Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 187

Mon, 31 Dec 2012

• 1. Re: IVF (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: IVF (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Mesorah (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. IVF Mitzvah (Meir Rabi)
• 6. Re: IVF Mitzvah (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: What date was the Torah given? The 6th of Sivan or the 7th? (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Lying for Peace (Meir Rabi)
• 9. Why Lie When Truth Can Also Achieve Peace (Meir Rabi)
• 10. Re: Why Lie When Truth Can Also Achieve Peace (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Lying for Peace (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Mesora (h Lampel)

See this week's Shabbat BaShabbato
http://www.zomet.org.il/_Uploads/1455.pdf

The article on medicine and halacha in which they bring Rav Mordechai 
Eliyahu's opinion that if the couple is childless they should be 
encouraged to use artificial means (assuming there is no medical reason 
not to).  If they have children but are having trouble having more 
(something known) then there is no reason not use the treatment.

Ben

On 12/30/2012 10:07 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
>
> Afterwards one of the participants send me an email of someone who 
> disagreed (given later).
> Does anyone have more information about the heter or requirement to 
> use IVF when needed.
>

On 30/12/2012 11:40 AM, Lisa Liel wrote:
>
> Because it doesn't really matter what date it was.  It was 50 days after Yetziyat Mitzrayim.

Actually 51, if we accept that YM was on a Thursday and MT on a Shabbos.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

 
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
To: Avodah  <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>, "Teitz Elazar M."
<r...@juno.com>,     Daniel Eidensohn  <yadmo...@012.net.il

>> I teach a shiur on halacha and medical  ethics and was discussing IVF....

I have always assumed that most/all  poskim (including RMF) felt there was
no halachik requirement to use  IVF.

Afterwards one of the participants send me an email of someone  who
disagreed (given later).
Does anyone have more information about the  heter or requirement to use IVF
when  needed?

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


leading Talmidim of Rav Moshe  Feinstein
Dayan Lopian is one of the worlds leading Poskim on matters of  Ishus, Nidah
and Marital Issues * *- his Psak is as follows
The  requirement of Pirya VeRivya extends to IVF unless the following issues
are  present....

1. There is a medical/Psychological reason why  IVF is not appropriate
2. There would be a severe financial  burden on the couple.....

In any event if these problems are not present  then it would be incumbent
on the couple to do everything in their power to  fulfill the Mitzva
including IVF" <<


-- 
Eli  Turkel

 
>>>>  
Assuming we are not talking about using donor sperm (which would indeed be  
halachically highly problematic), I think all poskim would agree that a 
child  conceived using IVF does fulfill the mitzva of peru urevu.  All or most  
poskim agree that it is mutar to do IVF (again, assuming husband sperm, not 
 donor sperm). However, I have never before heard anyone say it is 
/obligatory/  to use IVF, and would be highly surprised to hear anyone say it. IVF 
involves  the use of extremely powerful drugs, blood tests, daily injections 
as well  as minor surgery, and since all the pain and risks are borne by the 
woman -- who  does not have an obligation of peru urevu -- it is hard for 
me to see how this  could be /obligatory/.  (My own memories of IVF are of 
very difficult  nisyonos with a personal yeshua at the end -- two beautiful 
daughters,  B'H).  Maybe you could say that a man is obligated to divorce his 
wife if  she is unwilling to do IVF but I have definitely never heard anyone 
say anything  like that.  
 
BTW the first "test tube baby" was born in 1978 and RMF passed away in  
1986.  When RMF was alive IVF was still an experimental procedure with a  very 
poor success rate, and there were only a few clinics in the world that were  
doing IVF, so he would certainly not have said there was a halachic 
requirement  to attempt it.  


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


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

 
 
 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121230/531a9cc9/attachment-0001.htm>

One last time
> 
>    To respond in general to Micha, where I think phrasing issues
>    matter: We agree that the Rambam believed that his approach
>    represented the true mesora, albeit hidden, of hazal, and that his
>    understanding of tanach and midrash as consonant with truth was the
>    true self understanding of hazal.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>    ... This is where the fundamental disagreement is - that his
>    [Rambam's--ZL] understandings of both tanach and midrash is not
>    based on a statement that hazal say so (as RZL insists),
> 
> Again, no. Both RMB and I have repeatedly corrected this kind of 
> misrepresentation of our stand. We are not saying the Rambam was bound 
> to offer only peirushim already stated by Chazal. We are only insisting 
> that they must not be inconsistent with Chazal (as would be the 
> supplanting the plain meaning with an allegorical contra Chazal or, as 
> RMB emphasizes, supplanting an allegorical meaning with a literal one, 
> if contra Chazal.)
> 
Let me rephrase the fundamental disagreement, as precise phrasing seems important.  
the precise issue is what is against hazal.  I think that the rambam
thought hazal properly understood agreed with his interpretation, even if
most people (whether from the torah community or from the academic
community) might find it difficult sometimes to understand the basis of
that belief , and ma'amar techiyat hametim specifically states that he will
not go against what is explicitly demanded by a consensus of hazal. 
Furthermore, pace RMB, he did not think that this would lead to a situation
of unresovable tension....

