Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 211

Tue, 25 Oct 2011

• 1. Re: More Tzaar (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Kevius seudah on meat, cheese, potatoes, etc. (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: mikva use (Liron Kopinsky)
• 4. Re: Gezeiras haKasuv (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 5. Re: mikva use (Goldmeier Family)
• 6. Re: Some thoughts on a recent book "Knocking on Heaven's Door" (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: mikva use (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: The sukkah on Shemini Atzeret controversy (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 9. Re: mikva use (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: The sukkah on Shemini Atzeret controversy (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: mikva use (Micha Berger)
• 12. (no subject) (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 13. Elokim and elohim (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: (no subject) (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: More on Married Women Should Not Wear Wigs (Micha Berger) (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Elokim and elohim (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: Elokim and elohim (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 18. Re: Elokim and elohim (Joel C. Salomon)

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:14:54PM -0400, Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
: The first two days of Yom Tov, here in Lakewood, had lots of stop'n'go rain.
: So, while it was raining, no question: Mitzta'er patur. What about if it's
: cloudy, it's been raining on and off, and now, at this second, it isn't
: raining? And you're afraid that you'll shlep your bed into the Sukkah,
: change into pj's, and the second you lie down it'll start raining again. Is
: that Mitzta'er?

That's like the story RYBS told of his childhood, which I posted two
weeks ago at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n208.shtml#12>, when
RDR asked about the tza'ar of getting to the Sukkah with his dishes in
food recently after arm surgery.

It seems from R' Moshe Soloveitchik's answer to his son, mitzta'er is
only when the tza'ar is inherent in using the Sukkah, and not in getting
there.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 01:28:20PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> In siman 639 the Taz quotes the Tur, who quotes RP (would that be
> Rabbenu Peretz?) that while we pasken like the conclusion of the
> gemara that there is no such thing as kevius for fruit, there is in
> principle a kevius for meat or cheese, and one who makes his meal of
> such foods needs a sukkah.  Then the Tur says that notwithstanding
> this, since it's not the derech to make a meal of such foods, one who
> does so is patur from sukkah.  Now it seems to me that this does not
> apply nowadays....

RRW asked a similar question back in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n083.shtml#14> (1999):
> Has anyone considered modifying Kevias se'udo in light of the metzius
> that today's society is not koveia on betzius haPas - Except that this
> is a halachic requirement to do so?

> IOW, the metzius in ancient tiems was to break bread as a formal way of 
> beginning a se'udo.

> Nowadays, it's unusual to make bread the "ikkar" of a typical meal....

> EG, what prevents someone say on the atkins diet from being kovei'
> his se'udo on a nice, thick, juicy steak?

To add a further complication, RGS posted in a pas haba bekisnan
conversation <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n020.shtml#09>
(2000):

> Pesachim 105a
> Rav said: Just like Shabbos is kovei'ah for ma'aser, it is kovei'ah
> for kiddush.

> See also Beitzah 34b.

If Shabbos or YT can be qov'in se'udah on anything eaten like a meal,


A half-baked seed of a chiddush: Maybe qevi'as se'udah isn't the se'udah
itself. Meat is the centerpiece of the meal. True even in Middle-Eastern
eating styles when everything is eaten off pieces of flat bread (pita,
laffa, etc...) The foundation of a building isn't the building. Perhaps
what necessitates Sukkah is something about the meal which gives it a
formality, regardless of one having the substance of the meal.

Otherwise, exaplain why fruit was ever more of a se'udah than
meat-on-rice?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>
> 2. would it be better to  allow  mikva use t remove  nidda  issues  even if
> other  issurim  will transpire as a result?


Why is "as a result" a consideration here. Are there really a significant
number of people who would refrain from having premarital sex as a result of
being banned from the mikvah?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111025/84145817/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Interestingly, Googling "gezeras hakasuv derashah" found
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol14/v14n093.shtml#01>, where
> R' Akiva Miller (2005) posted pretty much the same argument I
> made about how hair covering differs from other forms of ervah
> as being caused by a different issur rather than erva causing the
> issur. And then, as I just did, used it to argue that we
> therefore don't know the point of the issur and can't deduce
> whether or not human hair sheitlach are a bad idea.

