Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 10

Wed, 09 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: Hasagat Gevul of a bus company (Daniel M. Israel)
• 2. Re: Psak in Machshava (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Hasagat Gevul of a bus company (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Shituf (was: seen on Facebook) (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. A Three-Day Journey (Akiva Miller)
• 6. midrashim (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Shituf (Akiva Miller)
• 8. Re: Shituf (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: phantom hazals (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 10. economics 101 (Eli Turkel)
• 11. female masseuse (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Hasagat Gevul of a bus company (Akiva Miller)
• 13. Re: Shituf (Lisa Liel)
• 14. Re: Shituf (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Hasagat Gevul of a bus company (Micha Berger)

On Jan 8, 2013, at 11:10 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 09:35:30AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> : I remember the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim, who supposedly tore up a  
> : postage stamp when he gave a letter to someone to deliver personally -- so 
> : that  the government wouldn't lose the money it was "owed."  I never 
> : understood  that story because if you didn't use the government's service, why
> : should you  have to pay the government anyway?  Is sending a letter with a 
> : friend some  kind of hasagas gevul issue vis-a-vis the United States postal 
> : service?  I  don't see it. 
> 
> R' Menashe Klein (Mishnah Halakhos 6:288) holds that
> 
> 1- When you get a letter where the stamp was not canceled, two
> dinim are involved:
> a- hashavas aveidas nachri, which is only mutar when it's a qiddush
>   hasheim, and only mandatory to avoid a chilul hasheim.
> 
> b- Because the post office is part of the gov't, dina demalkhus applies.
>   So in RMK's case, one is porhibited from reusing the stamp.
> 
> 2- In that teshuvah, RMK opines that tearing up the stamp isn't iqar hadin,
>   and the CC must have been acting specifically in order to create a
>   qiddush Hashem rather than anything related to Choshein Mishpat.

I never understood the story, either, and now I don't understand the psak.

As far as the letter where the stamp was not canceled, it is not clear to
me why keeping it is failing to return an aveidah.  It seems more an issue
of g'neivah.  I guess I see that it is less active then g'neivah (I didn't
actively try to take the stamp), but the post office wouldn't have "lost"
it if someone hadn't sent me the letter.  It just doesn't like like an
aviedah to me.	Do we consider a store that gives too much change to be an
issue of aveidah or g'neivah?  It seems like this is a very difficult line
to draw, and we really risk permitting g'neivah because we call the
cheifitz an aveidah instead of ill-gotten loot.

But, in any case, I don't see what this case has to do with the case of the
CC.  In that case the post office didn't provide any service at all, and
there was no obligation to use their service.  If I walk home, do I have to
send the bus company a fare?  If my wife bakes her own challah, should I
pay the baker?	I don't even see how this is warranted even lifinim
mishuris hadin.

--
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:19:37PM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
: In halacha we say that even if the Sanhedrin rules one way, it is mutar
: for a chacham to continue to teach as his own opinion a contrary position,
: provided that in practice he abides (and teaches others to abide) by the
: Sanhedrin's ruling. Given that, what does it even mean to have a psak
: in machshava? ...

Which is why I suggested that the only case where the idea makes sense
is a pesaq on the definition of kefirah, eg as part of defining a kofeir
WRT not sharing their wine. In that case, there is a halakhah lemaaseh
that depends on the aggadic position.

BUT, there the pesaq isn't "this aggadic point is true" but "a Jew in
good standing must not reject" -- which "only" implies its truth.

WRT pesaq, both possibilities are "true", in the sense of being validly
derived from the chumash, existing din, etc... It isn't a determination of
truth, but of law. And if the poseiq or even the Sanhedrin pick an opinion
that isn't validly derived, it isn't pesaq. The din of "zil qeri bei rav"
is that if Sanhedrin rule in a way not consistant with the pasuq, it's not
pesaq, they don't even need a par heelem davar.

In aggadita, OTOH, the question is which is true.

HOWEVER, eilu va'eilu might still have application in the realm of
aggadita. Reality might be too large for the human mind, forcing us
to rely on models that illustrate subsets of the truth that appear to
conflict. As the Or Samayach puts in his long piece in Hil' Teshuvah on
"HaKol Tzafui vehaReshus Nesunah", it is like having a blanket that is
too small for you body. Whenever you pull it over to cover one side,
you necessary leave somewhere else out to be cold. Or the proverbial
5 Blind Men and the Elephant. But the impossibility of both being true
is is only illusory, a product of human limitation.

