Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 6

Tue, 05 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Condensate and Kashrus Rema YD 92:8 (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: how to reconcile (Micha Berger)
• 3. The Concept of Authority (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 4. Re: The Concept of Authority (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (martin brody)
• 6. explaining electricity on shabbat (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (Avroham Yakov)
• 8. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (martin brody)
• 10. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Masneh al Mah Shekassav baTorah (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Michael Mirsky)
• 13. Re: how to reconcile (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: The Scope of the "7 Mitzvos d'Rabbanan" (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person (David Riceman)
• 16. Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv? (Ben Waxman)

On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 01:14:04AM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
:> One of my co workers wondered how can you use the hot water machine at work?
:> What about the steam from treif soups and hot chocolate
:> (the company-provided hot chocolate has marshmallows)?
...
: I presume R Micha means that the LOR permitted using the hot water even
: though it may be used or is certainly used for non-K foods. This is a
: question of whether the stream of hot water is deemed to be a connection
: that will transfer TaAm...

Yes, but I was dealing with the aspect more related to our current
topic. The hevel from my co workers' hot chocolate. How closed does
the recepticle for the mug have to be before we consider the spigot to
be in a kind of cover, and thus "treifed up" by that hevel?

: My query however deals with the apparent assumption of the Rema that
: condensate from hot milk is not milky but pure water and poses no reason to
: avoid hanging meat above a cooking pot of milk.

I'm not sure it does, because unless the cover is a lid, we don't worry
about hevel.

However, you might have proven that the Rama knew about the distilling
process, and was of the opinion that the water boils out of the milk at
a lower temp than any of its other components would boil.

:    - I dont think it wise to determine Halacha by placing bets, I mean to
:    say that such an attitude merely reflects the careless manner in which we
:    approach Halacha and make assumptions that may well not be valid. I
:    forewarned this by remarking that we are not permitted to place meat in warm
:    butter even if we are assured that the meat will be rinsed or scrubbed.
:    Furthermore there is no need to place bets, I mentioned that some Acharonim
:    are of this opinion, however the Rema does not support such interpretation
:    or addition.

While it's not wise to determine halakhah by placing bets, here we do not
determine halakhah, we just discuss it. I raised a possibility, perhaps
with an overly flippant tone, that the Rama was a particular concern. If
someone had documentation, it would be nice; and if I don't raise the
possibility, I'm less likely to get the more informed response. There
is no reason to believe the Rama necessarily disagreed with those later
acharonim, since I gave a plausible explanation of his words that are in
line with them.

Yes, if we could show that the Rama was thinking of meat drying after
cooking, my guess would be wrong. But again, if I don't write down my
guesses, how will I get help confirming or undermining them?

:    - It is not a Q of Lechatchila wiping it down, it is a Q of who would
:    ever, in the mindset we have today of Halacha, be Mattir what the Rema is
:    Mattir?

Bedi'eved? I think you already said there are acharonim who would.

:    - In a similar vein, R Micha's appeal, "Why not wash it down?" goes
:    pretty close to the core of what I am trying to illuminate - we tend to
:     extend the Halacha by appealing to what appears to us to be sensible, when
:    in fact the Halacha makes no such demand and has no such expectation.

The question relates to whether everyone holds it's okay lechat-khilah,
or with an ignorible effort, you can avoid relying on one side of a
machloqes. I mentioned the same thing about hechsheirim in last month's
thread. My problem was that bitul a"y nakhri *is* mutar lechat-khilah
lekhol havei'os. And therefore wondered about how much effort do you
need to go through to avoid relying on one tzad of a machloqes seemed
misplaced -- there is no machloqes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 05:47:52PM -0800, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
: and i forgot who brings  down, had the sar mashkim brought it up to paroh 
: ,  yosef would have been just  another freed  prisoner, who amounts to 
: nothing in life......

I saw a parallel thought on the hagadah, "meshube'adim hayinu leFar'oh
beMitzrayim".

The empire fell a long time ago, so we know we wouldn't still be
slaves. Rather, it's about still being indebted to Par'oh, rather than
HQBH. Thus the shif'il "meshube'adim", rather than "avadim".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

1 a Rav pasqens -- donuts from that shop are assur [moreh issur] what
is the consequence of a member's disobedience? EG Lo sassur?