Yes, indeed, and that continues to be my understanding: Regardless of the
terms one uses to describe this (d'Oraisa, d'rasha, whatever), the fact
that hair covering differs for married and single women seems to prove that
it is different from all other topics of ervah, which severely (perhaps
totally) limits anyone's ability to draw comparisons and analogies from
other such restrictions (such as skin-colored clothing).

(In fact, my reading of this thread presumed this to be a widely-held
understanding, because the topic of the thread was NOT whether or not wigs
are an acceptable manner of covering the hair. Rather, the topic of the
thread was a question of why it isn't considered Maaris Ayin. Invoking
Maaris Ayin is usually an admission that the act in question is not
actually forbidden, but only appears to be so. That certainly seemed to be
view of the Igros Moshe, who solved the Maaris Ayin problem by noting that
most people (i.e., virtually all the women, plus a very small number of
men) *can* distinguish between a wig and the woman's hair.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ea71623d13b3a6471fst03vuc

what exactly is the issur of pre-marital sex if the nidda issue is 
resolved by allowing single women to use the mikva?

---------


On 25/10/2011 5:08 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4135447,00.html_
> 1. who should control who is allowed  to  toivel?
> 2. would it be better to  allow  mikva use t remove  nidda  issues 
>  even if other  issurim  will transpire as a result ?
>
> [is the answer to no 1  somewhat different , since  the mikva is a 
> publicly paid-for institution?  } 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111025/16f5b4f6/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 02:55:19AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: HOWEVER, it is a fool's mission to try to persuade someone like Lisa
: Randall of this.

: You asked her,

: "Why couldn't the creator of the universe create the universe in such a
: way that the scientific rules you study are the rules the creator embedded in
: the universe?"

: [Dr Lisa Randall] is too arrogant and too enmeshed in the ideology of
: "scientism" to even give a moment's consideration to such a possibility.

I don't like the term "scientism" as it's a label used to distinguish what
the speaker doesn't like from the good stuff of science -- and never gets
defined. It therefore introduces too much wiggle-room to the conversation.
(I might say the same thing about Moslem vs Islamist extremist, but this
isn't Areivim. <grin>)

Here is how I would define the flaw in her mindset, trying to actually
provide parameters to the split. Then if you choose to call that worldview
"scientism" or something else, at least we're talking about something
specific.

I think the underlying problem, before the theological one, is
epistomologial -- how the person defines proof, knowledge, and truth.

Many people today are Empiricists. You know that which you can experience
with your senses more certainly than anything else. For something to
really be known, it has to be amenable to reproducible proofs that you
could use to convince others.

The problem is that religious experience is inherently personal. You
can't experience my Shabbos. I think we would all agree that anyone who
followed Torah correctly would have experiences that would demonstrate
the truths upon which halakhah is based as certainly as we know the
color of the sun at noon on a cloudless day.

So, I can't help someone "follow Torah correctly", and someone who failed
to do so would think we're just pushing the No True Scottsman fallacy
on them. (Hamish McDonald believes that no Scotsman would rape a woman.
But then he reads day after day of such stories in the Glasgow Morning
Herald. Rather than conceding his belief, he now articulates it as
"No TRUE Scotsman would rape a woman.")

But that doesn't make the proof any less real for the person who had
the experience.

Many people have died to save their spouses, even though none of them
could prove to others that their love actually existed.

We also have no less certainty that (on a Euclidean plane) parallel lines
do not meet, even though none of us could ever experience perfect lines
nor Euclidian planes.

So, the very same people who get all Empiricist when it comes to religion
don't actually operate that way in other venues.

Second, they confuse proof with truth. Perhaps something is true even if
it isn't provable? We simply can't know, or can't know with certainty,
that it's true -- but that inability to prove doesn't change the reality.

Only answers that can be falsified through a repeatable empirical
experiment are within the topic of science. But there could still be
other fields of knowledge with different proof or at least justification
systems.

Dr Randall doesn't believe in G-d because she started out with the
assumptions that only the empirical experiement is proof and only the
proven is really true. The atheism is inherent in her assumptions about
what /can/ be fact.

