Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 80

Fri, 09 Jun 2017

• 1. Rav Cherlow's Post (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Redemption (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Rav Cherlow's Post (Zev Sero)
• 4. 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Maharat (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Micha Berger)
• 10. Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: 10 tribes -- exile without redemption (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: tfillin check (Micha Berger)

https://www.facebook.com/RabbiCherlow/posts/1442987509096046

In response to a question regarding a psak that supposedly allows women 
to recite Sheva Brachot and an accusation that certain rabbis are 
distorting the halacha because of feminism, Rav Cherlow wrote a 
response. I am summarizing a few points. Full text is in the link above..

Introduction: Your words are a perfect example of how someone can break 
the Torah's most serious commandments and yet act as if he is a yirei 
shamayim.

1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in 
Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to 
do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you 
guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah.

2) Never mock rabbis (or anyone) because you disagree with their 
opinions. Mocking people publicly is one of the most serious aveirot.

3) Never use a nickname for others, in this case "Dati Light".

4) Always be careful about generalizing.

5) Never accuse someone of being guilty of what you assume to be their 
hidden motivations. You don't know and accusing someone violates 
"M'devar sheker tirchaq". More importantly, you're assuming that you're 
a tzaddiq and don't have an agenda.

6) Never use a group name to mock someone. The Torah world owes feminism 
a great debt for things its done (Talmud Torah for women, leading the 
fight against sexual harassment, etc) along with strong criticism for 
other things done in its name.

7) Always try and live according to Halacha as it is written. Don't have 
other gods, like opposition to chiddushim.

8) Bring halachic arguments to halachic discussions.

Ben

On 6/8/2017 9:28 PM, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2017, at 8:30 AM, Zev Sero via Avodah 
> <avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
>> The idea that revenge is not a legitimate or worthy goal is not Jewish.
>
> An intriguing thesis, but I think you have hardly made your case. 
>  Perhaps the issur on taking revenge is, so to speak, a middos 
> chassidus but I think the simpler reading is that revenge is bad.
>

Where is there any issur on taking revenge?  Against fellow Jews, yes, 
of course.  But generally?

Lisa


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/06/17 23:55, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> 
> 1) Never learn a psak halacha from a newspaper article. The psak is in 
> Techumim and had you read it you would have seen that it has nothing to 
> do with women reciting Sheva Brachot. Meaning, your accusation makes you 
> guilty of motzei shem rah and distorting the Torah.

And yet in this case the newspaper seems to have got it right, and R 
Cherlow's correspondent simply hadn't bothered to read it before 
fulminating.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern 
day claims of people claiming they're descendants)? What did they do 
that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin (meaning so 
significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah tzara)? Yes, 
I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work to reprimand 
them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It doesn't seem to 
me that the navi'im spoke that much about it.

Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time 
before they went into exile was simply waiting time?

Ben

On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern 
> day claims of people claiming they're descendants)?

Who says it was?

> What did they do that was so awful compared to Yehuda and Benyamin 
> (meaning so significantly worse that murder, sexual crimes, and avodah 
> tzara)? Yes, I know that they broke off but do the navi'im really work 
> to reprimand them and get them to go back to accept Davidic rule? It 
> doesn't seem to me that the navi'im spoke that much about it.

Avodah zarah (not tzara) was worse in the northern kingdom because of 
assimilation.  The northern kingdom had assimilated to the point where 
they were culturally as much Phoenician as they were Israelite.  But 
even that wouldn't be cause for permanent exile.

I don't think their much more lengthy exile was a punishment.  I think 
it was simply necessary.  Had they rejoined us, by which I mean all of 
them, and not just those who Jeremiah brought back, and we had been 
exiled as a single nation, things would have been different.  But 
viewing themselves as a separate nation from us, how would you envision 
things having worked in the ancient world?  I don't think it would have 
been significantly different from what happened with us and the 
Samaritans.  In fact, the Samaritans called themselves Israelites; not 
Samaritans.  (That's the root of the mistake in the Christian "good 
Samaritan" story, btw.)