---if i am not in your community and your  rav paskened the donut is 
trayf,   and  i eat it  -----  i  am not  guilty of  either  eating not 
kosher , nor  lo tassur.   you , on the other hand , i assume  could  only 
be violating lo tassur; for if not , how  could it be both kosher and 
treif at the same time.

---- and  if chazal decided we can't carry in a karmelit , which is 
mutttar d'oraita,  is not the issur lo tassur  rather  than shemirat 
shabbat ?  [ if  so , i wonder if really the majority of  people's aveirot 
are actually  lo tassur --- since  presumably 2/3  if not more of what we 
do , or don't do , is not  a midioraita--but rather a regulation or  text 
of  the rabbonan...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100104/c71c1df6/attachment-0001.htm>

Mareh m'qomos
Hullin 100A
Avodah Zara 74a
Rif
Tur YD 101
BY  YD 101 D"H Haticha hor'uyah l'hiskabeid

My translation:
"...Even though the Rif appears to not "have" this Mishnah, nevertheless
all the posqim "nimnu v'gamru"
To decide the Halachah that a piece of "n'veilah shehee r"uyah
l'hiskabeid" is not nullified

Questions:
1 What is the Talmudic authority of "Nimnu v'gamru?"
2 What is the POST- Talmudic authority of nimnu v'gamru?
3 Was the BY using this term correctly?
OR
4 Was BY C"V conflating Talmudic nomenclature in a non-talmudic Halachic
  discourse - thereby confusing us as to the proper valence of the term?
5 May WE use this term now - since the BY used it?
6 Is the BY merely reporting a p'saq of a virtual BD with nationa
  authority?
OR
7 Is it just the BY's opinion and we can follow the Rif despite this
  statement?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

I'd explain it the same way I would to a religious person.
It is a minority opinion considered incorrect by most who know anything
about it.
I'd much rather tell them what R.SZA said.

Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100104/8c536856/attachment-0001.htm>

<< So how do I explain
the issur of electricity (boneh) Truth is I do not know enough about circuits

And if one could create a type of device that is not boneh, does
that mean some lights could be turned on during Shabbat>>

To emphasize that closing an electric circuit is boneh on shabbat is
an innovation of the Chazon Ish that many (most?) poskim disagree with.

One explanation of the CI is that turning on electricity changes a
nonuseful item
into a useful item and so by definition one cannot constrict a device that would
not be boneh.
R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach argued that this should not be different than opening
a circuit for water which everyone agrees is allowed.

Other reasons to prohibit electricity on shabbat are nolad.
Turning on a incadescent bulb is certainly prohibited because the filament is
red hot. With some flouresecents there may be problems with sparking.

-- 
Eli Turkel

Thanks.

 

With that, why can't one turn on a light?

 

For an incandescent, we can understand that it gets hot.

But with fluorescent, or some of the newer bulbs, they don?t get hot.

 


 


Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:59:49 -0800
Subject: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person
From: martinlbr...@gmail.com
To: avya...@hotmail.com; avo...@lists.aishdas.org

I'd explain it the same way I would to a religious person.
It is a minority opinion considered incorrect by most who know anything about it.
I'd much rather tell them what R.SZA said.
Martin Brody

                                          
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100104/fbd2711d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 05:39:10PM -0500, Avroham Yakov wrote:
: But with fluorescent, or some of the newer bulbs, they don't get hot.

First, a flourescent bulb is IMHO a bigger bishul problem than an arc
lamp. You not only heat up two filaments rather than one, but you use
that heat to boil mercury within the bulb -- so the bishul is definitely
nicha lei.

Similarly, old-style TVs and monitors, those with cathode-ray tubes
rather than flat-screen.

Second, anything that almost inevitably sparks, even lo nikha lei, would
be bishul. That would include AC switches, many motors, etc...

Third, anything that is supposed to be constantly running, eg a clock,
would be makeh bepatish.

Fourth, a radio, MP3 player, cell phone or TV are possibly within the
gezeira against keli zemer, since they're adjustable and can play music.

Even without boneh, the list of items still permissable is quite small.
LED flashlights, calculators, passive element microphones (not turning
it on or off, just speaking into it) if there is no indicator light that
has a filament...  Not much else comes to mind but I'm sure a creative
mind can come up with a few others.

