Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 77

Tue, 12 May 2015

• 1. missing years in Hebrew calendar (Prof. Levine)
• 2. chronology (Herbert Basser)
• 3. explanation (saul newman)
• 4. Re: Eilu v'eilu (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: explanation (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: missing years in Hebrew calendar (D)
• 7. Re: missing years in Hebrew Calendar (Marty Bluke)
• 8. Re: missing years in Hebrew calendar (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: explanation (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Re: halaqah (David Wacholder)
• 11. Re: explanation (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: explanation (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: missing years in Hebrew calendar (Lisa Liel)

At 02:57 PM 5/11/2015, R. Eli Turkel wrote:


><<I think this is tragic.  Rather than allow the blasphemous thought that
>the current vogue in scholarly circles might be wrong cross their minds,
>they feel forced to conclude that Chazal perpetrated multiple frauds and
>told multiple lies.  The inferiority complex many Modern Orthodox Jews have
>regarding secular scholarship is beyond tragic.>>
>
>I don't see how you can call this "blasphemous" R.  Schwab  once suggested
>that Chazal purposely changed the facts for a good reason. While he later
>retracted it would be hard to call his original opinion "blasphemous" .
>Furthermore several current Orthodox rabbis such as R. Leibtag do accept
>the secular dating.
>
>In any case the TABC article makes the clear point that Chazal had a
>tendency to conflate figures in Tanach.

<Snip>

The most definitive study on this topic is the recent book (2014)


The Challenge of Jewish History: The Bible, The Greeks & The Missing 168 Years

by Rabbi Alexander Hool

 From http://tinyurl.com/p42uvvj

There is a well-known conundrum concerning Jewish history: The 
conventional chronology of the Western world - and academia - is in 
direct conflict with traditional Jewish sources over the history of 
... history. Incredibly, there is a gap of roughly 200 years: For 
instance, the Talmud says the Second Temple stood for roughly 400 
years, while mainstream historians today conclude that it stood for 
almost 600 years. This conflict has major implications on what 
occurred to who, and when. It also seems to question the accuracy of 
the entire Jewish tradition as accepted dating methods seem to 
contradict core parts of the traditional Jewish narrative. In 
presenting fresh and startling astronomical, mathematical and 
archaeological evidence, Rabbi Alexander Hool has charted new ground 
in his quest to find the solution to this ancient problem. The 
Challenge of Jewish History is revolutionary: it questions all 
assumptions, dispels unfounded myths, and transports us back in time 
over 2,500 years. With a subject of great significance and 
fascination to all those interested in history, and a wealth of 
scholarship and sources to impress academics, this intriguing book 
gives us a new perspective on ....

This is a highly researched book based on Jewish and non-Jewish 
sources.  the author concludes that there are no missing years and 
seems to prove his conclusion.

I suggest that anyone who is really interested in this topic purchase 
this book.

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/15da1cd0/attachment-0001.htm>

[Transliteration mine. -micha]
Seder Olam: Mahadurah Mada'it
Peirush uMavo me'et Chaim Milikovsky's
Makhor Yitzchaq ben Zvi
shenei chalaqim, 326+711 amudim

See Chaim Milikovsky's edition of Seder Olam for a very detailed
explanation of all these issues in chazal's chronology and a critical
edition of the readings of all extant manuscripts. The issues of chazal's
chronologies were first highlighted at length by Azariah de Rossi's Meor
Eynayim and should be settled by Milikowski's volume which took about
35 years to research. Chazal were great men but not modern historians,
doctors, scientists, or nevi'im -- and certainly not liars.

Zvi

the torah's law on who may do the actual avodah [ ie mum-free] is not  PC
by today's standards, and in fact was a source of consternation for some
shabbos guests last week [ not to mention the column of a heterodox
clergylady in the local paper, who says she can't even read those passages]
.  i didn't have an answer other than to say [ other than the chok aspect]
 that the RBSO was looking from the perspective of the kahal and their
kovod, and how they would react or be distracted by a baal mum.

can someone supply a better take ?
thanks
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150511/08ef7559/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 11:37:18AM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: Regardless of how the Bas Kol might be interpreted, is there any way
: to understand "Nitzchuni banai!" other than Hashem personally siding
: with one of the litigants, and losing?

I don't see the closing of the story adding any problems the nissim
themselves didn't. If you think they were about Hashem backing one
side, then "nitzchui banai" is about that sice being defeated. If
not, then it's whatever over reason He had for presenting misleading
evidence that was defeated.

