Volume 33: Number 143
Wed, 11 Nov 2015
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Michael Feldstein
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:55:12 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership
[Not everyone got a clean copy the first time, so here' take 2...
micha]
http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha]
A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati
Helfgot
--
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Michael Poppers
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:51:48 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Ta'amai d'kra - why do we put tephillin on our
In Avodah V33n142, RAM wrote:
> so too, the hand being used to do the tying is doing avodas Hashem and
therefore that's the one that should be the cleaner hand <
Given modern toiletry methodology, I would tweak the "therefore" a bit: not
that the hand should be cleaner but that it should avoid that which might
dirty it.
> Halacha forbids us (men) from using the strong arm for cleaning after
defecation, as that would be disrespectful to the tefillin. (Orach Chayim
3:10) <
I think it's worth noting that many reasons are listed in BT B'rachos 62a
<http://dafyomi.org/index.php?masechta=brachos&;daf=62a&go=Go>. Also, BH
and MB quote SHeLaH that one should also avoid utilizing the finger upon
which the strap is wound three times (which brings up a tangential comment
to that which R'Micha noted: the "strong[er] arm" we use *likshor* is also
the one we use for a subsequent, important step, to wrap the strap around
the [middle] finger).
All the best from
*Michael Poppers* * Elizabeth, NJ, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151109/6e0f648d/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Zev Sero
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 16:06:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate
On 11/09/2015 08:45 AM, Marty Bluke via Avodah wrote:
> Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
> a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
> better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
> not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach. However, the underlying
> philosophical questions are very strong and are hard to ignore. They raise
> fundamental questions as to how God relates to the world and how tefilla
> could possible work. Personally, these questions bother me greatly.
As Rashi points out, in both Avraham's and Moshe's case they took
Hashem's informing them of His intentions as an *invitation* to try
to stop Him. In Moshe's case it was pretty explicit: "And now let
Me go so I can end them" is clearly telling Moshe that he is capable of
*not* letting Hashem go, and thus that he *should* not let Him go.
So this "war" was part of His original Will. He wanted both to form
the intention of destroying the Jews *and* to be dissuaded by Moshe.
He wanted both to form the intention of destroying Sedom, *and* for
Avraham to try to stop Him and to fail. Yes, He was aware of the
arguments Avraham and Moshe made, and He wanted them to make them.
I think the reason this doesn't seem to make much sense to us is that
we are bound in time and can't understand any non-time-bound phenomenon.
But consider the way a logical "precedes" and its conclusions "follow",
although this preceding and following is not temporal but logical.
(That is the sense in which the Torah "precedes" the world by "2000 years",
which obviously can't be taken literally since there was no time before
the world. Rather, it logically precedes the world; the world is derived
from and implied by the Torah, and the "alpayim shana" must refer to a
degree of logical precedence.) In the same way Hashem's "initial"
decision to destroy the Jews, and His "post-argument" decision not to
are part of the same process, which we only see as happening over time
because that's the way our brains are built to see everything.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 05:07:34 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem
The following if from Rav Schwab on Chumash
More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a
chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or
on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a
check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem .
Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community,
centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for
embezzlement. At that time, influential members of the embezzler's
community approached the Rav with a plea that he do what he can to
saw the man from going to prison. Rav Schwab became extremely
agitated, and he pointed out to the petitioners that the man's
behavior, which was so widely publicized in the media, caused a
tremendous chillul Hashem, and that the man had became a virtual
rodef, a threat to the lives of Klal Yisrael.
He told the visitors outright that the embezzler deserved to sit in
prison for a long time. He pleaded with them to give the embezzler a
message - that the man should shave off his beard and take off his
yarmulke when appearing in court, because by displaying these signs
of his religious affiliation, he would be making a new chillul Hashem
every day on the evening TV news, and would be a living disgrace for
the Jewish People.
Rav Schwab wrote extensively on this topic of chillul Hashem.
If one steals from a non-Jew, swears falsely and dies, his
death is no atonement 10).... Let us repeat. The profaners and the
desecrators give us all a rotten name, aiding and abetting
our many adversaries and antagonizing our few friends. Therefore, no
whitewashing, no condoning, no apologizing on behalf of
the desecrators. Let us make it clear that anyone who besmirches
the Sacred Name ceases to be our friend. He has unwittingly defected
from our ranks and has joined our antagonists, to make us all
suffer in his wake. And - noblesse oblige - the more prominent a man
has become in Orthodox Jewish circles, the more obligated he must
feel to observe the most painstaking scrupulousness in his dealings
with the outside world.