As a YU product, I feel obligated <grin> to close this "however" with
the word "dialectic".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 11:33:28PM -0700, Daniel M. Israel wrote:
: As far as the letter where the stamp was not canceled, it is not clear
: to me why keeping it is failing to return an aveidah. It seems more an
: issue of g'neivah...

The worker or equipment that failed to cancel the stamp effectively
lost the money.

: But, in any case, I don't see what this case has to do with the case of
: the CC. In that case the post office didn't provide any service at all,
: and there was no obligation to use their service...

RMKlein's point, as I understood it, exactly. Unlike in his case, this
isn't an aveidah at all. The gov't has no claim on the money. Which is
why RMK attributes the CC's purported actions to pure qiddush hasheim.

The only situation that I thought of so far where the story makes
sense to me is if the CC wanted to teach the observers (1st, 2nd and
n-th hand) not to cheat the gov't. After all if the CC were to be honest
on his tax forms (berabbim? how would that happen?), they might say
that such scrupulosity is for a Chafeitz Chaim. But if he does something
really above and beyond, maybe they would aim for following the actual
din as a humbler goal for themselves.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

> :> On 1/7/2013 10:15 AM, Meir Shinnar wrote:
> :>> However, there is a major (? Dominant) strand of halachic thinking
> :>> that does not view Christianity as avoda Zara for nonJews
...

[Micha:]
> Coincidentally (if your beliefs about hashgachah allows room for that
> idea), R' Neustadt... just had a shiur on this posted to Torah.org.
> <http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5772/bo.html>...
...
>         Christianity, however, combines the belief in G-d with other
>    idolatrous and alien beliefs. Such a theology is called avodah zarah
>    b'shituf (in combination). Some poskim rule that avodah zarah b'shituf
>    is not considered full-fledged avodah zarah[5], while others maintain
>    that it is[6].
...
>    5. Rama, O.C. 156 according to Pischei Teshuvah, Y.D. 147:2;
>    Mor u'Ketziah 224; Sho'el u'Meishiv, Tanina 1:51; Seder Mishnah,
>    Yesodei ha-Torah 1:7.

>    6. Noda b'Yehudah, Tanina, Y.D. 148; Sha'ar Efrayim 24, quoting the
>    Chelkas Mechokek; Peri Megadim, Y.D. 65:45; Teshuvos Chasam Sofer,
>    O.C. 84. See Mishnah Berurah 304:4.
...
> Notice though that shituf is not an alternative concept to AZ. Rather,
> it's a type of AZ that is permissable to Benei Noach. For a Jew to
> perform the rite to accomodate a Ben Noach would be assur, because for
> the Jew AZ beshituf is still within the issurim of AZ.

I am not arguing that Christianity is not AZ for Jews. Rather, that there
are major poskim who say it is not AZ for nonJews (saying it is an AZ that
is permitted to nonJews seems, IMHO, a strange way of putting it), and
this means not only that we don×t have to treat it and its followers as
AZ, but that we are actually allowed to do actions that assist & enhance
their religion ( eg, sell crosses, sell them before their holiday, etc).

Therefore, the question that arises is the boundary between such
assistance to their worship & actually doing what would be AZ for me
-- and remember some actions (not all) of AZ are sometimes permitted
if the intent is not for AZ. The original issue discussed was of a
Jewish chaplain assisting Christian patients with their worship -- &
the discussion had assumed automatically it is assur & Avoda Zara -
while I think the distinction between what the chaplain does & the 47th
merchants do is quite subtle & not obviously assur, & worthy of more
serious analysis - with grounds to go either way (while not presuming
to give an actual psak)

(a similar issue is for Jewish musicians who play professionally in
Christian services - & I know some who got a heter...)

Meir Shinnar

Here's a link to last year's article on Vayera from Britain's Chief Rabbi Sacks:
http://www.chiefrabbi.org/2012/01/21/covenant-convers
ation-5772-vaeira-freedom-and-truth/  or use this one: http://tinyurl.com/bbj79rv

In my opinion, he raises an important question, and phrases it quite
powerfully, but his answer is not nearly as good as his question is, and
I'm hoping that someone can either offer a better answer, or show me what I
missed in his. 