The question is determining what hazal actually held,and whether an actual
binding consensus of hazal  exists - something RZL thnks is quite simple,
yet is actually quite problematic.  The rambam held that hazal spoke
allegorically - even without it being clear that it is allegorical (as per
hakdama).  Therefore, the rambam would take one statement and extend it in
ways that Iead to understandings of episodes in tahach that seem without
precedent and the simple understanding of the entire consensus of every
statement of hazal that we have about the episode.

For example, RMB likes to cite the rambam's cite  Rav Chiya's staement
(part 2 chap 42)about the beginning of parshat vayera as proof the rambam
needs support from hazal.
This proof is actually, when looked at properly, quite problematic,and actually supports the position of a broad license to reinterprete.
After, all Rav Chiya's stateemtn( which, IIRC, is more based on whether
avraham is addressing them as my master or is addressing hashem) -  is NOT
an explicit statement that every appearance of a malach is to be viewed as
a prophetic vision - at best, it is a statement about that particular
episode.  (it is telling that he is unable to find a ma'amar hazal that
actually uses rav chiya's atatement in the general sense that he wants to
use it)
He therefore concludes:

1) Yaacov never physically struggled with  an angel
2) Aton bilaam never spoke (contra mishna in avot that it was created ben hashemashot..)
etc

Can you find any ma'amar hazal that would state that they did not view these episodes as occuring physically??
(the rambam's language about those two is vechen ani omer - that is - it is himhis understanding- NOT based on a ma'mar hazal related to those events..)

This is not an implication that the rambam thought hazal disagreed with him
-  but this suggests a very different paradigm of what the rambam thought
how to understand hazal - even though the naive reading of hazal would
suggest an overwhelming consensus in the other direction) .  this suggests
as the paradigm that the rambam took (and I think most mefarshim of the
rambam - both classical,  and modern torah based view this as the paradigm)
 - is that there exists license to reconcile text and reason unless there
is explicitly reject allegory (which is different from universally treating
it as a physical occurence) - because, in the end, there is only one truth,
and we believe in hazal and the truth...

Now, there are ma'amre hazal that suggest a view of the world as
fundamentally rational as subject to laws - such as olam keminhago holech -
and the rambam uses them to support his position as consistent with hazal -
therefore this approach is easily justified as being based on these ma'amre
hazal (just as allegorizing aton bilaam is based on rav hiyya - the logical
leap is actually greater there, as rav hiyya does not explicitly adopt a
rationalist position ).

Now, apart of the MN is devoted to justifying the possibility of miracles -
and he is aware of the tension and problem of reducing the entire biblical
narrative to allegory, so there are limits - which he had emuna would never
be met (although he did not adopt RMB's position of the limits of human
reason in THIS area).	Furthermore, the rambam's understanding of a
conflict between the text and olam keminhago noheg is quite different than
today's, as we have a very different understanding  of minhag haolam - but
the general license is there (the rambam is also explicit that he is giving
merely an introduction, and the prepared reader is expected to extrapolate
to positions not articulated directly) -  and quite understood by most
readers outside of RZL.

Meir Shinnar
 

R. Zilberstein and Rav Elyashiv maintain that there is no mitzvah to use
artificial means to do the mitzvah and pru u_revu and that they in fact did
not like the idea of IVF

What is the Sevara for this? Is there a health risk?

Is it a Mitzvah to use artificial means to get a Lulav and Esrog, like
flying in a plane or sending them with a plane?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121231/7ae48122/attachment-0001.htm>

R Zilberstein lists several objections to IVF

1) Poskim have doubts about the Yichus of the child, eg if the father is a
Cohen or if the child inherits the fayher
and if the father fulfills pru u-revu through IVF

2) This goes against the kedusha that exists between husband and wife and
now there is a doctor involved.
Therefore it is funny (me-guchach) for someone who already has children to
use IVF to form a child with problems.
In particular the Steipler objected to all artificial means for having a
baby for this destroys the tahara in
the creation of the baby. Siddur Beis Yaakov states that the quality of a
child depends on the tzniut of the couple
which obviously does not occur through IVF.