> Or, did they seal their fate the moment they broke off and the time 
> before they went into exile was simply waiting time?

Not at all.  Jehu could have reunited the kingdom.  And there were 
people from the northern kingdom who came back to us when the guards 
that were first posted by Jeroboam I were removed.  But having two 
separate exilic populations of Bnei Yisrael would have been disastrous 
in very many ways.

Lisa


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 09/06/17 11:06, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any modern 
> day claims of people claiming they're descendants)?

Assuming that it was, and that Yirmiyahu didn't bring them back.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 08/06/17 22:36, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:

> I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is 
> that he is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the
> time of the Gemara.

I think that is obvious, and it didn't occur to me that this could be 
what R Micha was referring to.  I thought there must be some other 
Rambam, perhaps a teshuvah, where he discusses "modern" semicha to 
whatever extent such a thing even existed in his day and place.

BTW I have seen it suggested that the original semicha was kept alive at 
the yeshivah in Damascus (they would cross into the borders of EY to 
confer it) until it was destroyed in the 2nd Crusade, which, if true, 
would mean there may still have been living musmachim in the Rambam's day.


> Thanks to the Rav who referenced the article in Tradition on triage. 
> That is an excellent source. I was actually thinking of a similar 
> statement made by R. Avraham Steinberg in his Encyclopedia of Medical 
> Ethics on the topic of triage.

But that article doesn't support the claim you made, that there exist 
poskim -- and in fact that it is the unanimous position of MO poskim -- 
that this halacha is no longer operative.  The article cites sources 
relevant to the entire topic of triage, in all circumstances, including 
the mishneh and gemara in Horiyos, and I didn't see any suggestion that 
they are less authoritative or applicable today than they ever were.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

Another idea: To expect a redeemer from the House of David one must 
first subject oneself to that House.  Those who reject its sovereignty 
can't (by definition) expect one of its members to save them, so on 
being exiled they would naturally assume that this would be their new 
home and these their new neighbors, with whom they must assimilate.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 05:32:23PM +0300, Lisa Liel via Avodah wrote:
: On 6/9/2017 6:06 PM, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
:> Why was the exile of the 10 Tribes permanent (putting aside any
:> modern day claims of people claiming they're descendants)?

: Who says it was?

First, I think we concluded among ourselves that the 10 lost tribes
are really 9+1 lost tribes, with Shim'on, living in Malkhus Yisrael,
being a separate case. With, perhaps, it's own spiritual malais. They
lived amongst sheivet Yehudah; is it likely their culture was more like
Yisrael than their own neighbors?

With that tangent out of the way...

It's a machloqes tannaim in Sanhedrin 10:3 (110b), no?

"The 10 shevatim are not destined to return, 'Vayashlikheim el eretz
achares kayom hazah' (Devarim 29) [derashah elided]... divrei R' Aqiva.

"R' Eliezer omer: [his own derashah] ... even as the 10 shevatim went
through the darkening, so too it will grow light for them.

The gemara's discussion focuses on the previous part of the mishnah's
machloqs -- their olam haba.

But Rebbe says they do have olam haba and seems to be implying that the
kaparah is total -- so they will return to EY.

The Sifra (Bechuqosai 8:1) has R' Aqiva saying they won't return, but
based on (Vayiqra 26:38), "vavadtem bagoyim..." And it has R' Meir as
the one disagreeing with R' Aqiva.

In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman,
we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim.
Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his
day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews. R' Chaim Brisker
uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not
halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent. Which R'
Aharon Lichtenstein uses as a snif not to support giving them Israeli
citizenship in "Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity."


:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself.
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org            - George Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in  the famous midrash about 
Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem 
Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a 
source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry 
halacha guide demands that they be sourced?

Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice?

Ben

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:36:08PM -0500, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: I am sorry I do not have more time to devote to this discussion and will
: bow out.

