
whether the aforementioned humanoids existed or not. Again please read
what I actually wrote.

Kol tuv
Ari Kahn

On 20/09/2011 10:19 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I therefore pointed out that "vehinei nar bokheh" indicates that they
> don't.

Do you really hear balkoires reading it like that?  The difference
between "nar" and "naar" is subtle and hard to catch; how can you be
sure it isn't there?

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Prof. Levine <llev...@stevens.edu> wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=2324
>
> In 1954 a Rov in New York sent a question to Rav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg the
> Baal Sridei Eish in Montreaux, Switzerland.? He wanted to know if it was
> permissible to allow saying the ?Mizmorim? from davening in English as a
> congregation.
>
> The Sridei Eish (OC 9) answered that the question is a very sensitive one.

I looked at this teshuva inside, and could use some help in following
up a reference. The SE says "???? ???? ???"? ??? ?"? ?"? ??' ?"?,
????? ???? ?????  ?? ???? ???"? ?????? ????, ???"?: ??? ???? ?????
???'?". -- "Veyafe bi'er [he gimel he kuf = haga'on hakadosh??] ba`al
[dalet het = ?????] [het shin = helek sheni??] [samech yud, yud het =
siman 18] she`ikar datenu meyussad al tora sheba`al pe umesoret avot
kemo shekatuv 'she'al avicha veyagedcha ..."

Can someone help me identify the source quoted here? "Dalet Het" could
be almost anything.

I got permission to share this Google+ discussion with the chevrah for a
broader discussion. Please chime in...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011 - Limited
    Is still trying to understand how one could believe in both the
    theory of evolution and the efficacy of prayer.

    (To summarize the contridiction: The theory evolution posits random
    mutation which denies hashgacha pratis or hashgacha klalis. Prayer
    assumes a basic hashgacha of God in this world.)

17 comments

Michael Kopinsky - Sep 19, 2011
    Some things happen naturally, some happen supernaturally. Prayer is
    a request for the supernatural.

Sol Birnbaum - Sep 19, 2011
    See: God According To God by Gerald Schroeder

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011
    If you believe that God planned and that the world follows some
    sort of order then, by definition, you are rejecting random
    mutation and the theory of evolution. It's not about natural
    vs. supernatural. Randomness rejects a Divine plan.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    Evolution doesn't require that the mutation be random. In fact, one
    can have an Intelligently Designed evolution, in which mutations are
    guaranteed to fit the proper distribution function, but are actually
    caused by G-d using "loaded dice".

    Randomness doesn't deny a Divine Plan in general, although it would
    appear to if we're relying on randomness to explain big things, like
    the emergence of sentient life. The Ramban had no problem believing
    that Hashem controlled the detail in humans' lives, but only care
    about the big picture when dealing with other things. (For example,
    Hashem would make sure there would be a lion population in a certain
    area, while leaving it to nature which lions would be involved.) The
    Rambam famously reduces this even further, saying that different
    people are subject to more or less such Divine involvement, depending
    on their knowledge. And the others are left to nature.

    But if one does believe in universal hashgachah peratis, one must ask
    how to define the word "random" and if it even has meaning. Somehow,
    though, dice to land on "1" 1/6 of the time... so it would seem to
    have /some/ meaning.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011 (edited)
    Micha: I could be completely wrong, but I believe that there are
    three basic tenets to the theory of evolution:
    1. Over population
    2. Random Mutation
    3. Natural selection (survival of the fittest)

    Once you remove #2, it is no longer the theory of evolution but is
    now something else. One could call it "Intelligent Design", but then
    it is radically different from evolution.

    I am aware that the Rambam and many medieval thinkers accepted only
    hashgacha klalis and had a very restrictive hashgacha pratis. (The
    Rambam only seems to accept hashgacha pratis based upon the revelation
    of tehillim.) However random mutation denies ALL hashgacha. Even
    accepting hashgacha klalit is a rejection of the theory of evolution.