Therefore R. Zilberstein concludes that Daas Torah is that the Torah does
not demand that a couple use IVF
and they are not fulfilling the wishes of G-d. However, if the couple wants
IVF for their natural desire to have a baby
it is difficult to prohibit it as long as they make sure that there is no
outside sperm added and that the sperm of the
husband used is kept to a minimum to prevent destruction of sperm.

<<s it a Mitzvah to use artificial means to get a Lulav and Esrog, like
flying in a plane or sending them with a plane?>>

I lost the connection. Obviously one uses modern means as a side issue like
refrigerator or a plane. This is very different from
creating the entire story through intervention.
I would connect it more with the psak of RMF that one should not use
intravenous fluids so that one can fast on Yom Kippur.
If one is allowed to eat for medical reasons one does not use intervention
to get around eating

>
>


-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121231/12c491a6/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Lisa Liel wrote:

Because it doesn't really matter what date it was.  It was 50 days after
> Yetziyat Mitzrayim.
>
>
> Then why does the Gemara go on for 2 dapim trying to figure it out?
Obviously it was important. In any case you are assumption is wrong.
According to most of the calculations in the Gemara it was 51 days after
Yetzias Mitzrayim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121231/7fbed180/attachment-0001.htm>

Reb Zev

I think I have addressed all the relevant comments you raised

Re Rashi 49:9

We need to clarify what exactly was Yakov suspecting Yehudah of having
done. [BTW this presumably is not Yehudah the person who is suspect rather
than any of the other brothers who Yakov believes to be innocent, but
Yehudah the KING the LEADER who is guilty of a gross failure in leadership]
Did he suspect him of KILLING Yosef or of SELLING Yosef? Rashi says ?
Yehudah I have elevated you beyond my earlier suspicions when you presented
me with evidence that made me say  - Yosef has been torn apart.

This does not suggest that he suspected that Yehudah KILLED Yosef. Yakov is
using those words Toroif Toruf, to refer to the deception. Perhaps Yakov
had this much confidence in his children [as he had that Yosef would not
seek revenge] that they would NEVER kill Yosef.

This also answers your question, R Zev: why doesn't Rashi mention these
suspicions in 37:33?  Rashi does not mention them because they did not
exist. Yakov had no suspicions at that time. They only developed, as you
say yourself, at a later time.

I think that the next part of Rashi indicates that the children did
disclose to Yakov exactly what had occurred and presumably did gain his
forgiveness.

Rashi says 49:9, you removed yourself from my suspicions when you said Mah
BeTzah. Now these words could only have been known to Yakov if the children
disclosed to him not only the basic outlines of what happened but the
details; that some suggested they kill Yosef but that Yehudah AT THAT TIME
did display some leadership and was instrumental in saving him. For this
Yakov can say A?Lisa and bless him accordingly with a clear mind and
without unsettling suspicions.

This of course means that the Shevatim did seek their fathers forgiveness.
Which is not only a happier ending but also explains why Chazal do not
rebuke them for this shortcoming as they do for example when they say that
Yosef died young because he had his father embalmed.

Now the question remains, Why was lying a better option than telling the
truth to try to promote peace? Meaning why did they not come clean with
Yosef as they had with Yakov? They gained Yakov?s forgiveness, Yakov was
confident that Yosef would not seek revenge, is not the next natural step
to seek forgiveness from Yosef?

The Pessukim and Rashi support that they did share their fathers confidence
that Yosef would not seek revenge, and it was only when Yosef indicated
that he wants to have nothing to do with them [Rashi 50:15] now that they
have buried Yakov that they began to have some doubts.

It?s not reasonable to suggest that they thought he was pulling an Eisav --
"as soon as my father is gone, I'll settle my score with my brothers. Eisav
was a murderer a rapist and a violent uncouth man.

I think that unless we see a reason not to adopt an interpretation in the
Pessukim, we usually try to blend the various Medrashim and Meforshim. So I
am comfortable pursuing the question in Rashi  - If they still felt that
their actions were justified, why did they lack the confidence to broach
such a discussion with Yosef?