Rav Shimon Schwab, quoted in Selected Writings (CIS Publishers, 1988)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151110/8ce28439/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:24:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:07:34AM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: The following is from Rav Schwab on Chumash
:
: More than anything, Rav Schwab feared the possibility of making a
: chillul Hashem. He never used the title Rabbi in his bank records or
: on his checks, out of concern, as he told me, that if, G-d forbid, a
: check would bounce, "Rabbi" would add to the chillul Hashem .
:
: Many years ago, a shameful scandal erupted in the Jewish community,
: centering around a Jewish businessman who was put on trial for
: embezzlement...
In contrast, I was recently pointed to this interview R/Dr Alan
Brill conducted with R Ethan Tucker on his blog
<https://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2015/11/08/rabbi-ethan-tucker-on-halakh
ah>.
The relevant quote:
Tucker starts his halakhic reasoning with the principle of the Dor
Revii, R. Moshe Shmuel Glasner, Hungary, 19th-20th c., a source used
by Rabbis Eliezer Berkovitz and Yehudah Amital for similar purposes.
Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by
Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be
holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting.
[Block-quote in the original]
If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened
people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah --
he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah.
I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is
forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because
of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms
of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy
nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted
to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say:
"What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if
they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms,
they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"...
Anyone resistant to this point denigrates the honor of the Torah
and leads others to say that we are a stupid and disgusting
people instead of a wise and understanding one.
[Ad kan nested quote]
Tucker's approach at this point in his editing seems to avoid
Lithuanian abstractions in favor of telos and inclusiveness. It has
echoes of Eliezer Berkowitz, Kibbutz Hadati and even Hirschs rational
explanation for the commandments in Horeb.
IOW, what RSS riles against as being a chilul hasheim the D4 considers
a violation of qedushim tihyu as well. And worse than violating a
black-letter lav.
(And I ask again, how is a "chillul Hashem" even possible? His
name/reputation, "hasheim" with a lower-case-h, yes. But the Creator
Himself? I think that capitalizing the "H" to make it the kinui "Hashem"
is theologically problematic.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger The greatest discovery of all time is that
mi...@aishdas.org a person can change their future
http://www.aishdas.org by merely changing their attitude.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Oprah Winfrey
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:39:52 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem
On 11/10/2015 10:24 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Glasner wrote that Ones Torah ethic cannot be seen as abominable by
> Enlightened people in order to be seen as a wise nation and to be
> holy. Otherwise we make Torah foolish and disgusting.
>
> [Block-quote in the original]
>
> If one violates anything agreed upon as abominable by enlightened
> people -- even if it is not explicitly forbidden by the Torah --
> he is worse than one who violates the laws of the Torah.
>
> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is
> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because
> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms
> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy
> nation;
Who are these "enlightened people", and what makes them so special?
If they have invented their own value system that contradicts the
Torah then they are not enlightened, they are savages. Nimrod and
Antiochus were the "enlightened" people of their respective generations,
and our ancestors spat on their "enlightenment" and did all that was
abominable and revolting in their eyes. Indeed they made the Torah
appear foolish and disgusting to these wicked people, because they
refused to accept their value system and justify the Torah in its terms.
To take a modern example, almost all the so-called "enlightened"
nations of the world have decided that capital punishment is barbaric
and wicked, no matter what the crime. The USA stands out as the only
industrial country to reject this principle, and as a result most of
those who consider themselves "enlightened" regard Americans as
primitive and savage. But in fact it is they who are savage, because
they consciously refuse to do justice to murder victims. The Torah
says "the earth *cannot be forgiven* for the blood spilled on it except
by the spiller's blood". Their lands are soaked in blood that they
refuse to avenge, and thus there is no justice in their lands. They
violate the Noachide commandment to establish a justice system. And
yet according to these authors you cite we must conform ourselves to
these "enlightened" people's principles.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 16:08:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rav Schwab on Chillul Hashem
At 10:24 AM 11/10/2015, Micha Berger wrote:
> I say that anything that is revolting to enlightened Gentiles is
> forbidden to us, not just because of hilul hashem, but because
> of the command to be holy. Anything the violates the norms
> of enlightened human beings cannot be permitted to us, a holy
> nation; can there be anything forbidden for them but permitted
> to us? The Torah says that the nations are supposed to say:
> "What a great nation, with such just laws and statutes!" But if
> they are on a higher level than we in their laws and norms,
> they will say about us: "What a foolish and disgusting nation!"...
But what is "revolting to enlightened Gentiles" (I am not sure who
this refers to) and"the norms of enlightened human beings" change
with time. They also differ from culture to culture. For example,
what is considered proper treatment of women differs widely
throughout the world.
