Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 233

• 1. Sermon Conclusion (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Re: Heroes, Victims and Kedoshim (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 3. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 4. Re: Loving Israel while in Chutz (Micha Berger)
• 5. the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Yaacov Shulman)
• 6. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Zev Sero)
• 7. Parsha question: Umazeh mei haniddah yechabeis begadav.. (SBA)
• 8. Re: Non-zionistic TIDE rabbonim (SBA)
• 9. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 10. Re: Your brother's a Mumar; here's the solution! (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 11. Re: the cohen gadol and marriage to a pubescent girl (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 12. Re: Heroes, Victims and Kedoshim (Yitzhak Grossman)

I just finished my Shabbos sermon for next Friday night.  It's a cute
ditty that I made up as my ending. Feel free to use it if you so wish.



Bottom Line:



                                    You won't go
broke if you follow the chok.



                                      And the way to begin is to
follow the din.


                                                         But if you
don't keep trying, you?ll end up dying.

We pray that our belief and faith transcends our uncertainty and
skepticism.

Amen
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080629/4e37c15d/attachment-0001.htm>

R' YG:
> I have wondered for many years whether there is *any* classic source
> for the notion that one who is killed for being a Jew, as opposed to
> one who *voluntarily* gives up his life for God, His Torah, His Mizvos,
> or His people, can be said to have died Al Kiddush Hashem.
<SNIP>
> And so I throw down the gauntlet; I challenge anyone to provide a
> classic, or at the very least pre-twentieth century, source for the
> doctrine that being murdered for being a Jew is a sufficient condition
> for being considered to have died Al Kiddush HaShem.

Would the crusades qualify? See Kinnah 25 (Ashmenaz, Mi Yitein Roshi Mayim)
where those killed are clearly considered to have been Mekadesh Sheim
Shamayim (for example, "Al Yichud Sheim Hameyuchad Yichadu Sheim B'gvurah,"
or, "G'onei Eretz U'n'kiyei Taharah Pa'amayim Kidshu sheim Hameyuchad
B'morah").

KT,
MYG

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:49:01 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 26, 2008 at 07:38:07PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> : On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:38:32 -0400 Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> : ...
> :> But the Rambam himself explains why: Because justice requires the soul
> :> reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the defendent isn't present
> :> as his own trial. The Ikkarim gives a different answer: This life is
>
> : Where does Rambam say this?
>
> Igeres Techiyas haMeisim. Drawin on the mashal of the blind man and
> lame man who get together to streal some figs (Sanhedrin 91b). IIUC,

Rambam cites that mashal?

> he understands the yom hadin as whether or not the person has the actual
> ability to resurrect.
>
> Here's a quote from ch. 4, near the beginning:
> > As I will explain in the current essay: Why should we not interpret these
> > pesuqim allegorically, as we have done with many other Biblical verses,
> > allegorically without their literal meaning? The reason is as follows:
> > The idea of techiyas hameisim, ie, that the neshamah will return to the
> > body after death, is described by Daniel in a way cannot be explained any
> > way but literally: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
> > will rise, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting
> > contempt." Daniel was similarly told by the mal'akh, 'Now go your way to
> > the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days.'

Rambam merely notes, as I mentioned, that these verses are
unambiguously literal.  He says nothing at all about *why* God will
perform the miracle, and specifically, he does *not* say that: "justice
requires the soul reside again in a body when judged, otherwise the
defendent isn't present as his own trial".

> :> But the Rambam didn't "okimta techiyas hameisim away". He made it an
> :> ikkar emunah. A move that wasn't compelled by the sources; it was
> :> within his worldiew that ThM is central to defining Judaism!
>
> : Rambam in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim says that belief in bodily resuscitation
> : most definitely *is* compelled by sources...
>
> But making it an ikkar is not.
>
> :                What is your source for the assertion that "it was within
> : his worldiew that ThM is central to defining Judaism"?
>
> Because it's the 13th ikkar emunah. Aren't the ikkarim the center of
> his definition of Judaism?