A shame, as we went in circles on one issue and didn't touch the others.

Including my assertion that the Chinuch (142) speaks "ishah chokhmah
hare'uyah lelhoros" and "assur lo leshanos letalmidav" -- whether
someone who has the skills to give hora'ah shouldn't be teaching
when drunk. No mention of hora'ah, but ra'ui lehora'ah and teaching.
Because, he explains, their teaching will be accepted by those who
look up to them, as if it were hora'ah.

Similarly the Chida (Birkei Yoseif, CM se'if 7:12) rules out ordaning
women, following the example of Devorah. People can voluntarily listen
to Devorah (or, it would seem, to a yo'etzes), but she cannot be
appointed a rabbi nor ordained as one because her opinion could not be
imposed. Picture the town hiring a rabbi that any chazan can say, "Well,
I don't follow him" and therefore can break from the shul's norm, or even
"I don't follow him on this one." But more to the point, following the
Chinukh (who is cited), he says "deDevorah haysah melamedes lahem dinim."
R' Baqshi Doron mentions this problem in his letter, which RGS has
scanned at
http://www.torahmusings.com/wp-content/uploa
ds/2015/11/Rav-Bakshi-Doron-on-Women-Rabbis.pdf#page=2
REBD concludes that because of this, women should not be tested or
given semichah, as that would be an appointment rather than voluntary
acceptance of a particular teaching.

And, while the Chida (and thus REBD) says "ishah chokhmah yekholah
lehoros hora'ah", he is defining this as teaching law, not interpresting
law -- nidon didan. Which is consistent with the Chinukh the Chida
is building on.


Nor did we get to my non black-letter-halakhah concerns. Including my
concern that the whole project reflects a misrepresentation of Judaism's
demands by thinking that anything that can fit the black letter of the law
is in compliance with the Torah. That there is none of the more nebulous
side of the law; an obligation to pursue a given value system and ethic.
The fact that "Mesorah" is dismissed as political rather than a real
Torah issue is to my mind a blunder; and your disinterest in discussing
this aspect actually hightened those concerns.

Nor the question of telling women that they are correct to seek value in
a manner that has a glass cieling for them.

Nor the question of whether a woman belongs in shul service, or whether it
was designed to be a Men's Club. And if not designed, whether its function
as a Men's Club is too useful to be sacrificed. As one example, but not
the whole problem: Will male attendance lessen if we lose that character;
will Tue, Wed and Fri (workdays with no leining) Shacharis attendance
among O men go the way of Shabbat attendance among their C counterparts?


But on, the topic we did discuss...

:  I may have misrepresented the Chatam Sofer in that he was critiquing
: certain categories of semicha and not the entire enterprise, I have to look
: up the underlying sources to be sure.  The article is in Or HaMizrach 44
: a-b p 54. by R. Shetzipanski...

But having a reference in the CS itself would have been more 

...
: In the volume found on Otzar Hachochma, the teshuva addressing semichah of
: the Maharik is number 117, not 113(as stated in the OU paper), which may
: explain my difficulty in finding it.

It's the Rama who says 113. (It's either that the copy in OhC is
idiosyncratic, or, the OU copied a typo in the Rama and didn't check.
I know that's what I did.)

: I think the plain reading of the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin 4 is that he
: is discussing Mosaic semicha that was still operative in the time of the
: Gemara. which is why in 4:6 he states that it can only be done in Eretz
: Yisrael and in 4:8 he includes a discussion of semicha for dinei kinasot
...

Limnos ledavarim yechidim is not always to be a dayan. One can get reshus
lehoros be'issur veheter or lir'os kesamim but not ladun. It's the same
process as geting reshus ladun or ladun dinei kenasos, or... Do you think
"lir'os kesamim" was ever limited to dayanim? The fact that the Rambam
treats reshus lit'os kesamim and reshus ladun as one topic that's the
whole point!

(And that addresses Zev's recent post, which I approved while this one
was sitting around mid-edit.)