There was a time euthanasia was considered "revolting" in almost all
gentile circles. This is not the case today. See
http://euthanasia.procon.org/ and http://www.euthanasia.com/
YL
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: saul newman
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 10:09:59 -0800
Subject: [Avodah] chu'l duchening
http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb-zalman.html
is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov?
is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul
[assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151110/e4164c4c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Shui Haber
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 00:10:42 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] chu'l duchening
On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb
> -zalman.html
> is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov?
> is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul
> [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily?
Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his
(infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim.
Shui Haber
<https://about.me/shuihaber?promo=email_sig>
*"The secret to always being in the right place at the right time is
knowing that you always are."*
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Zev Sero
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 18:07:46 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] chu'l duchening
On 11/10/2015 01:09 PM, saul newman via Avodah wrote:
> http://torasaba.blogspot.com/p/according-to-harav-hagaon-reb
> -zalman.html
>
> is it a problem for ashkekohanim to duchen not on yom tov?
The minhag is not to. The revealed reasons for this minhag seem rather
weak, but both the GRA and the Alter Rebbe wanted to change it and were
told not to (in the GRA's case rather dramatically), so the true reason
must be something hidden. But if a cohen is present when the chazan
calls "cohanim", and he has not yet duchened that day, then he has no
choice; he has a chiyuv de'oraisa to duchen, minhag or no minhag.
Therefore it makes sense to me that he should make sure not to be present
for the call, either by davening elsewhere or just by stepping out
before the call.
> is it a problem for a non-kohen to go to their local sefardi shul
> [assuming they don't daven there] to catch duchening daily?
I've never heard of a minhag not to *hear* duchening except on yomtov.
It's not recorded that way anywhere that I've seen. Normally we can't
hear it because the cohanim are not saying it, but if there are cohanim
who are saying it then why not catch a bracha? On the contrary, I would
think that if one has had a bad dream one should davka go to a shul where
they are duchening so one can say the RBSO right away instead of waiting
for the next yomtov.
--
Zev Sero All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
I'll explain it to you".
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 19:39:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Women and communal leadership
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 11:55:12AM -0500, Michael Feldstein via Avodah wrote:
: http://j.mp/1MSg0PK [Compressed from http://www.jewishpress.com.... -micha]
:
: A fair and balanced analysis of the halachic issues involved by R. Nati
: Helfgot
Actually, he only raises one issue, serarah.
He also claims that RALichtenstein saw no halachic problem with ordaining
women. This is not accurate; RAL submitted a letter to the RCA in 2010
against. Yes, RAL didn't think the particular issue of serarah was real.
Unlike Rav Kook. RAYK considered a Jewish Democracy to have enough dinim
of malkhus for "melekh velo malkah" to prohibit women voting. Co workers
at the Grus Campus testify that Prof Nechama Leibowitz did not vote
for this reason.
But by focusing only on serarah, RNH manages to vanquish a strawman.
As RHS noted in the Hakirah article I pointed to yesterday, even though
geirim cannot serve in positions of seararah either, semichah was open
to them. We know this because they could serve on BD when the litigants
were dayanim. Which implies that a geir received even Mosaic semichah
deOraisa. Unlike women.
This was Prof Lieberman's objection to JTS ordaining women; it breaks
the whole notion of yoreh yoreh being the remaining splinter of the
original.
Not touched by RNH.
Nor did he address RHS's egalitarian tzenius issue (if we didn't need
men to serve as rabbis, they should be avoiding ordination too) nor
the "mesorah" angle he discusses most often. (Though not in that PDF.)
I think R/Prof Sperber does a more complete job, but a more complete
discussion of how his article struck me is for antoher time, be"H.
Also, while on the topic of sources... R' Baqshi Doron is frequently
cites as permitting the ordination of women as well. However, here is
his letter to the RCA <http://j.mp/1Y3jb9g>. He permits pesaq, but ONLY
on an informal basis. His answer revolves around tzeni'us, and "lo ya'eh
yeheirus leneshaya" (quoting R Nachman in Mes' Megillah).
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Ben Waxman
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 05:42:55 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] chu'l duchening
I would ask the question like this:
1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own
particular nusach?
2) If there is, why does hearing BK over ride the chiyuv? AIUI the
kohanim are blessing all of Am Yisrael and matters not where you are
(unless you stand behind them while they recite the blessing.
On 11/11/2015 12:10 AM, Shui Haber via Avodah wrote:
> Rav Shteinman is particular to daven with a minyan of Sephardim on his
> (infrequent) trips to Chutz L'Aretz so as not to miss Birkas Kohanim.
