Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 101

Wed, 09 May 2007

• 1. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Kasheh lvarrer (Rich, Joel)
• 3. Re: Torah Study vs. other contributions to society (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: chumrah of Sefardim (Chana Luntz)
• 6. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (T613K@aol.com)
• 7. Re: Yebamoth and Megilath Ruth (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Parshas Behar (Bahar?) (Zvi Lampel)
• 9. Re: sweet chalot (MPoppers@kayescholer.com)

RMSS wrote:

> >But the contrast was between him sitting in his ivory tower of a 
> >yeshiva and going out into the world and becoming a medic and saving 
> >lives, ie pikuach nefesh.  The question that was asked was 
> in essence, 
> >what is it that Hashem commanded him to do out of those two?
> 
> Well, lets see what Chazal say about this--the Gemara in 
> Megilla that Gadol Talmud Torah MeHatzalas Nefashos. It would 
> appear that they felt it's better to seat in that ivory tower.
> 

This aspect of the discussion just gets us back to the previous one we
had regarding doing other mitzvos instead of talmud torah.  It is clear
from the Shulchan Aruch that I brought in that discussion that one is in
fact commanded to take time out from talmud torah to perform other
mitzvos, unless they are delegatable to others.(If you remember in
particular the discussion focussed on burying people and being a member
of a chevra kadisha).

It seems pretty clear from the sources that if there is nobody else
around to bury, then one is commanded to stop and bury - and that
statements such as gadol talmud torah and talmud torah kneged kulam
cannot be understood to mean that, for example, corpses should end up
being left unburied because nobody has got together a chevra kadisha.
(Not to mention the sameach chatan v'kala etc requirements).

This is not a TUM versus Torah only discussion, and I am sorry if I
seemed to suggest that is was.  It is about something even more
fundamental.  Should members of our society be taking time out to form a
Zaka, or should we all shrug our shoulders when there is nobody around
to do that kind of work because everybody has been commanded to be in
yeshiva all the time, and this takes out of yeshiva time.  Should there
be anybody out there protecting graves in Eastern Europe, why are they
not in yeshiva? Etc etc etc.

Now if you answer that indeed some people ought to be out there being a
Zaka or protecting graves, then surely the same answer must be, some
people need to be out there being a medic.  Now are those people
protecting graves or being involved in Zaka second class citizens?  I
think most people would say not,  that they are indeed doing what Hashem
commanded them to do.  Should the Gra be one of those people?  I think
most people would agree that the Gra should not be, that there are other
people to do that work, and yet other people cannot manage the level of
chiddush of the Gra, and therefore, the correct division of labour is to
have the Gra in yeshiva and certain other people out of it.  The more
difficult question becomes how many, and who?  What should Mr ordinary
do?  Should he assume that maybe he is a Gra, or that if it is good
enough for the Gra it is good enough for him, or should he be open to
the possibility that maybe *his* skills are best applied outside the
yeshiva.  

In the secular world these decisions are, at least theoretically, made
in two ways:

A) level of need - eg given that it is expensive to train doctors
properly, there are only a limited number of medical school places, thus
the medical schools try and select only the number of doctors they will
need (at least in a system where the doctors are mostly employed by one
employer, eg the National Health Service, as in the UK).  In theory,
they therefore take those people who will make good doctors (or  better
doctors if the pool is wide) and leave the rest;

B) ability compared with other areas: if you are bad at maths and good
at English, then most career councillors will gently suggest that you
not try for that maths degree and rather switch to English.  Of course
if one is bad at one thing and good at another, that is a relatively
easy decision, but what if you are good at one thing and even better at
something else.  If you come top of the class in English and only third
top in physics - in theory one might say that one should do English
rather than physics.  But one then ought to factor in factor A) if there
are thousands of English students and only a handful of physics
students, then maybe you ought to do physics - but again that might
depend on how much better than the other students you were at English.
If you were out of sight better, nobody would say that you should do
physics.  That is why the Gra is not the kind of example being discussed
here.  Even within the secular world, where there are no value
judgements being made about the value of the learning (eg between
English and physics), everybody would agree that the Gra needed to study
torah, as he was out of sight better than anybody else.  Even if he
would have made a top doctor - even from a secular point of view most
people would take the view that the "out of sight" level of his Torah
chiddushim were unlikely to compare with his chiddushim in the medical
world.

So let us agree that in regard to this aspect, we are not talking about
a Gra. We are talking about a Mr Ordinary, or somewhat above ordinary
but well short of a Gra level of ability.  The question for Mr Ordinary
is, should he stay in yeshiva all his life, and not explore to see
whether a) his skills are better served outside it (maybe he is not an
Ordinary as a medic) or b) explore whether the world needs more medics,
so that even if he is only ordinary as a medic, if there is a shortage,
maybe that is where he ought to be.