Personally, I don't think absolute proof exists. (I'm in good company
with Kant.) And even if we encountered the perfect proof, we could never
be perfectly sure we had one and didn't overlook an error. Certainty
of the sort they're trying to get with repeatability and proving to others
doesn't exist.

What we do have is what I call the Sanity Level of Proof (SLP). Things
we are so sure of, we would start questioning our own sanity if we were
faced with reason to question them.

When you consistently find that a Shabbos in which making tea involves
questions of irui keli rishon, keli sheini, kalei bishul, boreir, ein
tzevi'ah be'okhlim, etc... has a profound experience one doesn't have
from a mere day off of work and heavy labor...

When you consistently find consistency between disparate areas of
halakhah, so that (eg) a chiddush in dinei mamunus would explain a
problem in bal yeira'eh...

Etc, etc, etc...

You eventually get SLP confidence in the TBSP as it reached us. Which
then argues back to the assumptions upon which it is based -- the halachic
process, Torah miSinai (necessary for the legitimacy of derashah), etc...

(As I said in the past, I believe in the iqarim because I try to keep
the Torah, not the other way around.)

...
: In her article she makes fun of one of the current Republican presidential
: candidates because he prayed for rain when his state faced a terrible
: series of wildfires. She says snidely that by praying, "he is displaying the
: danger of replacing rational approaches with religion." In other words, in
: her book, if you pray, you are not rational and you are anti-science....

Yes, because she thinks there is only one domain of knowledge, and thus
a god is something an ignorant person uses to fill in gaps that will
someday be filled in scientific (being the only real) knowledge.

The flipside of this error is at times found among frum Jews:

1- Eg those who feel that scientific explanations of creation or of
nissim imply that Hashem played any less of a role. In fact, most
rishonim felt the need for nissim to be a question they had to answer:
Hashem is omniscient, so why would He create a universe that requires
later intervention? (E.g. the Ramban says the nissim were written into
the natural laws ab initio.)

2- When one of us have the attitude, "We have reached the limits of
medicine; all we can do now is pray." Medicine and prayer are orthogonal
approaches to the same problem, and *intellectually* we all know we
need tefillah just as much when the doctor has a clear idea about how
to proceed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 25/10/2011 11:08 AM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4135447,00.html_
> 1. who should control who is allowed to toivel?
> 2. would it be better to allow mikva use t remove nidda issues even if other issurim will transpire as a result ?
>
> [is the answer to no 1 somewhat different , since the mikva is a publicly paid-for institution? }

A mikveh is a religious institution, not a secular bath-house.  Halacha
requires the community to provide it for its proper use al pi halacha,
not for general amusement.  And since there is a takanah against tevilah
for single women, it follows that it's appropriate for the mikveh lady
to enforce this.  In Israel the Chief Rabbi has instructed all community
rabbanim to ensure that the public mikva'ot do not allow single women in,
and this seems to me entirely appropriate.  For the minister to interfere
in a matter of a psak halacha seems a chutzpah, and perhaps even something
that must be resisted at all cost.

-- 
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

                    
                

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The question is why it's not put to rest by the gemara's
> conclusion: "Vehilkhisa: yesuvei yasvinan, berukhi lo
> mevarkhinan".

I learned the answer to this on these pages two years ago, at
http://www.ais
hdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n204.shtml#05, where R' Harry Weiss provides a
link to a shiur in which 
> Rabbi Shechter brings down a Rav Kolonimus from the 12th
> century saying that this was added by the Gaonim.

In other words, it can be argued that this was NOT "the gemara's conclusion".

Interestingly, while this lesson didn't soak into my little brain until two
years ago, it was already discussed at length nine years earlier. See posts
by R' Moshe Feldman, R' Gil Student, and R' Yitzi Oratz (and others,
probably) in Avodah vol 6, numbers 21, 24, and thereabouts.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
60-Year-Old Mom Looks 27
Mom Reveals Free Wrinkle Trick That Has Angered Doctors!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4ea71c8952cfc105e8d5st02vuc

On 25/10/2011 1:01 PM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:08 PM, <Saul.Z.New...@kp.org> wrote:
>> 2. would it be better to allow mikva use t remove nidda issues
>> even if other issurim will transpire as a result?

