Volume 26: Number 129
Tue, 07 Jul 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:04:03 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Chuqqas - mixed messages
It seems according to many that Moshe Rabbeinu erred by mei meriva in
that he HIT the rock instead of speaking to it.
That seems pretty pashut
However, when HKBH tells Moshe "asei le saraph"
And Moshe Rabeinu
Vaya'as Moshe Nechash Nechoshes.."
HKBH said "Saraph"
Moshe made "Nechash nechoshes" lich'ora is this not, too, a deviation -
albeit minor - from HKBH's statement?
Does anyone comment on this?
KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Madjsolo...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:39:25 EDT
Subject: [Avodah] Is Body Paint Halakhically Clothing?
To respond to R' Ken Bloom's question whether body paint would be
considered as watching ervah, you might find of interest the analysis of ervah
through glass found on p. 6 of Piskei Teshuvah (by R' Avraham Peterchowski). In
particular, he cites Yoma 35b in reference to transparent clothes which he
understands 'min hadin kasher haya l'bigdei kehuna'. Rav Ovadia Yosef
also addresses this question of ervah through glass/television in Yechave
Da'at 4:6 where I believe one could extrapolate that in the case being
discussed, it would not be considered as ervah.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090706/701ecd60/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Arie Folger <afol...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 23:42:44 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP
RMMakovi wrote:
> the method is not a science; it also
> requires some common sense and the use of certain non-verifiable
> principles like concessions to human nature, loopholes, formal
> legalistic filler material, etc. So Rav Hirsch's method can be used in
> general, but when someone comes across milhemet reshut, he ought to be
> able to step back and realize that perhaps the permission to conquer
> land is just a concession to primitive people, and not a law which
> teaches grand G-dly ideals. In other words: Rav Hirsch's method works
> 99% of the time, but that 1% of the time that it fails can only be
> found with common sense and a feeling for the ethos of Judaism, or
> what have you.
Since this can go in many different directions, the weakness of your
argument should prompt anyone to realize that the only way out of this
conundrum is to have a messorah, to receive Torah from a teacher, who
himself positions himself in the mainstream, not as a maverick. Then,
you can always experiment with thought, but you will be anchored in
the continuous chain of tradition.
By the way, you do convince me that we should thread very carefully
when quoting the Rambam; even the Rambam may have stepped into
unconvincing territory when suggesting Ta'amei haMitzvot that may fail
to account for halakhic idiosyncracies. I find the idea that some/many
pratei hamitzvot are arbitrary, rather disturbing, becuase that could
easily lead one to claim that after all, it is sufficient to close the
business, not travel, and instead make kidush on Shabbat, but whether
or not one pays attention to the minutiae of borrer is not really
important. Surely the Rambam did not think so (he wrote quite a lot
about the minutiae of laws), but it is easy to extend somewhat further
that difficult idea you present.
Hence, the lesson is that just because one of the lions of traditions
wrote something does not mean that we should extend this idea, nor
that we should avoid subjecting it to our usual scrutiny.
But as I showed, I am certain that Rambam did not intend us to take
his logic to that further extent.
> I think that what I do is to take Rav Hirsch's justification for
> secular knowledge in general - that understanding the world helps one
> understand the Torah - and apply the same to academic study of
> halakhah.
You see, the snag is, Rav Hirsch was a major opponent of exactly what
you are doing here. Just read some letters in Shemesh Marpeh, for
starters.
--
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:20:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Chuqqas - mixed messages
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 07:04:03PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: It seems according to many that Moshe Rabbeinu erred by mei meriva in
: that he HIT the rock instead of speaking to it.
Is the problem the change, or the nature of this particular change?
After all, MRAH was lauded for delaying matan Torah itself!
On a tangent, I had a thought during leining about Mei Meriva...
First, it was not an unmitigated disaster. At least, not according to
the paytan who used it in hoshanos (Ta'aneh Emunim) to identify Moshe
Rabbeinu as a *zekhus* on our behalf. It would seem that Moshe and
Aharon did the right thing, they just could have done something much
more right.