Now there is a basic division in our society as to what one should do
here.  Should everybody assume that yeshiva is a default, and only those
people who having struggled for years really can't cope (nebech) with it
should be outside it, or should there be a winnowing process in which
many people are actively funneled outside to to make other selections?
Ie should we assume as a basic that everybody is commanded by Hashem to
be in yeshiva full time, and that it is only those people who
demonstrate that they cannot cope who have therefore demonstrated that
they should be in a Zaka or doing other things, or should we assume that
some people who may be able to cope with yeshiva, but are really only
ordinary, might actually do better if they were using other skills out
of it, eg as a medic, and that in fact that is really what Hashem
commanded that particular person to do.

Now some people are happy for there to be a winnowing process but for
this to be by means of economics and market forces.  For example, if you
don't have a rich father, then even though your torah ability might be
greater and your other skills less, then it is appropriate that you
should be the one forced out of yeshiva by the need to put food on the
table, while the fellow next to you with the inheritance stays in
yeshiva even though his skills are the opposite of yours.  Or for
example, if you are above ordinary in both situations, since you are
able to get a lucrative job outside the yeshiva, you will end up taking
that, while the fellow next to you who is a nebech in general, and
couldn't manage a decent job out there, stays in yeshiva and is
supported by you.  Some people believe economics is a lousy way of doing
it and there should be other ways while others seem to take the view
that since Hashem controls parnasa, we shouldn't get involved and should
just let the market forces, subsidised by a few nissim, roll.

But this isn't about TUM.  People with a TUM perspective are likely
drawn after certain sides of this debate, but it is not axiomatic.

> Is that so? Before you gave as the alternative to the ivory 
> tower becoming a medic, i.e. helping people. The Gra chose 
> not to do this; he chose to remain in the ivory tower. If 
> what you meant was secular knowledge, who argues against 
> this? No one. The Gra is quoted in favor, and it's a Mishna 
> in Avos that chochma exists by NJ. This is a straw man.

I don't think it is a straw man.  The fundamental division between TUM
and Torah only is whether one ought to take the time out to study eg in
a university or secular wisdom (mada) (not just a few minutes in the
bathroom, as most people can't pick up very much that way).  Do you go
to a YU where one is required to take secular subjects, or to a yeshiva
where one is not (or to an evening school to pick up some parnassa
practical skills which is really about torah only but the need for a
parnassa).  Ie does secular knowledge have instrinsic value, value
because of the requirement to have a parnassa or not at all.  The
problem with talking about studying medicine is that there are two
aspects to being a doctor - the one is the learning, and the other is
the practice.  And I think the threads got confused, and I probably
contributed to the confusion.  I think we can apply this to the Gra to
show the division a bit - in an ideal world, a torah only approach would
not have the Gra studying medicine, as it might distract him from his
studies.  A TUM approach might have the Gra studing medicine, because it
would help him with his Torah, but perhaps making sure there were enough
others (more ordinary others) studying medicine  so that there would be
no call on him to practice, because his skills were so "out of sight" in
Torah, or alternatively a TUM approach might well understand the
perspective of his father and might well suggest that the Gra prioritise
other aspects of secular learning, eg physics or literature.

 The 
> question that was posed (I quote from Avodah Digest, Vol 23, 
> Issue 82)

There were two questions posed - this one, and the one about the fellow
without parnasa worries who was clearly no Gra, but who would after
years in Yeshiva as an adult, be baki in quite a few masechtos (ie a
level that the Gra had well and truly surpassed by his barmitzvah).  It
was this question that I primarily focussed on.

 was, "I just wanted to point out what the Pe'as 
> HaShulchan says in his preface, that the GRA wanted to study 
> pharmacology from the doctors of the time (i.e. the practical 
> stuff of how to concoct medicines. It sounds like the 
> theoretical things he figured out on his own),

How is this shown?

 and his father 
> forbade him from doing so, so that he should not have to 
> waste time from Torah study, since he would have to go save 
> lives if he knew how to practically apply the knowledge he 
> would get from the doctors).
> 
> I believe this is based on the Gemara in Megilla that Gadol 
> Talmud Torah MeHatzalas Nefashos. Had the GRA known practical 
> medicine, he may have had situations of a Mitzvah that could 
> not be done by others to save lives, and his father felt that 
> it was not comparable to the value of the extra Torah study 
> the Gaon could accomplish.
> 

If this was the reason, then there could be no justification for anybody
not in Torah studying anything else but medicine.  Because while you you
are putting forward an argument that Torah is greater than saving lives,
being a lawyer or an accountant or a computer programmer or a housewife
clearly isn't.  So how is it that anybody not in Torah is not required
to be in medicine?  Clearly for anybody to allow people to be in other
areas, one must hold that choosing to study medicine, or practical
medicine, is a reshus.  