Still, it would be far from general usage.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Well, you have now moved the goal posts. Turning on a light is somewhat
different from using electricity.
Tell whomever, that turning on incandescent lights violates some laws, but
there is a difference of opinion which laws or whether they are Biblical
violations or Rabbinic. Everybody( I think) agrees on that
Fluorescent lights are not the same, and are included in other electrical
appliances, and as such are subject to many differing opinions, including
RSZA who says there is no violation at all, but doesn't permit it(use of
electricity) because of custom, but would if there is need.
If that doesn't work for your student, have a stiff scotch.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Avroham Yakov <avya...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  Thanks.
>
> With that, why can't one turn on a light?
>
> For an incandescent, we can understand that it gets hot.
> But with fluorescent, or some of the newer bulbs, they don?t get hot.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 13:59:49 -0800
> Subject: Explaining boneh/electricity to a non-religious person
> From: martinlbr...@gmail.com
> To: avya...@hotmail.com; avo...@lists.aishdas.org
>
>
> I'd explain it the same way I would to a religious person.
> It is a minority opinion considered incorrect by most who know anything
> about it.
> I'd much rather tell them what R.SZA said.
>
> Martin Brody
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.<http://clk.atd
> mt.com/GBL/go/171222984/direct/01/>
>



-- 
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100104/daf5d42a/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Rich Wolpoe asked:

> 2 what are the parameters for inclusion?

I don't know. I suppose each one who makes up a list has his own rules, just like the various lists of the 613 d'Oraisas.

In the back of the Eshkol edition of Sefer Hachinuch, the suggestion is
made that these seven are either brachos themselves, or they are mitzvos on
which we say "asher kid'shanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu" despite them being
unrelated to any d'Oraisa. That's why all the issurim are omitted from the
list. (I wonder if that also explains why Krias Hatorah is omitted - maybe
it is related to Hakhel?)

> 3 How do we  realistically treat derabbanans outside this pale?

Again, I suggest taking your cue from the d'Oraisas. There are a good
number of d'Oraisas which appear on one list but not another, and we do not
treat them differently at all.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Nutrition
Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=KgnaSbljnSvkQ-Gt8UeTDgAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASQwAAAAA=

RRW wrote:

> >In a recent daf [BB 126] it is quite clear that anyone who makes a tnai
> >upon what is written in the Torah, that t'nai is batteil.
> 
> >I'm looking at Rema Choshen Mishpat 8:1
> 
> >"Any tzibbur may accept upon themselves a beth din that is not worthy
> >according to the Torah" source givenBeth Yosef in the name of Shu"t
Rashba [sefer toldos adam 290]
> 
>> How can that be so?

And then further elaborates:

>OK - As per Shas:
>If Reuven makes a tnai in an agreement to disregard a torah law the
> condition is bateil.

> EG from 126 a father cannot make a tnai to disregard hilchos y'rushah

>Now OTOH the Rema pasqens that a tzibbur can - by mutual consensus -agree
>to disregard Torah laws when appointing a beis din. How can that be?
>Since Torah laws may not be disregarded in an agreement therefore how
>can they be disregarded when appointing dayyanim? Shouldn't those
>appointments be bateil?

First, I think it would be helpful to understand exactly what the issur from
the Torah being discussed is.

The Mechaber on which this Rema is commenting states:

Kol Hammeamid dayan sheano hegon v'aino chacham bechachmat hatorah vaino
reui lehiot dayan af al pi she hu kulo machmadim v'yesh bo tovot acharot
harey zeh shehamido over b'lo ta'aseh.

This language is taken directly from the Rambam in Hilchot Sanhedrin perek 3
halacha 8 with some important additions:

Kol Sanhedrin or melech or rosh gola she hamido lehen l'yisrael dayan
sheaino hegon v'aino chacham bechachmat hatorah vaino reui lehiot dayan.  Af
al pi she hu kulo machmadim v'yesh bo tovot acharot harey zeh shehamido over
b'lo ta'aseh.  Shenemar  lo takiru panim b'mishpat.  Mipi hashamuah lamdu
shezeh medaber kneged hamamonah l'hoshiv dayanin ...

Ie note that the Rambam limits the application of this halacha to "Kol
Sanhedrin or melech or rosh gola", while the Mechaber drops these words (and
specifies what the lo ta'aseh is, there is more detail there, by the way -
the Rambam goes not to say that the risk is that he will mezakeh et hachayav
umechayav et hazakai, lo mpnei shehu rasha ele mipnei hu lo yodea lkach
yomar lo takiru panim b'mishpat).