And by comparison, a generation before they were explicitly to hit the
rock.
My suggestion: The big issue behind cheit hameraglim, some say, is that
there was no bitachon in succeeding within teva. Sure, midbar life
works, but how are we too manage after kenisas haaretz, with no mon or
ananim/sukkos, relaying on farming, our own military, etc...
Moshe was given the opportunity to teach us about the power of speech,
of tefillah, of entering into a partnership with HQBH for success
through combining hishtadlus with bitachon.
Instead, he used the mateh, the miracle-maker. This simply taught the
lesson he was supposed to teach the generation of slaves as they entered
midbar life, rather than preparing them to be a nation in EY.
Which would explain why the onesh for listening to the meraglim, spending
40 years in the midbar, dovetails with Moshe not living long enough to
enter EY as being his onesh for Mei Merivah. They are both aspects of
the same failing -- one the cause, the other the effect.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger When we are no longer able to change a situation
mi...@aishdas.org -- just think of an incurable disease such as
http://www.aishdas.org inoperable cancer -- we are challenged to change
Fax: (270) 514-1507 ourselves. - Victor Frankl (MSfM)
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:34:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tosfot (not)
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 01:58:19PM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
: Is there any general explanation as to why certain sections of certain
: mesechtot (e.g.horiyot) are devoid of tosfot on the daf?
Our Tosafos were redacted by different people on different mesechtos. To
quote the Jewish Encyclopedia
<http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=276&;letter=T#1046>
> The tosafot which have been published with the text of the Talmud ever
> since its earliest edition (see Talmud, Editions of). They extend to
> thirty-eight treatises of the Babylonian Talmud. Most of the treatises
> are covered by the Tosafot of Touques, some by the Tosafot of Sens;
> many are provided with the tosafot of various authors, revised by
> Perez b. Elijah's school. The authorship of the tosafot to seventeen
> treatises only can be established with certainty: Berakot, Moses of
> Evreux; Shabbat, 'Erubin, and Mena.ot, the Tosafot of Sens; Be.ah,
> Nedarim, Nazir, Sanhedrin, Makkot, and Me'ilah, Perez b. Elijah's
> school (many written by Perez himself); Yoma, Me.r of Rothenburg;
> Gi..in, Baba .amma, and .ullin, the Tosafot of Touques; So.ah, Samuel
> of Evreux; 'Abodah Zarah, Samuel of Falaise; Zeba.im, Baruch b. Isaac
> of Worms. The tosafot to Mo'ed .a.on were written by a pupil of a
> certain R. Isaac; the author of the tosafot to .agigah wrote tosafot
> to other treatises also. Those to Ta'anit belong to the post-tosafot
> period, and differ in style from those to other treatises.
That implies that there was no coordinated program to produce a complete
set.
There are a lot more Tosafos than were organized and redacted. I seem
to recall from my yeshiva days a few cases where the Mordechai quotes
Tosafos we don't have.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507 Likutei Tefilos 94:964
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: "Rich, Joel" <JR...@sibson.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 18:37:30 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tosfot (not)
> period, and differ in style from those to other treatises.
That implies that there was no coordinated program to produce a complete set.
There are a lot more Tosafos than were organized and redacted. I seem to
recall from my yeshiva days a few cases where the Mordechai quotes Tosafos
we don't have.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Yes, I understand that, but I also wondered why when the standard vilna shas was put together they didn't pick some for those stretches.
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE. IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is
strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Yitzhak Grossman <cele...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 19:06:12 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Pinchas "All Men and Women are Created Equal in
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:29:57 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
...
> Can someone explain this Sifrei in light of the general ethic of "women
> and children first" (eg the lifeboats on the Titanic)?
>
> For that matter, Horiyos 3:7 (in the gemara: 13a) suggests the problem
> is non-trivial.