Now that you found the Mahariq that the Rama se'if 6 says he bases
himself on, I would have like to have heard if you disagree that he too
is treating the rules for yoreh-yoreh and the rules for Mosaiq semichah
as one topic.

And Tosafos?

: I very much appreciate the time and effort that was expended in the
: discussion and I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very
: least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of
: women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable
: understanding of the Halacha...

I haven't heard a complete defense, but I didn't see at all a positive
case for.

After all, the burden of proof is on the innovator. We didn't touch the
whole conversation of proving that the innovation is positive enough *in
Torah values* to justify settling for just what could be read as a
not 'beyond the pale' understanding.

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 03:01:33PM -0600, Daniel Israel via Avodah wrote:
: 1. Why is the halachic question the primary point of discussion? ...

: 3. RBW wrote regarding who can decide on these kinds of questions: "My
: example for this would be chassidut. The changes that it brought were
: huge and as we all know, so was the opposition to it. Yet here were are
: today, with chassidut thought of as glatt kosher."
...
: That said, I think we are indeed looking at something where there are two
: camps, with extremely strong opposition partly based on a concern that
: this is a change which, even if one finds a way to make it technically
: okay, will open the door to a slide away from proper halachic practice,
: much as happened with the Conservative movement...

My own concern is (as Avodah long-timers should expect) more meta.

Why is the only quesiton that of black-letter halakhah? Why the ignoring
of -- what do I call it, "gray-letter halakhah"? -- laws that don't
codify cleanly, that require a feel for what seems in line with the
Torah, that which RHS calls "Mesorah"? (Although "mesorah" has become
an ill-defined concept, including both Torah-culture values and mimetic
practice. For that matter, I find that R/Dr Haym Soloveitchik's use of
"mimeticism" also blurs both, as both are transmitted culturally.)

To me, that's a critical meta-innovation that warrants asking if we're
still all playing by (evolving our practice with) the same rules.

I am not worried about a slippery slope to C. To my mind, that's worrying
about when the problem, if there is one, becomes symptomatic. To me the
question is whether procedurally, the process R/D NS is defending is
already unlike the rest of O IN A DEFINITIONAL WAY.

After all, once you define MO to include an openness to modern values,
following the Torah becomes just using the halakhah as a test -- can
this new idea fit black-letter law or do we have to do without? But
also our test itself changes. Deciding which shitah to follow depends
in part on our priorities, and in LWMO, those modern values also define
the priorities.

As R/Dr Stadlan put it:
:            ... I hope that I have been able to illustrate at the very
: least, that there is a very good and rational case to be made in favor of
: women's ordination and it certainly is not 'beyond the pale' of reasonable
: understanding of the Halacha...

Thinking something is okay to do as long as one can find understandings
of shitos that can combine to show the idea is plausible and not "beyond
the pale" is to my mind itself beyond the pale.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life isn't about finding yourself
mi...@aishdas.org        Life is about creating yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Bernard Shaw
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 09/06/17 11:19, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
> Rambam Hilchot Qriyat Shema A:4 brings in  the famous midrash about 
> Yaacov's sons saying Shema to justify or explain why we say "Baruch Shem 
> Kavod . . .". This seemed different, out of place, to me. Why bring in a 
> source? Because interjecting these words is so foreign that even a dry 
> halacha guide demands that they be sourced?
> 
> Does the Rambam bring in a midrash in other places to justify a practice?

I don't understand the question.  The Rambam always gives reasons and 
sources, and this chapter is a perfect example.  He's spent the previous 
three halachos giving the source for the mitzvah, the reasons for the 
selection of these three parshios, the reason we say the third parsha at 
night and the source for that reason, and now in halacha four he adds 
the final detail, and its reason and source.