    I don't believe that one could call mathematical probablity and
    distributions "hashgacha". And if one does, then they are redefining
    hashgacha to be something completely than what normal people would
    call providence.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    Evolution doesn't require random mutation. Mutation, yes. But in
    fact with loaded dice, evolution would occur more rapidly. In fact,
    HQBH could even work steps toward future designs into the results
    without violating the laws of nature to do so.

    All the supporting evidence requires is that the law of large numbers
    is obeyed. (Law of large numbers: e.g. if you roll a die a very
    large number of times, each number will come up pretty close to 1/6
    of the time.) "Random" means that science doesn't insist on which;
    or perhaps stronger, that it /can't/ insist on which. But that doesn't
    rule out a Designer picking which of those many die rolls are sixes.

    This form of Intelligent Design is in fact compatible with
    evolution. If evolution required that the random be causeless and
    purposeless even on a theological level, it would be making claims
    that are entirely outside the domain of science.

    IOW, either evolution and ID are compatible, or evolution is just
    as non-science as ID is.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Sep 19, 2011
    As ID is a theory formulated around Evolution, by definition ID
    should be compatible with Evolution.

    The theory that you are describing a system that allows for Designer
    (and therefore a design and a telos). However, once you remove the
    randomness than it is no longer Evolution as generally understood
    by scientists, which is a system without a telos.

    If I understand you correctly, in the system that you are describing,
    overpopulation, mutation and survival of the fittest is way for God
    to push organic life in a particular direction with desired results.

Micha Berger - Sep 19, 2011
    I'm arguing that to be scientific, the theory of evolution can't say
    anything one way or the other about design or telos. To take the word
    "random" as necessarily being something other than Divine Providence
    is to leave the discipline of science and enter theological debate.

Sarah E. Beck - Sep 19, 2011
    KG, I agree with you but don't have time for lengthy post. Will
    discuss IRL sometime.

Joshua S - Sep 19, 2011
    "Random" is a concept that confounds science. It essentially just
    means "we can't predict it." So I wouldn't be too worried about the
    random part.

    It's still an interesting question: why would the RSHO' choose to
    structure his world that way.

Micha Berger - Yesterday 11:38 AM
    RJS: I'm not as bothered. There are apparently two aspects to Hashem's
    goal that we can understand (assuming He really made life this way):
    (1) the design of life, (2) within the laws of nature.

    The Creator therefore would logically choose a methodology in which
    causality does not dictate the outcome, which maximizes His "leeway"
    in introducing telos without violating nature. And of such processes,
    one in which such non-deterministic changes are cumulative would be
    particularly convenient.

Yonatan Kaganoff - Yesterday 7:02 PM
    Once we accept your assumptions, then we are dealing with a radically
    different world than one described in Tanach and Chazal. Instead
    of the orderly inter-connected world of Barchi Nafshi, we have a
    "Nature red in tooth and claw," survival of the fittest.

Micha Berger - Yesterday 9:37 PM (edited)
    The seemingly spontaneous emergence of complex organisms and
    ecosystems is incredible elegance and beauty. Much more beauty than
    a simple "poof" miracle. (And if you think about it, no less awe
    inspiring, arguably more so.)

    Nature today is no more or less bloody because of how one
    views its emergence. BTW, seeing evolution as being more
    about competition than synergies is itself an error. See, eg,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11063939

Arie Folger - 7:01 AM
    YK, re: Borkhi Nafshi, R' Elchanan Samet has a beautiful,
    convincing read thereof (more convincing than the usual
    it-mirrors-the-Account-of-Creation understanding), whereby that
    psalm is a celebration of the cycle of life and its dependence on
    water, a very important vehicle through which G"d manipulates life
    in the world. Once you hear or read his analysis, you might look at
    that text very differently. Doesn't respond to your main question,
    but puts Psalm 104 in perspective.

    I don't know where I had downloaded that shiur from on the internet,
    but it's from the Beit Midrash leTanakh. Worth digging out.

On 21/09/2011 3:27 AM, Simon Montagu wrote:
> Can someone help me identify the source quoted here? "Dalet Het" could
> be almost anything.

Surely it's Divrei Chayim.