Exactly. Why do you even think that "women and children first" is
accepted by Judaism?
Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:35:26 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Metaphors
From: Michael Makovi _mikewinddale@gmail.com_
(mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com)
>>R' Rich Wolpoe asked about the difference between yad hashem being
metaphorical and eiyin tachat eiyin (hereafter ETE) *not* being
metaphorhical, within the confines of Rambam's own philosphy.
I'm not sure I fully understand the question, however, but I will
respond to what the question appears to be. As far as I can tell, the
question appears to be: why can we allegorize yad hashem but not ETE?....
....But the point is that the Torah's peshat yields only when reason is
certain. If anything, reason declares that ETE cannot be literal; as
Hazal note, what if a one-eyed man blinds a two-eyed man, etc.? If
anything, then, ETE *is* metaphorical, based on both reason and
Hazal's Sinaitic tradition that ETE is not literal. <<
Michael Makovi
>>>>
I'm behind in Avodah and others may have made the point I want to make
here, but anyway. I want to say that there are different ways of translating
the word "tachas" and that in this case it is not that one translation is
literal and the other allegorical. It is that there are simply different
ways of translating or understanding the word "tachas." I'm going to say
that it means "instead of" and please indulge me while I point out that there
are also different ways of understanding "instead."
Suppose somebody broke your favorite vase and there was a law, "a vase
instead of a vase, a vase for a vase." Some people would say that means, he
broke your vase, now you get to break his vase -- simple revenge, which to
many human beings is satisfying and makes them feel that at least a rough
justice has been done. If I can't have my vase at least I have the
satisfaction of knowing that he can't have his, either.
Now other people would peer at that same law, "a vase instead of a vase"
and could quite logically understand it to mean, "He broke your vase and now
he has to give you another vase, and if he broke an irreplaceable 14th
century Ming vase, or a Faberge egg, then he has to do the next best thing,
which is--pay you the monetary worth of the article that he destroyed."
Neither of these two understandings of "a vase for a vase" is allegorical.
To me it just seems so clear and so obvious that the Torah understand
"ayin tachas ayin" the second way -- the person who destroyed something of yours
has to replace it, or give you the nearest equivalent in value. That is
not allegorical.
What the Rambam has to say about metaphors I don't know, I'm sorry that I
have gone quite far away from the subject line, but then we always do, here
in Avodah-land. I just think that the /pshaht/ of ayin tachas ayin is
restoration, not revenge.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377077x1201454398/aol?
redir=http://www.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&;hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090706/a0895914/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:06:34 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] R Tzadok-TSBP
In Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 124 dated 6/27/2009 Michael Makovi
_mikewinddale@gmail.com_ (mailto:mikewindd...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>Professor Shapiro, ibid., does note at length that Rabbi Haim
Soloveitchik was reticent to pasken, directing people to the dayan of
Volozhin for practical questions. Rabbi Haim was sure that his
hiddushim were true and correct, but he couldn't bring himself to
practically rule that way, against the SA in favor of a novel ruling
of the Rambam's or a novel reading of the Gemara. Faced with the
conflict, he simply chose not to pasken anything.
So if Rabbi Haim was a post-modernist deconstructionist, then rest
easy: he was NOT a poseiq.
Personally, this makes my stomach turn, with all due respect to Rabbi
Haim. I cannot imagine the value of learning that does not lead to
practical halakhah.
....My justification of academic study of Torah is simple: if it is
objectively true, then surely, it must have an effect on halakhah...<<
Michael Makovi
>>>>
Allow me to put your churning stomach to rest. The contradiction or
dichotomy that so troubles you is more apparent than real, between learning for
its own sake and learning for the sake of practical application. "Al menas
lilmod" and "al menas la'asos" -- it's like the difference between pure
science and applied science. A scientist working in a lab, doing pure
research, might not be a medical doctor and might not have any desire to treat
patients, but his scientific findings are nevertheless valuable, and are
available to the medical field to be used over time, as circumstances warrant.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377077x1201454398/aol?
redir=http://www.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&;hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090706/71863a2f/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:17:25 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] validity of ketubahs if .....