> Does the Torah UMadda accept  this approach as part of its 
> Hashkafa, and, if so, how? Or does TuM feel that other 
> sources contradict this approach?". No one denied that the 
> doctors had knowledge that they could have taught the Gra. 
> What is being asked is, would a TuM adherent make the same 
> choice as the Gra? And if not, why?

In fact, a TUM perspective would seem to hold that studying medicine
davka is reshus more strongly than perhaps a Torah only perspective
might.  Because all one knows about Torah only is that studying medicine
is not the place to go to help torah learning, - whether medicine is
second best or not is not clear.   From a parnasa perspective, one
presumably would say that if parnasa overrides torah, then it will
override studying medicine (but if medicine really were a second best,
then surely it would the occupation of choice if one could get a
parnassa that way, and since it does not seem to be, anybody holding a
parnasa perspective clearly regards it as reshus).  But from a TUM
perspective, the fact that other areas can be studied in preference
makes it clear that it is only one of equally valid options, so if the
Gra switched his studies from pharmacology to physics, that would also
be fine (unless of course he had learnt every bit of secular knowledge
and torah knowledge there was to learn, bar this).
> 
> >Regarding the Chazon Ish, a TUM perspective could well take the view 
> >that the Chazon Ish might have been even greater if he had had more 
> >secular knowledge (might not have been a daas yachid regarding the 
> >nature of electricity for example) - and that it was his lack of 
> >secular knowledge and understanding of the outside world 
> that resulted 
> >in the Chazon Ish never being accepted by the entire Jewish world as 
> >the posek hador - so that arguably he did indeed not fulfil 
> his mission 
> >in life.
> 
> I can only quote a Gemara to such an attitude, "If he is 
> judged as not fulfilling his mission in life, what hope is 
> there for the rest of us?"
> 

But it is also said, that one will not be asked why one was not the
Chazen Ish, but why one was not oneself.  The Chazon Ish (according to
most people) had abilities that far exceed the average (he too fell into
the "out of sight" category) so that he is judged on an "out of sight"
mission.  One of the fundamental issues that comes up (and again it is
not a TUM issue specifically) is the extent to which it is accepted that
there are differences in ability.  One view (to take it to an extreme)
is that we could all be Gra's or Chazon Ish's of we tried hard enough,
and the power to try hard enough is in our hands.  Another view is that
individuals  are created with different abilities, and that most of us
could never have been a Gra or Chazon Ish no matter how we tried.  Ie
the stories about (eg the Netziv) being an ordinary student as a child
and then becoming a gadol on trying very hard means either a) everybody
could do it if they tried hard enough or b) some people may be late
blossomers, and that is part of their instrinsic ability, but the
average person could no more be a late blossomer than he or she could
have been an early blossomer.  Of course even if you hold b) the
additional difficulty with late blossomers is, how do you know (and by
when will you have picked up most if not all of them).  Are we so
clueless that even a gadol can't tell until a person is in their
forties, or can somebody with skill tell a potential late blossomer, at
least by the end of high school, if not by his barmitzvah (an early
blossomer you may even be able to tell aged 2 or so.)  These are
underlying questions that people from different groupings tend to answer
in certain ways, often without necessarily thinking them through (eg Rav
Dessler's famous statement about 1000 go in so one gadol emerges is
predicated on  certain answers to these questions, but these are usually
not articulated) but again it is not as simple as TUM and not TUM -
although again it is *likely* that somebody with a TUM perspective will
give the answers on these questions most commonly accepted in the
secular world (particularly for example, where similar questions have
been studied in secular studies - eg the nature of intelligence).  After
all, if you value secular studies, and the current secular studies have
something to say on the nature of genius, or economic forces or human
psychology, you are likely to apply  those to these type questions.  But
again it is not axiomatic (and again it is often not articulated).