He brings seven stories in Chumash where a tzadik deliberately tells a
half-truth, with the deliberate intention of deceiving someone. These are
not outright lies, but they have all been topics of many divrei Torah which
ask how such a tzadik could possibly do such a thing.

The first six stories are from Bereishis:

1) 12:13 - In Egypt, Avram asked Sarai to say that she is his sister. 

2) 20:2 - By Avimelech, Avraham said that Sarah was his sister. 

3) 26:7 - In Gerar, Yitzchak said that Rivka was his sister. 

4) 31:20 - "Yaakov deceived Lavan by not telling him that he was fleeing."

5) 33:13-14 - Rabbi Sacks writes that Yaakov's speech to Esav, "though not strictly a lie, is a diplomatic excuse."

6) 34:13 - After the rape of Dina, Yaakov's sons answered Shechem "with mirmah."

7,8) In Sefer Sh'mos, both last week (5:3) *and* this week (8:23), Moshe
asks Par'o for no more than a 3-day furlough. And these were not merely
Moshe speaking on his own initiative, but at Hashem's command (3:18)! Even
as late as after the ninth makkah, in 10:24-26, Par'o still thought that
the exodus would be less than total, and Moshe refrained from correcting
this misimpression.

Over the years, many have written and spoken about each of these,
explaining the tzadik's actions, but on a case-by-case basis. In contrast,
Rabbi Sacks tries to find a common thread, writing that these "episodes
cannot be entirely accidental or coincidental to the biblical narrative as
a whole..."

My problem is that I don't follow his answer. I would summarize it here,
but that would run the risk of misinterpreting his words, and I invite
everyone to read the article itself. Suffice it to say that he makes some
sort of distinction between then and now, in which then the deceptions were
necessary, whereas now we aim to a higher standard.

But I do not see the distinction between then and now. If the ends justify
the means, that logic should hold in *any* shaas hadchak. Did Hashem's seal
become Truth only after Yetzias Mitzrayim?

What real need did Moshe have to deceive Par'o about the nature of the
Exodus? Sure, one could argue that it was to damn Par'o even further, with
the kal vachomer that if he would not release us even for a short trip,
then a permanent release was a foregone conclusion. But that (and arguments
like it) only work on a case-by-case basis. In context of all the other
stories, it does seem to me that Truth might have been less important
before Yetzias Mitzrayim. That makes me very uncomfortable, and I'm hoping
that someone can help me out.

Lest anyone suggest that the answer lies in these stories all being
pre-Matan Torah, when the issur of Mid'var Sheker Tirchak did not yet
apply, my response is this: I'm not talking about the *mitzvah* of telling
the truth. I'm talking about the "middah* of telling the truth, and that's
something which applies in all places and all times.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 57 But Looks 27
57-Year-Old Mom has a simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50ed5016820b3501633d3st04vuc

<<However, that is not true. Midrash were written for over a millenium, and
that means it spans the time from the Tannaim until the Rishonim. Just
because a work has the name Midrash and cites maamarei Chazal does not mean
that it is an Amoraic or immediately post-Amoraic work. (think Mekhilta vs.
Midrash Shemuelby Rabbi Shmuel d'Ouzida of Venice, as an extreme example)>>

I agree 100%. My point is that not all midrashim have the same force. If
the midrash is from chazal we need
to take it very seriously whether literally or not.
However, I claim that a medieval collection of midrashim, particularly one
that is relatively not well known,
need not be taken as seriously. Of course some midrashim like Yalkut
Shimoni (from Shimon HaDarshan approximately a contemporary of Ramban) are
collections of early midrashim and are well accepted

Unfortunately some people treat all midrashim as equal which they are not.

For example a late midrash that states that Jews and goyim have different
number of teeth I would take with a great deal of skeptism

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130109/bc796aa0/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Notice though that shituf is not an alternative concept to AZ.
> Rather, it's a type of AZ that is permissable to Benei Noach.
> For a Jew to perform the rite to accomodate a Ben Noach would
> be assur, because for the Jew AZ beshituf is still within the
> issurim of AZ.

This is an interesting chiluk, but I don't see that it necessarily follows
from any of the sources you brought. Rather, if it is a type of AZ that is
permissable to Benei Noach, then I see a *possibility* that there might be
kulos for us as well, such as a possible heter to accommodate them. I have
no idea what the halacha actually is.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Woman is 53 But Looks 25
Mom reveals 1 simple wrinkle trick that has angered doctors...
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/50ed5ec0196375ebf3352st01vuc

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 12:11:49PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: This is an interesting chiluk, but I don't see that it necessarily
: follows from any of the sources you brought...