I believe that there is a great deal of discussion of what exactly the
Rambam meant by his formulation of the Ikkarim; see, e.g. Abarbanel,
Rosh Amanah, Chapter Twenty Three.  In any event, Rambam's view on the
significance of Tehias Ha'Mesim in particular is quite problematic,
since in spite of its appearance as Ikkar Thirteen and his vigorous and
indignant defense of his belief in it in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim, his
reference to it in the Yad (Teshuvah 3:6) is so brief and ambiguous that
Gedolei Ha'Rishonim (e.g. Ra'avad ibid. 8:2, although see Kessef Mishneh
there) were apparently able to believe that he rejected it, rendering
problematic the assumption that it is part of "the center of his
definition of Judaism".

> -Micha

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 09:41:14PM -0400, Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
: > Igeres Techiyas haMeisim. Drawin on the mashal of the blind man and
: > lame man who get together to streal some figs (Sanhedrin 91b). IIUC,

: Rambam cites that mashal?

Yes.

: > he understands the yom hadin as whether or not the person has the actual
: > ability to resurrect.
: >
: > Here's a quote from ch. 4, near the beginning:
: > > As I will explain in the current essay: Why should we not interpret these
: > > pesuqim allegorically, as we have done with many other Biblical verses,
: > > allegorically without their literal meaning? The reason is as follows:
: > > The idea of techiyas hameisim, ie, that the neshamah will return to the
: > > body after death, is described by Daniel in a way cannot be explained any
: > > way but literally: "Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth
: > > will rise, some to everlasting life, and some to reproach and everlasting
: > > contempt." Daniel was similarly told by the mal'akh, 'Now go your way to
: > > the end and rest, and you shall arise to your destiny at the end of days.'

: Rambam merely notes, as I mentioned, that these verses are
: unambiguously literal.  He says nothing at all about *why* God will
: perform the miracle..

The pasuq does. "Eileh lechayei olam, ve'eileh lachavafos".

...
: I believe that there is a great deal of discussion of what exactly the
: Rambam meant by his formulation of the Ikkarim; see, e.g. Abarbanel,
: Rosh Amanah, Chapter Twenty Three.  In any event, Rambam's view on the
: significance of Tehias Ha'Mesim in particular is quite problematic,
: since in spite of its appearance as Ikkar Thirteen and his vigorous and
: indignant defense of his belief in it in Iggeres Tehias Ha'Mesim, his
: reference to it in the Yad (Teshuvah 3:6) is so brief and ambiguous that
: Gedolei Ha'Rishonim (e.g. Ra'avad ibid. 8:2, although see Kessef Mishneh
: there) were apparently able to believe that he rejected it...

The Ra'avad isn't quite objective WRT finding reasons to attack the
Rambam. BTW, did he have access to IThM?

Lema'aseh, I can only judge the Rambam by what I see of the Rambam, and
he writes about techiyas hameisim at length.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

--
Micha Berger             A wise man is careful during the Purim banquet
mi...@aishdas.org        about things most people don't watch even on
http://www.aishdas.org   Yom Kippur.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rabbi Israel Salanter

Hello!

I recently learned (Yevamot 59a) that when the chumash says that a cohen
gadol must marry a virgin (if he is unmarried), that is referring to a girl
aged 12-1/2 (a naarah).  The reason is that he must marry a female with all
the signs of virginity fully manifested, and as a female grows older her
virginality starts to fade away (even though she technically may still be a
virgin).

Please note as well that he cannot decide to marry her now and consummate
the marriage later on--he must consummate the marriage at this time as well.

Rambam cites this as halachah.

My background thoughts:

I have adapted as a working principle the idea that "darkei noam"--"ways of
pleasantness"--constitutes an essential dynamic in Torah (something
noticeably missing, lehavdil, in the Moslem world). Thus, it seems to me
that someone who simply quotes difficult Torah sources without
contextualizing them in darkei noam may be said to be, in a new application
of Ramban's phrase, a naval birshut hatorah--a "degenerate within the
technical guidelines of Torah."

And it would seem that every generation needs wider and new applications of
darkei noam as we become sensitized to matters that weren't of import in
previous generations.

It also seems to me that, generally speaking, when we consider the
"hypersensitivity" shown in specific areas of Torah thought, the idea that
someone concerned for "darkei noam" is oversensitive cannot be supported.
For instance, the Talmud mandates that a person choose death rather than
embarrass someone else.

That leads us back to the case of the cohen gadol and the virgin.

As I look at it, this halachah follows its interior logic to the ultimate
degree. That is to say, the verse states that the cohen marries a woman
"with her virginal tokens"--i.e., all of them, not some of them.  One might
also say that it follows the concept of virginal purity to the ultimate
degree. The cohen gadol must marry a woman as much as possible who is not
immersed into the realm of this world.