> 
> KT,
> MSS

Regards

Chana

 
I was listening to an OU shiur on kashrut in which R' H Schachter
mentioned that the reason we don't x-ray cows to ensure they're not
treifot (and thus can drink their milk) was because this was kashe
lvarrer (it was an offhand remark-not the focus of the shiur).  I know
there is a tshuvah (I think it was the minchat Yitzchak) who was asked
about setting up a "hashgacha" of this type and he basically dismissed
it out of hand (I can find it if anyone is interested).  Yet at the same
time we seem concerned (except for the Rosh) enough not to eat all 3
pieces of meat when we know one was treif even though it's batel brov.
On the other hand we don't inspect for certain treifot because they're
not common even though in theory we could be mvarrer.(not sure how
"kashe")
 
It occurred to me that the difference might be in one case we know a
treifa existed (it's a dita kamman) where in the other we don't know
(it's dleta kamman even though statistically likely)
 
Has anyone heard of any detail on kashe lvarrer (versus a miut sheino
matzui etc.)
 
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070508/e4739a62/attachment.html 

 

> >Regarding the Chazon Ish, a TUM perspective could well take the view 
> >that the Chazon Ish might have been even greater if he had had more 
> >secular knowledge (might not have been a daas yachid regarding the 
> >nature of electricity for example) - and that it was his lack of 
> >secular knowledge and understanding of the outside world
> that resulted
> >in the Chazon Ish never being accepted by the entire Jewish world as 
> >the posek hador - so that arguably he did indeed not fulfil
> his mission
> >in life.
> 
> I can only quote a Gemara to such an attitude, "If he is judged as not

> fulfilling his mission in life, what hope is there for the rest of 
> us?"
> 

But it is also said, that one will not be asked why one was not the
Chazen Ish, but why one was not oneself.  The Chazon Ish (according to
most people) had abilities that far exceed the average (he too fell into
the "out of sight" category) so that he is judged on an "out of sight"
mission.
=======================================================

Just a follow up to this issue. Depending on one's philosophy one could
say that the Rambam did not fulfill his mission in life (fully) since he
spent time on medicine (and philosophy?) or that in fact the CI did not
because of not studying secular knowledge or that they both did because
of differences in their times and proclivities. Personally I'm not at
the pay grade to figure this out for myself let alone for  gdolim.

KT
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.

Zev Sero wrote:
> Daniel Israel wrote:

>> Also note that in the story of Yehudah and Tamar, there is clearly a 
>> concept of yibum, even though yibum through the father would not work 
>> (in fact would be assur) min ha'Torah.  And in this case we see that 
>> it really is yibum, since the yerusha is through Peretz.

> But in actual yibum the yevama's oldest son has no special status at
> all, despite the peshat of the pasuk.  According to the midrash halacha
> that we follow, "habechor asher teled" refers to the oldest brother of
> the niftar, and he is the yoresh.  After him the property goes to all
> his sons equally.

He'irani chacham echad that I should have been clearer: the "bechor
asher teled" only gets the property if he actually follows through on
his mitzvah of yibbum.  If he doesn't, then whoever marries the widow
gets the property, and if nobody does then it goes by the normal rules
of inheritance: first to the father and then to all the father's heirs,
their heirs, etc.

Nor is there a requirement to name the yevama's oldest son after her
late husband.  Though it seems to me that since the peshat does seem
to require it, it would be a nice gesture to do so.  It also seems to
me that this should be at least some evidence that there's nothing
wrong with naming a child after someone who died childless.



-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

> On Friday 04 May 2007 04:01:58 am Eli Turkel wrote:
> > In past posts people have discussed various kulot of 
> > Sefardim. In his latest halacha yomit ROY paskens that a Sefardi is
not yotzeh with 
> > sweet chalah for Lechem Mishneh (and its berachah is mezonot).

Of course while this is a chumra for lechem mishna, it could be viewed
as a kula vis a vis washing and benching (makes it much easier to grab a
snack of challa).

 He 
> > specifically states that a Sefardi that visits an Ashkenazi for 
> > shabbat meal has to either request chalah without any sugar 
> or else to  bring his own challot.
> >
> > I wonder how many edot mizrach actaually do this?
> 

And RKB wrote:

> I do this as much as possible. The sepharadi shuls here are makpid to 
> only serve water challah.

I think there are two aspects to ROY's psak:

A) that if a sephardi is making hamotzei he can only do so on water
chala;
B) he cannot be yotzei with an Ashkenazi who is making hamotzei on sweet
chala.