In a message dated 6/27/2009 _harveybenton@yahoo.com_
(mailto:harveyben...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>> zev sero wrote (re: ketubah validity if the parties don't understand
it):
It doesn't matter what they understand.??? The terms of the kesuba are
binding even if there is no document at all.......
hb: the ketubah is binding (or not) on what grounds?? contractual, legal,
or other????
isn't a ketubah is a binding legal contract between 2 willing parties? if
either or both of the parties don't understand it, why would it binding???
<<
>>>>
I don't understand your question. It's the same in all legal systems,
very much including America. If you put your signature to a contract or any
legal document, the contract is binding. Your later claim that you didn't
understand what you were signing or that you were in too much of a hurry to
read it won't get you out of it. The only way you might possibly get out
of a legally binding contract would be if you could prove that there was
deliberate deception or fraud.
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377077x1201454398/aol?
redir=http://www.fr
eecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&;hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090706/86a57159/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Michael Makovi <mikewindd...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 07:25:12 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Metaphors
> What the Rambam has to say about?metaphors I don't know, I'm sorry that I
> have gone quite far away from the subject line, but then we always do, here
> in Avodah-land.? I just think that the /pshaht/ of ayin tachas ayin is
> restoration, not revenge.
>
>
> --Toby Katz
I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't remember exactly, but I think
that Hazal, in discussing ayin tahat ayin, besides giving the famous
"what if someone blinded a one-eyed man...?" proof, also gave a
grammatical proof, based on Scriptural use of the word "tahat"
elsewhere. Nechama Leibowitz notes that Benno Jacob and Rav Hirsch
give this same grammatical proof. Based on this, ayin tahat ayin
indeed means monetary compensation even on the p'shat level.
But let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that ayin tahat ayin
literally meant removing someone's eye, and that we rather take it
allegorically to mean monetary. And since we're discussing Rambam's
view, we don't want to know what the correct view of ayin tahat ayin
is, but rather, we want to know what Rambam's view is. (R' Saul
Lieberman noted that there are two kinds of correct girsa'ot,
depending on what you want: if you want the absolute best text of the
Gemara, then you want the oldest most reliable manuscripts, etc. But
if you want to know how Rashi interpreted the Gemara, then you do NOT
want the most reliable text of the Gemara. Rather, you want Rashi's
text of the Gemara, no matter how accurate or inaccurate that text may
be!) As far as I know, most of the rishonim, including Rambam,
believed that ayin tahat ayin had this dual literal-allegorical
layering. So if Rambam held like this, then everything I said about
literal and allegorical interpretation would apply.
If ayin tahat ayin really means money even literally, then this is
fine for us, but this wasn't Rambam's opinion, so we cannot bring it
regarding Rambam's use of allegorical interpretation of the mikra.
Michael Makovi
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer <frim...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:34:26 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] Saying vaYechulu alone
Rav Shlomo Pick cites Hazon Ish, OH siman 38 that even a Yachid can say
vaYekhulu, contrary to Mishna Berura. But he notes [in a beautiful stroke
of beki'ut] that Meiri in his introduction to Beit haBehira also indicates
that vaYekhulu is Eidut which is why we stand [see: p. 11 of Makhon
haTalmud haYisraeli - R. Shmuel Dickman edition, s.v. veAhar she-hitba'er].
I think that Rav Pick is being a bit too literal in his reading of the
Rishonim in this regard. What the Hazon Ish is saying is that these
Rishonim maintain that reciting vaYekhulu is LIKE giving eidut. Our
observing Shabbat, our saying vaYekhulu is like bearing witness that Hashem
is the creator. It is symbolic - not literal. If it were real testimony,
it could not be given at night, together with relatives and other Pesulim,
women would be exempt, we would need a bona fide Bet Din listening etc.