How do you translate "shituf be'AZ"? I take it as saying that the
demiurge shutaf/im are being called AZ.

: of AZ that is permissable to Benei Noach, then I see a *possibility*
: that there might be kulos for us as well, such as a possible heter to
: accommodate them. I have no idea what the halacha actually is.

R/D MS said something similar. I don't see this as accomodation or
"assist[ing] & enhanc[ing] their religion" (to reconjugate R/D MS's
words). The chaplain said that she herself was baptising, and when she
couldn't farm out those rituals to Xian chaplains, annointing and giving
them communion. (The latter of which someone noted, perhaps in a post
I rejected, isn't good Xianity either.)

She herself is doing rites. Not giving them the tools to do them
themselves. I therefore don't see it as merely accomodation, assistance
or enhancement. That interpretation didn't cross my mind when I posted,
and doesn't seem plausible to me now.

The only thing on the list that didn't bother me was her "modif[ied]
sacrament of the sick (aka last rites)." What could be wrong with getting
a dying person to say a vidui that only refers to the Borei?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Here is a comparison with Midrash Shir HaShirim according to this ongoing
thread:
 
        "R' Huna said in the name of Bar Kappara: For four merits the
Israelites were delivered from Egypt: because they did not change their
names, and because they did not change their language, and because they did
not inform against one another, and because there was no licentious person
among them."

According to Wikipedia, Midrash Rabbah (the Venice edition) is assigned to
have been compiled in the 16th century.

There is a collection of 11th century Midrashim called "Lekah Tov" which is
also called Pesikta Zutra/Zutarta, that are attributed to Toviah ben
Eliezer. According to those that quote from it (I don't have a copy at home)
It is there that he says in Shemot 6:6  that "they did not change their way
of dress".

Obviously, if someone wants to give a sermon about Shmirat HaLashon, than
the later Midrash Rabbah version is best. If one wants to teach about
defining ourselves by the way we dress, then the earlier Midrash Lekah Tov
version would be better.
 
Eliyahu Grossman

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


Subject: [Avodah] phantom hazals

I believe the one about them not changing their clothes is in Shir haShirim
Rabba.  If you like, I can check.
 

In Baba Mezia 40 the gemara states that one cannot make a profit of more
than 1/6

Ritva adds that a talmid chacham should charge the maximum 1/6 and it is
better that he make his own living and not live off of charity

Arukh Hashulchan (CM 231b)  complains that on the contrary in his country
lower the prices below the 1/6 profit level which causes poverty and this
makes no sense

-----------------------------------------
I am at a loss to explain these opinions. As one learns in economics prices
are set by supply and demand. If a TC charges higher prices than others
(but allowed by halacha) he wont have business.

Businessmen are not charging less than a 1/6 profit because of generosity
but because that is what the market bears.

----------------------------
In the same sugya there is a machkloket in the Mishna how much fruit spoils
or is eaten by mice.
Two remarks

1) The gemara asks on the Mishna concerning Orez (rice or millet) that the
amount given in the mishna doesnt correspond to reality (answers on
different types of orez).
Thus, we see that the amoraim ask on a mishna from facts

2) In the mishna discusses a case where the fruit expands (due to water?)
and compensates for the loss due to the mice. Rashi and Tosafot argue about
the details and the difference is a ratio of 10:1
Are they arguing about metzius (reality?)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130109/f90091b5/attachment-0001.htm>

I have alwats assumed that a man should not use a female masseuse and
certainly the opposite (female using male masseuse)

I recently saw a hagaot ashri (ketuvot chapter 5, #23 in Rosh) that states
that one is allowed to use a shifcha or a female nonJew to wash the men in
a public bathhouse.and it is prohibited only in private

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130109/482cf1a8/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Toby Katz wrote:
> I remember the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim, who
> supposedly tore up a postage stamp when he gave a letter
> to someone to deliver personally -- so that the government
> wouldn't lose the money it was "owed."  I never understood
> that story because if you didn't use the government's
> service, why should you have to pay the government anyway?

I'm much more familiar with a different story, in which the Chofetz Chaim
brought a package to the post office, and the clerk took the package,
marked it as "paid", and refused to accept any money from the sage. In
this version, it makes perfect sense that the Chafetz Chaim would not
want the post office to lose the money that it was indeed owed.