Even if you hold A) and I think a lot of Sephardim do, that does not
necessarily mean that you hold B).  If you hold, as my husband (and his
Rav) does that if one is invited out the correct procedure is to be
yotzei on the kiddush/hamotzei of the baal habayis on the rov am hadras
melech principle (which he is quite machpid on) and if one takes the
view that if it is OK for him, one can rely on his standards, then even
if one holds A) one is not required to bring one's own challos (unless
one is late).  Note you can have the same problem with kiddush, as ROY
and others hold that a lot of the traditional Ashkenazi kiddush wines
(ie the very sweet ones) take a shehakol - but if you follow the rov am
hadrash melech approach, and the mutar for him, OK for me approach, then
it works (BTW if you don't hold a mutar for him, OK for me approach,
then Ashkenazim can have problems eating at a Sephardi home on shabbas,
if the food has been warmed up by doing chazara which is permitted for
Sephardim and forbidden according to most Ashkenazim, but I don't know
anybody who won't permit that).  Of course, there may be issues
regarding benching - but since you are clearly being koveah seuda, it is
hard to see any basis on which one would be able to say al hamicha
rather than bench.

 
> --Ken

Regards

Chana

 
 

RZS writes: 
 
>>Ruth and Orpah were not Jewish when they were married to Machlon  and
Kilyon.  We learn hilchot gerut from the exchange between Ruth  and
Naomi on their way to EY, after Machlon and Kilyon died.   Therefore
they were never legally married to Machlon and Kilyon, and had  Naomi
remarried and had a son, he would have been allowed to marry the  now-
Jewish Ruth.<<


>>>>>
Yes but what mitzva of yibum is there if your brother married a  non-Jew?  
 
If she converts to Judaism after he dies, she is now a new-born  person, not 
his wife.  
 
Actually I always wondered that about the whole story of Ruth.  It  seems to 
me it was more of a midas chasidus, lifnim mishuras hadin, for Boaz to  marry 
Ruth.  Surely no one had any yibum obligation towards her -- is what  it seems 
to me.





--Toby  Katz
=============



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070508/927acb74/attachment-0001.htm 

T613K@aol.com wrote:
> RZS writes:

>> Ruth and Orpah were not Jewish when they were married to Machlon and
>> Kilyon.  We learn hilchot gerut from the exchange between Ruth and
>> Naomi on their way to EY, after Machlon and Kilyon died.  Therefore
>> they were never legally married to Machlon and Kilyon, and had Naomi
>> remarried and had a son, he would have been allowed to marry the now-
>> Jewish Ruth.<<

> Yes but what mitzva of yibum is there if your brother married a non-Jew? 

None at all.  Any more than there's a mitzvah of yibum for the widows
of other relatives.


> If she converts to Judaism after he dies, she is now a new-born person, 
> not his wife.

Exactly.  There's no legal relationship at all, just a moral one.

  
> Actually I always wondered that about the whole story of Ruth.  It seems 
> to me it was more of a midas chasidus, lifnim mishuras hadin, for Boaz 
> to marry Ruth.  Surely no one had any yibum obligation towards her -- is 
> what it seems to me.

The moral obligation seemed to go together with the property.  AIUI,
the idea was that if you took over the property, you took over the
moral obligation to take care of the niftar's debts, which in this
case included taking care of his widow.  And since she was a young
woman in need of a husband and with no shiduch prospects, taking care
of her meant marrying her.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Mon, 7 May 2007 "Mike Miller" avodah@mikeage.net wrote: 

On 5/7/07, Zvi Lampel <hlampel@thejnet.com> wrote:
> >> Does anyone know the name of this week's Sedra is not changed from
> >> Behar to Bahar, for the same reasons that Bemidbar becomes Bamidbar?<<
>
>> Hypothesis: The names of the parshios Be'har, Sh'mos and B'midbar were
> always (and still are) pronounced in their possesive form. The spelling
> "Bamidbar" with an "a" is a recent American or English rendition, the origin
> of which should be researched. (Any texts available by which to check this
> ?)<<

>Interesting. I was always under the impression that Bamidbar was
actually correct (with a patach), as b'midbar sinai is grammatically
correct, but just b'midbar is missing a direct object (is that the
right grammatical term?), and thus it's changed to the definitive
bamidbar.<

Checked it out in the Concordancia, and any and every time (about 25 times, to be pedantic) "B_Midbar" is modified by the name of a desert, it's B'Midbar, not BA-Midbar. The only time it's "BA-midar" (when the word is not standing alone) is in the passage "BaMidbar HaGadol HaZeh." 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070508/8e142aee/attachment-0001.html 

In Avodah Digest V23#98, RET asked:
> Again the major question for me is what do sefardim in practice when they
are invited out? <
Why assume that a guest in someone's home isn't permitted to follow the
practices of his host, assuming those practices are Halachically
legitimate?  More than that he is permitted, I would think he is *mandated*
to follow them unless his host explicitly allows or makes allowance for him
to "do his own thing."

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070508/e687fcdf/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 101
***************************************

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..."