> Why is "as a result" a consideration here. Are there really a
> significant number of people who would refrain from having premarital
> sex as a result of being banned from the mikvah?

The presumption of the Rivash's takanah is that this is indeed the case.


On 25/10/2011 12:59 PM, Goldmeier Family wrote:
> what exactly is the issur of pre-marital sex if the nidda issue is resolved by allowing single women to use the mikva?

It's a machlokes rishonim. The Rambam holds that it's de'oraisa, so
there's no need for a takanah to prevent it. The Ramban holds that
it's derabanan, and the Rivash held like him, which is why he made his
takanah that has been accepted by most communities.

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

                    
                

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 08:29:54PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I learned the answer to this on these pages two years ago, at
: http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n204.shtml#05, where R' Harry
: Weiss provides a link to a shiur in which
: > Rabbi Shechter brings down a Rav Kolonimus from the 12th
: > century saying that this was added by the Gaonim.

: In other words, it can be argued that this was NOT "the gemara's conclusion".

Well, it is the gemara's conclusion, because the text got included in
the gemara. I made an oblique reference to your point in my prior post
when I wrote that the Rambam agrees with the conclusion in our gemara,
"(Even though the Rambam would have to hold that a 'vehilkhisa' is after
R' Ashi veRavina sof hora'ah.)"

According to one opinion (mentioned also back in
2000 by R' Yitzi Oratz in the thread RAM pointed to
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n021.shtml#09>), "Vehilkhisa" is
actually a reference to the Behag, which wasn't written until the early
9th cent! Meaning: the gemara's redaction continued through the majority
of the geonic period. It is true that the Behag records every "Vehilkhisa"
conclusion. RYO reported that his father-in-law, R Shneur Leiman, saw
a manuscripts that lacks the "vehilkhisa". But more compelling than
a 3rd hand report (RYO was quoting RSL's son) of what could otherwise
have been a faulty manuscript is that Tosafos say so on Chullin 97a and
Pesachim 30a.

In any case, anything accepted as part of the gemara is accepted by most
rishonim -- save the Rambam and perhaps others of which I'm unaware --
as being basically as authoritative as the amoraim. The Rambam made a
point about who is sof hora'ah, and it can be shown that he not once
quotes savoraim who post-date Rav Ashi.

But what's more relevent to us is authority, not history. If rov rishonim
assume the inserts from the Behag are to be treated as sereiously as the
rishonim, if that many gedolim were willing to keep the insertion in
their gemaros, then does it make a difference? The question of how the
"vehilkhisa" isn't obeyed isn't answered by its late date if the authority
is nearly the same anyway.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
mi...@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:59:58PM +0200, Goldmeier Family wrote:
> what exactly is the issur of pre-marital sex if the nidda issue is  
> resolved by allowing single women to use the mikva?

Lo sihyeh qedeishah. (Devarim 23:18; ShM lav 365)

The Behag counts "umal'ah ha'aretz zimah" as a 2nd lav. The Rambam
and Ramban hold it's lehalakhah but part of "lo sihyeh qedeishah".
Rashi appears to treat it like mussar.

There are probably also cases of mamzeirus by couples who prove ein
adam oseh be'ilaso be'ilas zenus, but forget the mood they were in then
after the relationship cools. A dating couple has relations planning on
being together forever, and they could well be married. They break up,
she marries... the children could be mamzeirim.

This is unlike a civil or non-halachic wedding, since their the couple
has no reason to think they are forming a union -- they believe that
was done already without biah. Here, ha'ishah nikneis ... ubebiah is
more likely to occur. Arguably.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

     in response to my comment,

>: It is the mitzva which was repeated at Sinai, and its b'racha is
: "al hamila." However the covenant was not repeated; all the Torah stated
: in Vayikra was "uvayom hash'mini yimol b'sar orlaso." The only bris (or
: rather, thirteen b'risos) was made with Avraham Avinu, and was neither
: repeated nor replaced...,<

RMicha Berger wrote,

>Even though the terms on us of that beris /were/ replaced by Sinaitic
equivalents? Does a one-sided beris have meaning?<

     Where do we find the terms of this specific b'ris, which was made "l'dorosam," changed?