OK then let us go onto the language of the Rema that RRW was referring to:

Iriyot she ain behem chachamim hareuim l'hiot dayanim or she kulan amei
ha'aretz u'tztrichim lhem dayanim sheyishpotu beneyhem shelo yavoh lifnei
archot shel akum mamonim hatovim v'hachchamim shebatam (l'dat anshei hair)
af al pi sheaino rauin l'dayanim, v'kivan shekabel alehem benei hair ain
acher yachol l'posllan v'chen kol tzibbur yacholin l'kabel alehem beit din
sheino reuin min hatorah (beit Yosef beshem teshuvat haRashba).

Now if you go to the Beit Yosef and see what he quotes regarding this
teshuva of the Rashba (I would have liked to see it in the original, but the
Beit Yosef quotes it in the name of the Toldot Adam l'Rashba, and I neither
have this, nor could I find it on Bar Ilan or Hebrew Books) a few
interesting points emerge.

Firstly there is more detail about the case. Apparently the cities in
question did not contain anybody who "knew even one letter" - ie you were
talking about a community that was totally illiterate.  And the person
asking the Rashba stated that they needed to appoint somebody who was able
to coerce the baalei denim and if nobody was appointed the litigating
parties would, as you can see already from the Rema, go off to the secular
courts.  And the Rashba responded that: shurat hadin e' efshar l'amid
dayanim sheinam mumchim ele me'daat ba'alei denim .. but that the questioner
needed to go and appoint dayanim  "shehakol l'fi tzorech hasha'ah v'kol
ma'asecha l'shem shamayim"

That is, the Rashba's first response was to cites hora'at hasha'ah.

But it is the second part that is more interesting and which seems to be the
source of the Rema, because the Rashba (as quoted by the Beit Yosef) goes on
to say:
 V'im kibelum alehem anshei hair mutar, v'ain ached mehem yachol l'poslam
d'haynu archot d'ita b rosh perek the borer (23a)."

And he the brings another teshuva of the Rashba in which he writes hatzibbur
yacholim l'manot alehem beit din sheino reui midin torah k'archot
shebesuria.

These courts of Suria are given merely a passing mention in Sandedrin 23a -
with Rashi explaining that these were courts that were not baki b'din torah,
but it does evidence that such courts existed and were accepted (albeit a
bit begrudgingly, see the sugya) in the times of the Talmud.

So what it seems to me the Rashba is saying is this.  There is a lo ta'aseh
for a person in authority (even though in his times there was no Sanhedrin
or melech or Rosh Gola, to use the language of the Rambam) to appoint
somebody who was not suitable according to the Torah, and the only way to
justify such an imposition is by invoking hora'at hasha'ah.  BUT, if the
appointment, instead of being top down, is bottom up, then it changes and
the matter is mutar.

Now I did just want to point out that this discussion parallels a certain
other discussion that we have had on this list in the past, under the
heading Women/Psak  particularly my post at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol04/v04n032.shtml#13.  That discussion was,
of course, about Devorah judging the people, and I gave three explanations
as per Tosphos.  Please note also the Rashba and the Ramban quoted there as
versions of the third reason "mekablim osah alehem".  Note the similarity in
understanding of the Rashba there and the Rashba here regarding unsuitable
judges.

Again, going back to my earlier post today, I think that the Ran would
understand this as political power going back to the people, but it actually
seems stronger than that, because this indicates that the people as a whole
by accepting something on themselves can do what a king cannot do.

It also to my mind hints and the underlying reason that minhag is so
powerful, particularly when we are discussing minhag that is actually about
deciding between different halachic positions, I don't know though whether
perhaps I am in this last statement trying to reconcile too much.

Kind Regards

Chana

PS MSS also asked: 
> I think you have just answered your question. Their not making a tnai 
> against Torah -- and in fact they can't pasken against anything in 
> Torah. They are agreeing to be bound by particular people in cases 
> were they don't know what the din is...
...
> Good question: What happens when they paskened in a state of lack of 
> knowledge and then a TC comes to town? 