When we say the Rambam doesn't give his sources, we mean that he doesn't 
tell us where in the gemara he derives the halachos.  He doesn't expect 
his audience to be familiar with the gemara, and he's not interested in 
convincing those who are, or in defending himself to them.  But he 
always gives the pasuk where a mitzvah or halacha is stated, or tells us 
that it comes "mipi hashmuah", or was instituted by chazal or by the 
geonim. When he gives a psak which doesn't come directly from the gemara 
he says "ken horu hage'onim", "ken horu rabosai", or "ken nir'a li".

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On 09/06/17 14:08, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 
> In Yevamos 16b, R' Assi says that if a nakhri marries a Jewish woman,
> we have to worry that maybe the man was from one of the 10 shevatim.

Only if he's from the countries where they were taken.

> Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his
> day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews.

Actively sought and found?!  He simply gave a historical fact; the women 
of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there never were any 
descendants.  Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this.

As for the men's descendants by nochriyos, according to the first lashon 
Shmuel derived from the pasuk that they're nochrim, and according to the 
second lashon it's a halacha pesukah ("lo zazu misham").   But according 
to either lashon the problem of the women was solved.

Also, there's no "by his day".  Either the problem was solved within one 
generation, or it was never solved at all.


Not by his day.  By at latest the 2nd BHMK.  Either Yirmiyahu brought 
them back, so they're not there any more, or the first generation had no 
children so they died out then and there, or the Sanhedrin decreed them 
to be goyim.


> R' Chaim Brisker

Where is this R Chaim?


> uses this idea to propose that the children of meshumadim are not
> halachically Jewish -- there are limits to Judaism by descent.

On what basis?  Unlike the ten tribes' descendants, these children 
exist.  How can they not be Jewish?

Even if you want to say the second lashon applies to both the men and 
women, and it means they lost their Jewish status,  this was not a 
gezera, it was derived from a pasuk, that Hashem took away their Jewish 
status, so in the absence of any pasuk about other people how can it be 
extended?


-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 03:51:40PM -0400, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: >In Yevamos...
: >Shemu'el (17a) actively sought and found a way to prove that by his
: >day, the descendent of the 10 shevatim were non-Jews.
: 
: Actively sought and found?!  He simply gave a historical fact

"Amar lei: Lo zazu misham ad she'as'um aku"m gemurim." I misspoke;
he was reporting that others proactively looked for a way to hold the
issur wouldn't hold. (I remember "lo azuz...")

:                                                                the
: women of that generation were all miraculously sterile so there
: never were any descendants.  Rav Assi hadn't been aware of this.

That's Ravina.

Shemu'el works from Hosheia 5:7, "BaH' bogdu, ku banim zarim yuladu".
Which is inconsistent with Ravina. Whom I forgot about entirely.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 01:14:30PM +0000, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is
: needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without
: knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled
: the commandment to wear tfillin...

: Two questions:
: 1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha
:    by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status)
:    appropriate?

We're discussed variants of this question before. Usually WRT whether
a person in the same situation buit with their mezuzah will get less
shemirah.

My feeling is that we allow relying on chazaqos lekhat-chilah. When
something is "only" kosher because of rov or chazaqah, we don't tell
the person they can only eat it beshe'as hadechaq. We don't worry about
the risk of timtum haleiv from something that kelapei shemaya galya was
really cheilev.

And if that is true of cheilev and timtum haleiv, why not the protection
of mezuzah or the effects of wearing tefillin?

But those with more mystical mesoros, Chassidim and Sepharadim largely,
are bound to disagree. Zev usually argues that not being enough of a risk
to be worth avoiding isn't the same as not being a risk -- and in the
case you learned the worst did come to worst -- the metaphysical outcome.

And that's when I ask about tziduq hadin.... If someone is doing
everything they're supposed to, and we're not talking about the teva
necessary to allow for human planning, then why wouldn't Hashem just give
a person as per their deeds. Why have a whole metaphysical causality if
it doesn't aid bechirah, nor Din, nor Rachamim?

....
: BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has
: changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan
: checking be appropriate?

I take this as evidence of the "Litvisher" answer. If it were really
a problem, why wouldn't halakhah reflect a greater need to check?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)