However, our question is and was, Chazal prove from this episode that we
may lie for the sake of peace. Had they lied saying that they regretted
their thoughts and actions ? this would be a great proof. But that was not
their lie.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121231/ffacd9fa/attachment-0001.htm>

Re Rashi 49:9
Rashi says ? Yehudah I have elevated you, BeNi AliSa, if you don?t like the
reading  - I have elevated you, then try  - You have elevated yourself.
Elevated from what? AliSa means promote. Elevated beyond Yakov?s earlier
suspicions aroused by [but not at the time] the brothers presenting Yakov
with evidence that made Yakov say  - Yosef has been torn apart.

I am offering what appears to be the Poshut Peshat in Rashi. I am happy to
discuss this.

I think it's clear from Rashi that Yakov DID NOT suspect them until
sometime later. This is why Rashi makes NO mention of this in 37:33. At
that time Yakov accepted what they suggested, in fact he is the one who
declared, Toroif Torof, not they and that is a V powerful marketing
strategy.

And as I wrote - this answers your question, R Zev: why doesn't Rashi
mention these suspicions in 37:33?  Rashi does not mention them because
they did not exist. Yakov had no suspicions at that time. They only
developed, as you say yourself, at a later time.

They are documented by Rashi in 49:9.  Where Rashi says, you removed
yourself from my suspicions when you said Mah BeTzah. Now these words could
only have been known to Yakov if either the children disclosed to him not
only the basic outlines of what happened but the details; or if Yakov knew
them through prophecy. But HKBH would not disclose this information if its
only outcome would be to make Yakov unhappy. And if it was for the purpose
of being able to bless Yehudah, then Yakov would not have blessed Yehudah
without disclosing details that would have humiliated all the brothers.



Yosef died young because he had his father embalmed. Medrash Rabbah end
VaYeChi, VaYiPol Yosef.



Yosef indicated that he wants to have nothing to do with his brothers as
Rashi says [50:15] once Yakov died Yosef no longer welcomed them, and that
for the duration of Yakovs life when he did welcome them, it was only in
order to honour Yakov. Rashi omits the Medrash that Yosef did this LeShem
Shamayim. Medrash Rabbah end VaYeChi, VaYashav Yosef.

But the main question is not answered. Why would it be permitted or even a
Mitzvah to say a lie when true and lasting peace is more likely achieved by
speaking truth? By requesting forgiveness? And their lie did not even
express contrition.

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20121231/62a944e5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/12/2012 11:06 PM, Meir Rabi wrote:
> Re Rashi 49:9
> Rashi says ? Yehudah I have elevated you, BeNi AliSa,

No, he doesn't.

> if you don?t like the reading  - I have elevated you,

It's not that I "don't like" it, it's that it's *false* and without any
possible foundation.  Why would you even try promoting such a false claim?


> then try  - You have elevated yourself. Elevated from what? AliSa means
> promote.

No, it does not.  It means "you rose"; as simple as that.  Nothing to do
with "promotion".   It's exactly the same word that he used of Reuven;
"ki alisa mishkevei avicha".  Will you claim that there too it means
"promotion" or "elevation"?  No, it simply means to rise.  In that case
to go up from the ground to a bed; in this case to rise from the chance
to kill.


>  Elevated beyond Yakov?s earlier suspicions aroused by [but not at the time]
> the brothers presenting Yakov with evidence that made Yakov say  - Yosef
> has been torn apart.

Again, you are twisting the words, and adding a bunch of your own words that
are not there, instead of reading the words as they are.  There is nothing
at all here about "presenting with evidence".  Rashi could not be clearer
here: Yaacov had suspected Yehuda of killing Yosef, and now he acknowledges
that Yehuda rose above that kill and didn't carry it out.


> I am offering what appears to be the Poshut Peshat in Rashi.

No, you are not.  You're adding words to Rashi that aren't there, in order
to make him say something that he is clearly not.


> I am happy to discuss this.
>
> I think it's clear from Rashi that Yakov DID NOT suspect them until
> sometime later.

On the contrary, he says explicitly (here) that he *did*.  He says here
that when Yaacov said a "chaya ra`ah" had killed Yosef *he meant Yehudah*.
That was at the time of Yosef's disappearance, not 20 years later.  He is
*now* saying that he suspected Yehuda *then*.  The only indication that
this isn't really the case is that Rashi doesn't mention it at the time.


> This is why Rashi makes NO mention of this in 37:33. At that time Yakov
> accepted what they suggested, in fact he is the one who declared, Toroif
> Torof, not they

But he is now saying (according to Rashi) that he *didn't* accept the
story, and that he had in fact obliquely accused Yehudah of murder.