-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

RHB wrote:
> [I]f someone sends a message or payment (eg reuven to shimon) via a
> shaliach, and then retracts, and asks for the message or money back,
> is the shaliach allowed to retract it? (eg, or once it reaches the
> shaliach's hand, does it becomes the "property of shimon?? and it
> cannot be retracted (???) without his/(shimon's) permisssion?? thanks,
> hb

The Gemara in TB Gittin 14ab discusses that question (translation from
Soncino Talmud):

:: It has been stated: If a man says to another, ?Take to So-and-so the
:: maneh which I owe him?, Rab says. he continues to be responsible for
:: it, and he is not at liberty to retract the commission, whereas Samuel
:: says that since he is still responsible he is at liberty to retract. May we
:: presume that the point at issue between them is this, that one authority
:: was of opinion that ?take? is equivalent to ?accept on behalf of?, and the
:: other was of opinion that ?take? is not equivalent to ?accept on behalf of??
:: ? No. Both are agreed that ?take? is equivalent to ?accept on behalf of?,
:: and the point at issue is this, that one was of opinion that we make one
:: ruling because of another, and the other was of opinion that we do not.
::
:: It has been taught in agreement with Rab:16 If a man says to another,
:: Take to So-and-so the maneh which I owe him, give So-and-so the
:: maneh which I owe him, take to So-and-so the maneh which he has
:: given me in trust, give So-and-so the maneh which he has given me in
:: trust, he remains responsible for the money, yet if he wishes to retract
:: the commission he is not at liberty to do so. Why should he not be
:: able to retract in the case of trust money, on the plea that [the depositor]
:: does not desire his money to be in the hand of another [party]? ? R.
:: Zera answered: We assume that [the sender in this case] is known as a
:: man who denies [his obligations].

I leave to RHB as an exercise whether or not this logic may apply to
Moshe & the lu'hot.

-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Wir ziehen um! ? We are Moving
* Muslims Question Their Calendar ? Could it Have Happened to Us?
* Technologie und j?disches Lernen
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iv
* The Disappearance of Big Ideas
* Rabbi, wie stehen Sie zur Ein?scherung?
* Biblical Advice for the Internet Age iii

R' Meir Rabi asked:

> The new book Echoes of Eden by Rabbi Ari Kahn .... that Adam
> Harishon co-existed with non-human humanoids. This says Rabbi
> Moshe Eisemann, is the position of the Ramban.
>
> Who Cares?
> What Difference Does it Make?
> ...
> Must I accept/believe these positions?
> ...
> Why does anyone bother with these types of inquiries?
> Is it Talmud Torah?

It is all too clear to me that I don't understand RMR's question.

The subtitle is "Insights into the weekly Torah portion", and it is written
by someone who teaches at Aish Hatorah. No, you don't have to accept his
positions, but is that enough to passul it from being Talmud Torah?

Personally, I "bother with these types of inquiries" because Bereshis 6:4
sure sounds to me like it MIGHT be talking about non-human humanoids, or
something to that effect, and I don't recall ever hearing an understanding
of those pesukim that didn't sound like convoluted apologetics.

If this sefer doesn't interest RMR, that's fine with me. There are probably
many seforim which he learns diligently that don't interest me. Neither of
us should be publicly defaming such seforim by asking, "Why does anyone
bother with these types of inquiries?" As I said in the beginning, it is
all too clear to me that I don't understand RMR's question.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e79bfd452dd653525st03vuc

 I'm not sure if it helps anyone think about this differently, but we've
 had "random" number generators generating seemingly random numbers for a
 long time, yet the numbers are not truly random as they are generated by a
 computer following instructions.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 21/09/2011 3:27 AM, Simon Montagu wrote:
>>
>> Can someone help me identify the source quoted here? "Dalet Het" could
>> be almost anything.
>
> Surely it's Divrei Chayim.

Yes it is, thank you! Mind you, that still left a number of
possibilities open, and I wasn't aware of any of them as being "the"
DH, but I found it eventually at
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=913&;st=&pgnum=124


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 189
***************************************

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..."