Akiva Miller

Postscript: About 25 months ago, we discussed various versions of this
story. See the posts by R' Arie Folger in Digest 27:224
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n224.shtml#07>,
and by myself <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n225.shtml#03>
and R' Micha Berger <www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n225.shtml#06>
in 27:225, under the header, 'Are "Gedolim Stories" Good for Chinuch?'

On 1/9/2013 6:11 AM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> R' Micha Berger wrote:
>> Notice though that shituf is not an alternative concept to AZ.
>> Rather, it's a type of AZ that is permissable to Benei Noach.
>> For a Jew to perform the rite to accomodate a Ben Noach would
>> be assur, because for the Jew AZ beshituf is still within the
>> issurim of AZ.

> This is an interesting chiluk, but I don't see that it necessarily
> follows from any of the sources you brought. Rather, if it is a type
> of AZ that is permissable to Benei Noach, then I see a *possibility*
> that there might be kulos for us as well, such as a possible heter to
> accommodate them. I have no idea what the halacha actually is.

Tosfot, which is often used as a support for shituf being permissible
for non-Jews, says nothing of the sort. You can look at the Gemara
on Sanhedrin 63a. The Gemara says that you can't cause a non-Jew to
take an oath to a avodah zarah. Tosfot addresses this on two levels.
One is that it's okay to cause them to take an oath by a saint, which
was common practice, because they don't consider saints to be deities.
The other is that when they say "God", even though they have in mind
an avodah zarah as well as Hashem, we can accept that as permissible.
In no way does Tosfot even suggest that actually swearing by the name of
an avodah zarah, such as Yoshke, is anything but outright avodah zarah,
even for non-Jews. And kal v'chomer worshipping it.

The Rema explains this all in Darchei Moshe Yoreh Deiah 156). Anyone who
claims that the Rema says it's permissible for non-Jews to worship an
avodah zarah provided they do it in combination with worship of Hashem
is absolutely mistaken.


On 1/9/2013 10:43 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The only thing on the list that didn't bother me was her "modif[ied]
> sacrament of the sick (aka last rites)." What could be wrong with getting
> a dying person to say a vidui that only refers to the Borei?

As I understand it, these rites require the person administring them to 
say things like "In Yoshke's name" or "in the name of the [trinity]".  
That is mefurash worship of avodah zarah.

Lisa

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 11:02:37AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
> Tosfot, which is often used as a support for shituf being permissible
> for non-Jews, says nothing of the sort...

The Tosafos in question are Sanhedrin 63b d"h "asur le'adam" and
Bekhoros 2b d"h "shema yischayeiv lo aku"m shevu'ah".

Actually, see RJDBleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and
Me'iri" pg 239 in "Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought" published by SUNY
in 1992. <books.google.com/books?id=m0yhkWuqIqYC&pg=PA239>

RJDB notes that R' Tam can be read either way, but that the weight of
mesorah since is to take him as saying. IOW, there is one way to read
it that is more natural to Lisa and RMJB, and then there is the Noda
beYehudah's way. (Fn 7 is not in the Google preview, and I couldn't find
the mar'eh maqom in the NbY myself.) Although, unlike Lisa's flat denial,
RMJB does find the NbY's reading to fit the text. (Just less "literal".)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 05:10:48PM +0000, Akiva Miller wrote:
: R' Toby Katz wrote:
: > I remember the famous story of the Chofetz Chaim, who
: > supposedly tore up a postage stamp when he gave a letter...

:        See the posts by R' Arie Folger in Digest 27:224
: <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n224.shtml#07>,
: and by myself <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n225.shtml#03>
: and R' Micha Berger <www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n225.shtml#06>
: in 27:225, under the header, 'Are "Gedolim Stories" Good for Chinuch?'

I was brighter back then. I recently wrote that I could only picture
the story making sense if the CC was trying to teach people to be
careful about cheating the gov't. And he would have to go overboard,
because the masses will necessarily set their own bar lower than
what they see the tzadiq doing. 2 years ago, I wrote something that
upon seeing it again ("did I write that?") I prefer:

> My understanding is that he originally intended to post the letter,
> and therefore had mentally given the money to the gov't. He didn't want
> to back out of a deal, even if just devarim shebaleiv.
...
> But I hope that's enough to take the absurd edge off this version
> of story.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.


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


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 31, Issue 10
**************************************

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.)