Since it is not REAL testimony the Hazon Ish maintains that as a Hovat
haYahid it can be said by individuals. But nevertheless the minhag of
standing raffirms the testimony symbolism of vaYekhulu - but it is only a
minhag, not din and certainly not me'akev.
The Sefer haManhig in Hilkhot Shabbat says that saying Kiddush is also
Eidut. [That is the source of those who stand.] Does that mean one can't
say it sitting? that women are exempt {they are explicitly obligated}, that
one can't say it in the presence of family. Of course not! It is symbolic
- not literal.
--------------------------------
Prof Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090707/205ce947/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: "Shlomo Pick" <pic...@mail.biu.ac.il>
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:05:01 +0300
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Saying vaYechulu alone
Prof. Frimer was kind to comment on my post and i certainly appreciate his
remarks. In one sense it is symbolic, and yet there seem to formulations of
eidus here. the taz in 268:5 certainly thinks so.
i would add that it may more than just a minhag. see radbaz, responsa from
a manuscript, orach chayim, yoreh de'ah (part 8), no. 61, in his last
paragraph employs the term "tiknu" meaning it's a regulation which places
it a bit higher than a minhag. granted he understands the eidus like we are
mei'id to yichud haborei in the shma, and you rightfully call that symbolic
testimony, but in the case of shabbat, radbaz certainly understood that to
say it standing was formulated as a takanah following standard choshen
mishpat proceedures of testimony.
bebirchot hatorah
shlomo pick
I think that Rav Pick is being a bit too literal in his reading of the
Rishonim in this regard. What the Hazon Ish is saying is that these
Rishonim maintain that reciting vaYekhulu is LIKE giving eidut. Our
observing Shabbat, our saying vaYekhulu is like bearing witness that
Hashem is the creator. It is symbolic - not literal. If it were real
testimony, it could not be given at night, together with relatives and
other Pesulim, women would be exempt, we would need a bona fide Bet Din
listening etc. Since it is not REAL testimony the Hazon Ish maintains
that as a Hovat haYahid it can be said by individuals. But nevertheless
the minhag of standing raffirms the testimony symbolism of vaYekhulu -
but it is only a minhag, not din and certainly not me'akev.
The Sefer haManhig in Hilkhot Shabbat says that saying Kiddush is also
Eidut. [That is the source of those who stand.] Does that mean one
can't say it sitting? that women are exempt {they are explicitly
obligated}, that one can't say it in the presence of family. Of course
not! It is symbolic - not literal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090707/e19bfe8a/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: David Riceman <drice...@att.net>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 08:55:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Tosfot (not)
Rich, Joel wrote:
> Yes, I understand that, but I also wondered why when the standard vilna shas was put together they didn't pick some for those stretches.
IIRC Urbach discusses the composition and transmission of the printed
Tosafos in chapters one and thirteen of his book Baalei HaTosafot.
David Riceman
Go to top.
Message: 15
From: rabbirichwol...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:49:21 +0000
Subject: Re: [Avodah] validity of ketubahs if .....
RTK:
> I don't understand your question. It's the same in all legal systems,
> very much including America. If you put your signature to a contract
> or any legal document, the contract is binding. Your later claim that
> you didn't understand what you were signing or that you were in too much
> of a hurry to read it won't get you out of it...
As posted by IIRC Zev, another poster, and I:
The basic terms of kesubbah are t'nai BD
Even in USA some constitutional rights may not be waived by contract
Similarly a kesubbah has involuntary components imposed by Halachah
AIUI there are some optional components, too.
Also AIUI a woman may not be mocheles her kessubos rights (although iirc
the Gmara has a few loopholes).
So a kesubbah is NOT really a free will agreement between 2 parties.
Much of its terms are imposed EVEN if written incorrectly or not written
at all.
KT
RRw
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 129
***************************************
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..."