Leshitas those who don't take eilu va'eilu literally and intead use
a more classical logic with a law of contradition, the whole story
is about HQBH choosing the process as a whole over the correctness
of this one particular ruling.

HQBH rejoicing that the chakhamim maintained the kelalei pesaq as they
should rather than pay attention to His interferance. As the Maharitz
Chayes understands it, by keeping the process viable, they keep the
Torah eternal, capable of speaking to new circumstances as the world
changes. "Nitzchuni banai -- My children have made Me eternal!"

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On 05/11/2015 05:46 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> the torah's law on who may do the actual avodah [ ie mum-free] is not
> PC by today's standards, and in fact was a source of consternation
> for some shabbos guests last week [ not to mention the column of a
> heterodox clergylady in the local paper, who says she can't even read
> those passages] .  i didn't have an answer other than to say [ other
> than the chok aspect]  that the RBSO was looking from the perspective
> of the kahal and their kovod, and how they would react or be
> distracted by a baal mum.
>
> can someone supply a better take ?

What's the difficulty?  Hakriveihu no lefechosecho.  The dignity of a king,
and especially of The King, demands that all who serve Him be perfect in all
respects.   People with physical imperfections may be wonderful in many ways,
but they are just that, imperfect.  The current political correctness that
refuses to acknowledge this is literally insane.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

Date: Mon, 11 May 2015 12:19:57 +0300
From: Eli Turkel via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
> In any case the TABC article makes the clear point that Chazal had a
> tendency to conflate figures in Tanach. Some examples

> 1) Probably the most famous is Pinchas=Eliyahu
...

> Besiades the fact that Eliyahu was from Gilad and worked in the northern
> kingdom it leaves the halachic question whether a cohen gadol can resign
> and even leave the land of Israel for various tasks. It is clear from
> Tanach that Eli and other were the high priest in later generations

Re Pinchos = Eliyohu
The Ari says clearly [through the pen of R. Chaim Vital] in Shaar HaGilgulim 
that this refers to a gilgul neshomoh, not that he was literally the same 
person in body as well.
DR

R' YGB writes:
"I cannot believe TABC allowed this to be published as is. /Shreklach!/"

Should we just bury our heads in the sand and not address these kinds of
issues? Its very hard to hide information today, what happens when these
kids get to college and find about the missing 165 years. What are they
going to think?

The fact is that Rabbi S. Schwab found this discrepancy a ?truly vexing
problem? and wrote that the historical chronological dating:

"?can hardly be doubted for they appear to be the result of painstaking
research by hundreds of scholars and are borne out by profound erudition
and by ever increasing authoritative evidence ... we are compelled to admit
that the Bayis Sheni must have existed for no less than 586 years.?
(Hakira A Y2K Solution to the Chronology Problem).

If we don't address these kinds of questions (torah and science, the
documentary hypothesis, etc.) then the implication that will be drawn by
many people is that we don't have answers and we know what happens then.

The Seforim blog (http://seforim.blogspot.com/2015/01/blog-post.html)  not
long ago reviewed a Sefer by R' Amnon Bazak, Ad Hayom Hazeh, which deals
 with many of the the issues that academia brings up related to Tanach. Are
his answers compelling? Many times not. But at least he deals with the
issues. A commentator there made a very important point, for those who have
been exposed to these questions, we need seforim like this that at least
attempt to deal with the issues raised and not simply bury our heads in the
sand.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150512/152dd040/attachment-0001.htm>

> 5) Koresh= Daryavush=Artachasta

  <<As far as Achashveirosh being Artachshasta, Chazal say Artaxerxes was a
throne name.  And in fact, Greek sources say that both Artaxerxes II and
III adopted it as a throne name.  Furthermore, the Septuagint version of
Esther refers to the king as Artaxerxes, so saying that Ahasuerus is
Artaxerxes is a truism that has nothing to do with chronology >>

Do these Greek sources explain how Koresh and Daryavush are the same
person?  Besides you use the parts of the Greek sources that you like and
reject those that dont fit your thesis
Now you rely on the Septuagint? Almost everyone else identifies
Achashverosh with Xerxes,
Besides the are several inscriptions in ancient Persian that give a
detailed list of kings eg
Artaxerxes the great king, king of kings king of peoples king on this earth son
od Darius the king Darius son of Artaxerxes the king, Xerxes son of Darius
the king Darius son of Hystapes the Archaemend proclaims ..

As an aside modern chronology of Eygpt has been confirmed by recent carbon
14 dating. Dates of Sishak and other Assyrina and Babylonian kings have
been confirmed by their writings combined with various astronomical events
mentioned in their writings.