EMT

____________________________________________________________
Groupon&#8482 Official Site
1 ridiculously huge coupon a day. Get 50-90% off your city&#39;s best!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ea7364679d2ae020e3st05vuc

I know that there are places in Tanakh where the word elohim means 
"judges" (more or less), and other places where Elokim is a name of 
Hashem.  And still others where elohim means false deities.

My question is, is there a source which states which ones are which in 
more vague instances?  For example, Genesis 3:5.  Is the word shem 
Hashem in that verse?

Thanks,
Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111025/33abdd58/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 10:20:26PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> Even though the terms on us of that beris /were/ replaced by Sinaitic
:> equivalents? Does a one-sided beris have meaning?

: Where do we find the terms of this specific b'ris, which was made
: "l'dorosam," changed?

Do we do milah for the sake of the beris? I thought we were discussing
shitas haRambam, that milah today is miSinai. And similarly for every
other preSinai beris. (Leshitaso, even Benei Noach have to accept the
7 mitzvos because they were given to the Jews at Sinai. But we can
temporarily ignore that tangent.)

So, there can't be any terms left to any of the berisei avos that we
still fulfill as part of those berisim -- we are fulfilling them because
Torah tzivah lanu Mosheh. And thus our side of this beris is empty,
what's left is one sided -- responsibilities acccepted by the RBSO alone.

(I consider this an elaboration of what I wrote in one sentence, quoted
above. All I tried to add was detail.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

RMB:

<<Sei'ar be'ishah ervah is different than other examples of dress. 
Otherwise, there would be no distinction between single and married women.
  It seems more that there is a gezeiras hakasuv requiring hair covering 
by married women (from parashas sotah), and then once uncovering her 
hair is rare, its exposure is ervah. The issur causes the label "ervah", 
and in other cases (eg revealing or tight-fitting clothing) the ervah is 
inherent and is the cause of the issur.
  But even if this theory is wrong, there must be some distinction 
between an ervah that applies to all women, and one that applies to 
married ones only. One can't simply assume it has to do with sexuality, 
because attraction isn't correlated to her being married.>>

There are four basic issurim:

(i) A man may not gaze at a woman he may not marry.

(ii) A man may not gaze at someone or something which may later induce a 
shichvas zera l'vattalah.

(iii) A person may not look at something distracting while reciting 
krias shma.

(iv) A married woman may not go out "v'roshah parua".

I'm inclined to guess that the first two are derabbanan, and I have no 
idea about the third.  The gemara says clearly that the fourth is 
d'orayssa, but IIRC a small number of contemporary poskim cited in Otzar 
HaPoskim argue that it's derabbanan.  I'm still recovering, but I hope 
to look a little harder later this week.

The reason for the first prohibition is to reduce the occurence of adultery.

The sugya in Berachos, as construed by the poskim, is confusing because 
it talks about issurim (i) and (iii) without making the transition clear.

I think your problem is that you fail to distinguish between (i) and 
(ii) (they are different simanim in EH).

David Riceman

On 25/10/2011 5:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> My question is, is there a source which states which ones are which in
> more vague instances?  For example, Genesis 3:5.  Is the word shem
> Hashem in that verse?

Unkelus translates it one way, Rashi the other.

-- 
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

                    
                

R'n LL:
My question is, is there a source which states which ones are which in more
vague instances?? For example, Genesis 3:5.? Is the word shem Hashem in that
verse?
-----------------


to say that the first one is Kodesh and the second one is Chol.

KT,
MYG

On 10/25/2011 05:55 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I know that there are places in Tanakh where the word elohim means
> "judges" (more or less), and other places where Elokim is a name of
> Hashem.  And still others where elohim means false deities.
> 
> My question is, is there a source which states which ones are which in
> more vague instances?  For example, Genesis 3:5.  Is the word shem
> Hashem in that verse?

The marginal Mesorah notes will indicate "Chol" or (only occasionally,
since it's the default) "Kodesh".

This is needed for soferim who must write Hashem's names l'shma.

--Chesky


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 211
***************************************

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..."