Well there are a couple of issues that come into play.  The first is the
concept of hefker beis din hefker, which means that, at least vis a vis
property, even if they posken wrongly the property is deemed to be taken
legitimately from the one person and given to the other.  And the second is
the concept that is discussed extensively in the beginning of masechet
Sanhedrin (see eg 3a) that if a mumcha does not judge the case, then if the
judge judges wrongly, he can be sued and be require to pay damages. See
there. [Note the whole assumption running through that daf regarding the
existence and judging permissibility of a non expert judge, giving a further
reason as to why the Rambam felt it necessary to specifically state
Sanhedrin or Melech or Rosh Hagola]


PPS again masneh al mah she kassav baTorah is the wrong term to be using in
this context, as tnai is not the correct construct here.

I don't think it's a matter of how nice the beard looks.  I remember 
being told that there is something in Kabbala that says that it's 
preferable for a man to grow a beard.

Michael Mirsky

When I taught Parsha Class @ Mt. Sinai I tuaght this as follows... 
 
I don't read the 2 years as punishment 
At all 
 
A careful read of Rashi says HUZQAQ not punished! Huzqaq because Yad
Hashem had to NOT be diluted with assistance from the sar hamashqim.
 
And So this was really a Teaching a Lesson. That If Yosef had been
released by the sar hamaskim he would have
 
1 been beholding to him 
2 been less beholding to Hashem 
 
So aderabba, Hashem had to force Yosef to show that Yosef was mamash
under Hashem's direct hashgacha only. [BH I don't have to worry! I'm not
on Yosef's madreiga -- so I can accept human help and see it as Hashem
having pity ;-)]
 
Now no one is denying Yosef lost his Freedom, but not as retribution
for a misdeed! Just that the alternative sequence would have created an
undesirable narrative.
 
This parallels and is m'yussad upon Abarbanel on "meshubadim hayyinu
l'far'oh" in the haggadah.
 
 
VIZ. If Par'oh had been a nice guy, a liberal, and HE let us go -- then
we would be m'shubad to him, just as American Slaves became meshubad to
Abe Lincoln! While instead we became Avdei Hashem because par'oh REFUSED
to let us go until he was forced to -- kicking and screaming.
 
So AISI Yosef was not being PUNISHED but instructed. By HKBH 
 
[Unless Jewish guilt impels you to see punishment instead! ;-)] 
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

R' Rich Wolpoe asked: 
> 2 what are the parameters for inclusion?
 
RAM: 
> ...In the back of the Eshkol edition of Sefer Hachinuch, the suggestion
>  is made that these seven are either brachos themselves, or they are
> mitzvos on which we say "asher kid'shanu b'mitzvosav v'tzivanu" despite
> them being unrelated to any d'Oraisa. That's why all the issurim are
> omitted from the list
 
[One of my favorite eiditons is the Shai lamora -- a newer improved
Eshkol.]
 
The problem? When did ner shabbos get a brachah? 
 
As per Maggid Mishnah [hilchos shabbos 5:1] it's Seder Rav Amram Gaon. If
so this list is NOT Talmudic. -- but a bit later.

No big deal, but it takes away the opportunity to make extrapolations
from this list as somehow foundational.
 
KT 
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Micha Berger wrote:
> Second, anything that almost inevitably sparks, even lo nikha lei, would
> be bishul. That would include AC switches, many motors, etc...
>   
What if the sparks are too small to be seen with the naked eye?
> Fourth, a radio, MP3 player, cell phone or TV are possibly within the
> gezeira against keli zemer, since they're adjustable and can play music.
>   
Does this apply even if the adjusting is not inherently assur? This 
seems like circular reasoning.  OTOH I had understood the issur against 
klei zemer to apply even to instruments which are not routinely tuned by 
players (pianos fall into that category), and there is an additional 
issur of hashma'as kol independent of music.

David Riceman

It is in the nosei kelim in the SA in the chapters dealing with shaving. 
Some of the facial hairs (where it is assur to shave) act as pipelines to 
higher worlds. I don't know what that means.

On the other hand, I was advised by a kabbalist to shave my kuku because it 
adds din to the world.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Mirsky" <mirs...@sympatico.ca>
To: <Avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 2:24 AM
Subject: [Avodah] Re: Why are beards considers so choshuv?


>I don't think it's a matter of how nice the beard looks.  I remember being 
>told that there is something in Kabbala that says that it's preferable for 
>a man to grow a beard.
>
> Michael Mirsky
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 6
*************************************

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..."