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Prof. Levine
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 10:07:44 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Rav Shimon Schwab - TIDE is not a Hora'as Sha'ah
The following is from the article The Ish
Haemes, A Man of Unimpeachable Integrity, Rabbi
Shimon Schwab by Eliyahu Meir Klugman that
appeared in the Jewish Observer , Summer 1995
issue. One may read the entire article at
http://web.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/jo_r_schwab.pdf
Revision, For the Sake of Truth
His [Rav Shimon Schwab, ZT"L] adherence to emes was
such that he was willing to
revise long held views. even if
that meant a reassessment of publicly
stated positions. His views on the relevance
of Torah im Derech Eretz are a
case in point With the rise of Nazism
in the l 930's, Rabbi Schwab was convinced
that Torah im Derech Eretz as
expounded by Rabbi S.R Hirsch was
no longer relevant, not as an educational
program and certainly not as a
Weltanschauung. The barbarity of the
Nazi beast (even before World Warm.
the virulent anti-Semitism in Germany,
and the total failure of the ideals
of enlightened humanism and
Western culture to change the essential
nature of gentile society led him to
conclude that the only path for the Torah-
observant German Jew was to return
to the 'Torah Only? approach,
and to shun Western culture and the
world at large as much as possible.
Rabbi Hirsch's Torah im Derech Eretz
ideal, he averred, was only a hora'as
sha'ah, a temporary measure for a
temporary situation. In 1934, he aired
these views in a slim volume entitled
Heimkehr ins Judentum (Homecoming
into Judaism), which caused a sensation
in German Orthodoxy.
But after coming to America, he
concluded that the realities of the
ghetto and the shtetl where one could
spend all one's life in the local beis
hamidrash, with its total dissociation
from the rest of society, was a way of
life that had also been consumed in
the flames of the Holocaust. The realities
of life in the United States and
other Western countries. where the
Jew traveled in non-Jewish circles
and could not live totally apart from
around him, were not essentially different from the situation
in the Western Europe of Rabbi
Hirsch. Furthermore, a careful study
of all of Rabbi Hirsch's writings led
him to the inevitable conclusion that
he had never meant Torah im Derech
Eretz as a hom'as sha'ah at all. It was
not a compromise, a kula, or a hetter.
Although Rav Hirsch did not insist
that it was for everyone, he certainly
did not see it as time bound. Rabbi
Schwab then publicly retracted his
earlier insistence on 'Torah Only" as
the sole way of life for the Torah Jew
in Western society. (Rabbi Schwab always
viewed the situation in Eretz
Yisroel as essentially unique, but that
is beyond the purview of this article.)
To that end he published in 1966 a
booklet entitled These and Those {Eilu
v'Eilu), wherein he set forth the arguments
and counter-arguments for
both positions, with the conclusion,
as the title indicates, that both, in
their proper time and place, are legitimate
ways of life for the Torah Jew in
Western society.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151111/20ac6177/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:29:00 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Changing Nusach heTefilah
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:42:55AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: 1) Is there any chiyuv to pray in a beit knesset that uses your own
: particular nusach?
Going off in a different direction, which is why I changed the subject
line. There are assumptions here about the import of preserving nusach
altogether before this question even gets off the ground.
There is some kind of minhag issue in changing nusachos, where RMF talks
about the permissability of a chassid switching from "Sfard" to Ashkenaz,
since any Ashkenazi davening "Sfard" has an ancestor who was davening
Ashkenaz and switched. ROY allows Israeli Ashk to switch to the SA's
nusach, since he feels that all Israelis should hold like Maran Bet
Yosef on everything. (Although note that both of these examples are of
a noted poseiq championing the superiority of his own nusach.)
But what about the person who switches to "Yisgadeil veYisqadeish", or
"haShemini, Atzeres hachag", or adds "umorid hatal", because they aid his
kavanah -- they say what he prefers to say. The AhS prefers the Sfrard
Mussaf leShabbos, because "az misinai nitztavu tzivui pa'aleha karu'i"
continues the reverse alef-beis with words whose initials are menatzpa"kh
(the sofios). Despite the weight he gives accepted pesaq. In Aleinu,
"vekhisei kevodo" instead of "umoshav yeqro", etc...
Is there a difference between a few retail changes like those above,
and a wholesale change in nusach -- like the mass change to Sfard or Ari?
FWIW, R David bar Hayim gae this shiur <https://youtu.be/Wbg2ZnSbEic>
but his ideas of the role of accepted pesaq -- both in practice lemaaseh
and precedent as pasqened by earlier baalei mesorah -- is so far from
the norm, I don't think it has much value to the way most of us observe.
And if "but this says what I want to express" were sufficient motive to
change nusach, then why not wanting to hear birkhas kohanim? And that's
changing one's own nusach, and one wouldn't be asking about attending
a minyan where /their/ nusach differs.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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.)