<<Again, he wasn't Kohen Gadol.  No one holds that he was.  Let me try and
explain a little more about Midrash.  Chazal bring Midrashim that
contradict one another.  For example, there's a Midrash that says Esther
never slept with Achashveirosh.  That Hashem sent a mal'ach that took her
place.  That conflicts with "Esther karka hayta", as well as with the
Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son.  None of this is
problematic.  Because the truth of Midrashim is not in their concretes.
Like analogies, Midrashim are abstractions which are anchored with
concretes, but are not defined by those concretes.>>

That's your opinion. In fact many achronim take these conflating of names
very seriously. While you claim Eliyahu wasn't a cohen gadol there is in
fact a halachic literature whether he was or not and whether a cohen gadol
can resign.
For example see hebrewbooks Magen Tzvi siman 36 page 388 where he concludes
that a Cohen Gadol (annointed by oil) who resigns still has all the laws of
a cohen gadol

You wrote "Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son " .
However Darius's own version (Behustan) states that he was not the son of
the previous king (see also above inscription on a wall)

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


are also available in English
http://etzion.org.il/en/topics/fundamental-issues-study-tanakh
As Marty mentioned he discusses fundamental issues as are all pesukim in
the Torah from Moshe Rabbenu, archaeology, accuracy of the text, Bible
criticism, peshat and drash, sins of Biblical figures and many other
controversial topics. I am sure that many of his solutions are also
controversial.

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Zev Sero wrote:

<<< The dignity of a king, and especially of The King, demands
that all who serve Him be perfect in all respects.   People with physical
imperfections may be wonderful in many ways, but they are just that,
imperfect. >>>

"... in all respects."

Really? Where will you find such a person? No, that's an impossible task.

For practicality's sake, He cannot and does not demand that all who serve
Him be perfect in ALL respects. So instead, there is a set of criteria, and
a set of shiurim by which to determine if one is *adequately* perfect.

I can't imagine that anyone would disagree with what I wrote thus far. But
then we'll go the next step, and study what sorts of things are on that
list of criteria. For example, if one is a Mechalel Shabbos, or a murderer,
he is disqualified from Birkas Kohanim, so I'd bet that he's disqualified
from the avodah too.

But those aren't the sort of mumim that the previous poster's Shabbos
guests were asking about. They were asking about physical abnormalities. I
hope it is okay if I rephrase their question to something like this: It is
reasonable for The King to insist on a certain degree of moral perfection,
but why is physical perfection relevant? Or to phrase it more bluntly, the
kohanim should not be judged by the shape of their nose, but by the content
of their character.

(Of course, we are not disputing the halacha. The question is WHY the Torah considers physical abnormalities to be disqualifications.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Want to place your ad here?
Advertise on United Online
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/555163bfd843b63bf2454st03vuc

R? Zvi Basser points out  ? H-L-Q was the haircut celebrated Lag B?Omer.  Yes!



Perhaps Chalak evokes Yaakov Avinu, aka Ish Chalak.

An older version of Ibn Ezra's famous Tzama Nafshi has alternate ending
stanzas.

H?alo Chelk?cha Meirosh ?
 Addressing Hashem directly 

Chalak ? that is Yaakov Avinu the weak brother ? and his endless
generations of martyrs

Damo Darosh ? avenge and right the wrongs

Shfoch HHamas Af al Rosh Hasa-ir Hachai ? let your anger pour over its
proper target - .


Ibn Ezra means that Hashem can grant Dveikus, Nevuah or Ruach Hakodesh. 




The Ibn Ezra
's
philosophical approach ? said that the Nefesh ? as a Spiritual Heavenly
entity ? can encounter the Ultimate Hashem ? directly.



The alternate ? higher level of Hashkafa ? Tzama Nafshi has a verse ? now
found in some better editions ?

After dealing with Hagar rebelling against Sara (Shifha no-emmes)

H?alo Chelk?cha Meirosh ?

Chalak ? that is Yaakov ? and his endless generations of martyrs

Damo Darosh ? avenge and right the wrongs

Shfoch HHamas Af al Rosh Hasa-ir Hachai ? let your anger pour over its
proper target - .

--


(See Kol Kisvei RAIE)

Eil Chayy Bera-ani ?

To my mind this means ? the always watching and involved One watching over
us. Compare ? Chai Anochi LeOlam Im Shanosi Brak Charbi ? in Parshas
Haazinu ? anger to avenge.

Perhaps in Inquisitorial times ? Eil Echad Bera-ani was more relevant.

Also fascinating ?