> and that is a V powerful marketing strategy.

Is this a strange typo for something?


> these words could only have been known to Yakov if either the children
> disclosed to him not only the basic outlines of what happened but the
> details; or if Yakov knew them through prophecy. But HKBH would not
> disclose this information if its only outcome would be to make Yakov unhappy.

How do you know what Hashem would or would not disclose?  In general ruach
hakodesh reveals all.  For 22 years Yaacov didn't have ruach hakodesh.  It's
not just that Hashem kept this from him, but otherwise gave him access to
ruach hakodesh; rather, the whole ruach hakodesh went away, and Yaacov had
no access to special information at all.  Once it came back, what was to
prevent him from learning this information?


> Yosef died young because he had his father embalmed. Medrash Rabbah end
> VaYeChi, VaYiPol Yosef.

OK, that's R Yochanan's opinion; but we're discussing Rashi, and Rashi
holds like the Rabbanan who utterly reject this opinion, saying that
Yaacov himself asked to be embalmed, and instead say the reason is that
he lost a year for each time he heard his father called "avdecha" and
didn't protest.


> Yosef indicated that he wants to have nothing to do with his brothers as
> Rashi says [50:15] once Yakov died Yosef no longer welcomed them

Once again, where are you getting this?  All Rashi says is that he stopped
inviting them for dinner.  How do you leap from that to not wanting any
contact?



-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 30/12/2012 7:31 PM, Meir Rabi wrote:

> Re Rashi 49:9
>
> We need to clarify what exactly was Yakov suspecting Yehudah of having
> done.[...]  Did he suspect him of KILLING Yosef or of SELLING Yosef?
> Rashi says ? Yehudah I have elevated you

"I have elevated you"?!  That's not in there!  Please stick to the words.


> beyond my earlier suspicions when you presented me with evidence that
> made me say  - Yosef has been torn apart.

Where are you seeing this?

> This does not suggest that he suspected that Yehudah KILLED Yosef. Yakov
> is using those words Toroif Toruf, to refer to the deception.

What on earth makes you say this?  Where are you getting it from?  It is
very clear to me that he is saying that he *had* suspected him of exactly
that; that the "chaya ra'ah" to which he had referred meant Yehudah, and
he had meant to imply that this was the "wild animal" that had torn Yosef
apart and eaten him.  Which leads to the question of why Rashi doesn't
mention any of this at the time, and my attempted answer.


> Perhaps Yakov had this much confidence in his children [as he had that
> Yosef would not seek revenge] that they would NEVER kill Yosef.

On the contrary, it's clear from Rashi that he *did* suspect them until
Yosef turned up alive.


> This also answers your question, R Zev: why doesn't Rashi mention these
> suspicions in 37:33?  Rashi does not mention them because they did not
> exist. Yakov had no suspicions at that time. They only developed, as you
> say yourself, at a later time.

But in 49:9 he says they *did* exist at that time.  Which is why I suggested
that perhaps they did exist but he wasn't conscious of them at the time, and
only in hindsight did he realise what he had really meant by his words at the
time.


> Rashi says 49:9, you removed yourself from my suspicions when you said Mah
> BeTzah. Now these words could only have been known to Yakov if the children
> disclosed to him not only the basic outlines of what happened but the details;

Either that, or once it was no longer a secret that Yosef was alive, and he
once again had access to Ruach Hakodesh, he could have known these details
through that.  There's nothing in the text to support either of these options.


> ...explains why Chazal do not rebuke them for this shortcoming as they do
> for example when they say that Yosef died young because he had his father
> embalmed.

Where do Chazal say that?  I've never heard of such a thing.


> when Yosef indicated that he wants to have nothing to do with them
> [Rashi 50:15]

How do you get from his no longer inviting them for meals, to his not wanting
anything to do with them?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

  Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote on Tue, 11 Dec 2012 14:50:26 
-0500Message: 3:

    ... But again, R/D MS's issue here is really more with RZL's
    position. I'm happy saying that the mesorah on THM is enough
    justification. It's not Torah vs Philosphy, but shenei kesuvim
    hamakhchishim zeh es zeh. Such innovation is what we call chiddush. 

RMB, for the sake of clarity, to what position of mine are you referring?

Zvi Lampel

Avodah: Volume 30, Number 171
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20121231/008b6147/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 187
***************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)