The Ayin verse substitutes ?

Al Kol Chasadecha ? Techadeish Eidecha!!
References Iyov 10:17, where Ibn ezra refers to leprous blemishes. 

 Posei-ach es Yadecha umasbia lechol chai ? directly allow
Life, 
Deveikus and attachment to His Essence ? not the simple meaning of
providing food
.


Earlier Ibn Ezra had said - Ki lo yir-ani ha-adam vachayy -  no man can see
Hashem and Chai ? no
complete experience of Hashem.
 His Creation is Ne-elama hidden in its wisdom.

Parshas Tazria has many multiple references to live healthy skin ? Basar
Hachayy - as opposed to leprous skin.
I would believe there are multiple references to Tazria Metzora. 

Lakol zeman va'eis...

There is a time to force people to change their reflect reactions, and a
time when the focus should be elsewhere.

There are two kinds of mummim WRT kehunah (see Bechoros 43b):
1- mar'is ayin -- one whose appearance is repulsive to the people
2- eino shaveh bezar'o shel Aharon -- someone who is unique in appearance
   to the people (see Rambam, Bi'as haMiqdash 6:6)

A kohein in the mar'is ayin category would pasl the avodah bedi'eved,
one who is eino shaveh would violate an asei, but the avodah is kasher.

Notice that both are defined by their impact on the observer. Presumably
the point is that attention should be on avodah, not thoughts about the
kohein performing it, or negative judgments of who is fit for service.

But notice this is only for the Avodah.... a kohein with a baal mum was still expected to show up
with his mishmar and do other necessary jobs.
I am not even sure he is pasul from lighting the menorah. After all,
we learn these mumim from the animals for qorbanos; it may apply
to qorbanos in particular.

So to me, the question is why isn't mid-qorban a good time to acclimate
Kelal Yisrael away from such visceral reactions. But since I cannot
get my head into the mindset of someone bringing a qorban, I leave the
question tabled until I have the opportunity to learn what a qorban is
like firsthand, bb"a.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 6:51am EDT, I wrote:
: There is a time to force people to change their reflect reactions, and a
: time when the focus should be elsewhere.
...

To add, there are TWO reactions that would distract from the purpose of
the qorban:

Both the person who is turned off by how Hashem made this particular
kohein (either through birth, disease, or allowing him to suffer an
acctident), and the person who would then turn his qorban into a bein
adam lachaveiro rather than a qorban. The one who would be thinking
about how touching it was the such a person overcame disability to help
them bring it. Rather than simply thinking about G-d.

Even according to R' Chaim Volozhiner or R' Shimon Shkop, who see bein
adam lachaveiro as the ultimate purpose of life, and thus presumably bein
adam laMaqom as a derived value, there is a time to care for the goose,
rather than everything being about collecting the golden eggs. In fact,
the farmer is likely to spend nearly al of his time into caring for the
goose rather than the ultimate payoff.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

On 5/12/2015 3:36 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:

>     5) Koresh= Daryavush=Artachasta

>   <<As far as Achashveirosh being Artachshasta, Chazal say Artaxerxes 
> was a throne name.  And in fact, Greek sources say that both 
> Artaxerxes II and III adopted it as a throne name. Furthermore, the 
> Septuagint version of Esther refers to the king as Artaxerxes, so 
> saying that Ahasuerus is Artaxerxes is a truism that has nothing to do 
> with chronology >>

> Do these Greek sources explain how Koresh and Daryavush are the same 
> person?

Fortunately, they don't have to, since that's just Midrash and has no 
nafka mina l'maaseh.

> Besides you use the parts of the Greek sources that you like and 
> reject those that dont fit your thesis

Of course I do.  The Greek sources aren't what we would call "history" 
today.  Herodotus collected folklore and picked the versions he liked to 
make a more entertaining story.  He says himself that he heard 4 
different and conflicting stories about Cyrus's backstory, and chose the 
one he liked best.  He didn't even preserve the other three so that we 
could make our own decisions. He made his living in Greece by 
entertaining his patron(s) with exotic stories from exotic lands.

> Now you rely on the Septuagint? Almost everyone else identifies 
> Achashverosh with Xerxes,

Not so.  Everyone recognizes that the *name* Achashveirosh is the same 
as the *name* Xerxes.  Or rather, that both names are transliterations 
of the original Persian Khshayarsha.  To say that "almost everyone else 
identifies Achashverosh with Xerxes" indicates that you aren't 
particularly well versed in the subject.  I mean, at the very least, 
read the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahasuerus which 
notes which sources have identified him as which kings.

> Besides the are several inscriptions in ancient Persian that give a 
> detailed list of kings eg
> Artaxerxes the great king, king of kings king of peoples king on this 
> earth son od Darius the king Darius son of Artaxerxes the king, Xerxes 
> son of Darius the king Darius son of Hystapes the Archaemend proclaims ..

<sigh> Have you read the Behistun Inscription?  Darius son of Hystaspes 
had it inscribed.  In it, he talks about Babylonian kings who weren't 
actually Babylonian kings.  At least not by our standards.  They were 
pretenders, since Babylon had fallen to the Medes and Persians.  But 
they gave themselves royal titles and claimed descent from 
Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus and the rest. From their point of view, 
they *were* kings of Babylon.  From the Persian point of view, they were 
pretenders.  Similarly, what do you think happened to Persia when 
Alexander conquered it?  From one day to the next, Persia vaporized?  
Persia covered a huge area.

Professor Levine posted about Rabbi Alexander Hool's book "The Challenge 
of Jewish History".  I don't agree with all of his conclusions, and I'm 
embarrassingly late completing a review of the book, but he posits the 
Persian line continuing even after Alexander whupped Darius at 
Gaugamela.  And in fact, the Parthian Empire, which started only about 
70-80 years after the Alexandrian conquest, claimed descent from the 
Achaemenids of the Persian Empire.  As did the later Sassanids.  Names 
like Ardashir are just Late Persian versions of the Old Persian Artaxerxes.

That's completely aside from the fact that we *know* there were 
forgeries perpetrated in ancient times for the purpose of establishing 
royal descent.  Check out Roland Kent's article "The Present Status of 
Old Persian Studies" in /Journal of the American Oriental Society, 
/1936, vol. 56, p. 215ff. 
(http://
www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/594668?uid=3739656&;uid=2134&uid=
2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21106376285721).

A couple of inscriptions that are nothing but royal titles with no 
actual content to them is kind of flimsy evidence.  Certainly not 
something strong enough to trash Chazal's entire picture of such an 
important period in our history.

> As an aside modern chronology of Eygpt has been confirmed by recent 
> carbon 14 dating.

Source.  Because you may not be aware of this, but when you bring items 
in for carbon dating, you have to tell them -- up front -- what the 
rough date is that you think they're from.  So that they can throw away 
any results that skew too far from that as "contaminated".  The rest are 
subject to a fudge factor (sorry: correction factor) to help make them 
fit.  But I'd like to see the source you have for carbon dating of 
modern Egyptian chronology.

> Dates of Sishak and other Assyrina and Babylonian kings have been 
> confirmed by their writings combined with various astronomical events 
> mentioned in their writings.

Assuming Sosenk = Shishak, which is iffy, considering that Sosenk only 
claims to have campaigned in the north of Israel, which would be odd for 
Shishak, whose son-in-law Yeravam was ruling there.  The rest of what 
you're talking about is pure confirmation bias.  They have a model and 
they shoehorn any evidence they find into that model, even if they have 
to kind of mush it in there.

> <<Again, he wasn't Kohen Gadol.  No one holds that he was.  Let me try 
> and explain a little more about Midrash.  Chazal bring Midrashim that 
> contradict one another.  For example, there's a Midrash that says 
> Esther never slept with Achashveirosh. That Hashem sent a mal'ach that 
> took her place.  That conflicts with "Esther karka hayta", as well as 
> with the Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son.  None of 
> this is problematic.  Because the truth of Midrashim is not in their 
> concretes.  Like analogies, Midrashim are abstractions which are 
> anchored with concretes, but are not defined by those concretes.>>

> That's your opinion. In fact many achronim take these conflating of 
> names very seriously. While you claim Eliyahu wasn't a cohen gadol 
> there is in fact a halachic literature whether he was or not and 
> whether a cohen gadol can resign.
> For example see hebrewbooks Magen Tzvi siman 36 page 388 where he 
> concludes that a Cohen Gadol (annointed by oil) who resigns still has 
> all the laws of a cohen gadol

Midrash.  And if it were something more solid than that, you'd have more 
than just some achronim saying so.

> You wrote "Midrash that Darius the Persian was Esther's son " .
> However Darius's own version (Behustan) states that he was not the son 
> of the previous king (see also above inscription on a wall)

So what?  I'm confused.  I'm saying that Midrash isn't necessarily the 
literal fact, and you pick out a phrase from what I wrote and point out 
that it isn't the literal fact?  It seems like you're trying to make a 
point, but I'm not seeing what it is.

Lisa



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



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


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


**************************************

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