But where is the context of darkei shalom, which is to say, as I am seeing
it, the humanistic context: that 12-1/2 year old girls should not be
married, and in particular not to adults?

As far as I see, practically speaking there is a way of avoiding this. If a
cohen gadol is widowed, he can simply resign and allow another cohen who is
already married to take his place.  But that seems very unwieldy and not the
intent of the halachah.  Why is this halachah there in the first place?

I would be most interested in hearing other people's thoughts on this issue.

Thank you.

--
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
freewebs.com/jewish-spiritual-and-beautiful
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080630/61654c9a/attachment-0001.htm>

Yaacov Shulman wrote:

> And it would seem that every generation needs wider and new applications
> of darkei noam as we become sensitized to matters that weren't of import
> in previous generations.

Why?  If it didn't bother the previous generations, shouldn't that at
least create a strong presumption that it shouldn't bother us either?


> It also seems to me that, generally speaking, when we consider the
> "hypersensitivity" shown in specific areas of Torah thought, the idea
> that someone concerned for "darkei noam" is oversensitive cannot be
> supported. For instance, the Talmud mandates that a person choose death
> rather than embarrass someone else.

And yet the same Talmud has no problem here.  It would seem that QED.


> But where is the context of darkei shalom, which is to say, as I am
> seeing it, the humanistic context: that 12-1/2 year old girls should not
> be married, and in particular not to adults?

And yet you've just proved that this isn't so.  Do you not even accept
the possibility that the fault is in your sensitivity and not in the din?

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

Hands up those who know all about the Parah Adumah and its effect,
ie,'letaher temeim uletamei tehorim'?

Everyone! Excellent.

And how many of us know that the person who shpritzes the 'eifer parah' on
the tamei, he himself then becomes tamei?

If the percentages are the same all over, then I would say that 90% are
replying "I do".

Why am I mentioning all this?

Oydeh ve'eivosh, until yesterday I too thought so.
Until a melamed here, who also somehow just realised that it is actually not
so at all, mentioned it to me.

It's a befeirush Rashi, just after Sheni this week (19:21:
"Umazeh mei hanidah": 'Omru Raboseinu, shehamazeh tahor' (ayen shom)

(No doubt all DY learners remember this from Yuma 14.)

SBA

From: T6...@aol.com
.. my personal opinion is that Hirsch would have done  what
99% of charedi leaders do, which is to accept the fact of a government
which
must be dealt with because there is no realistic alternative.

I also believe that he would have seen the events of the 20th century in
E'Y
as a mixture of ohr vechoshech mishtamshim be'irbuvya, not purely the  work
of the Satan -- that he would have seen the many positive developments  as a

bracha from Hashem and a sign of His continuing love of His people,
"metzitz
min hacharakim." I admit that that whole last paragraph has no source other
than my gut
feeling, based on the emanations of penumbras from the corpus of Hirsch's
writings.
>>

I am not so sure.
In a letter to Reb Yaakov Lipschitz he writes that he had replied to Rav Zvi
Kalisher
- who kept 'noodging' him for help with his Yishuv EY campaign (going as far
as accusing RSRH of being 'me'akev the Geula),
that what you (RZK) consider a great mitzva - is in my eyes no small
aveireh.

Being the principled and unbending person that he was, there must be some
doubt on how he would have viewed the final result of a 'no-small-aveireh'
medineh.

SBA

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 23:47:30 EDT
T6...@aol.com wrote:

> From: "Moshe Y. Gluck" _mgluck@gmail.com_ (mailto:mgl...@gmail.com)
>
> (It doesn't say that Avrohom loved Sorah at
> all, but that's  a different story.)

> >>>>>>
> She is the only one of the Imahos about whom it specifically says that  her
> husband wept when she died.

> --Toby Katz

But note that none of the Imahos are described as loving their husbands.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:19:33 -0400
"Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' Elozor Reich (way back when:
> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol23/v23n145.shtml):
> > Having an apostate as a brother can present a potential future
> > Yibum/Chalitza problem.
> >
> > What I can only describe as a "flabbergasting solution" is prescribed in
> the
> > Oruch Hashulchan, Even ho'Ezer 157. The detailed instructions seem to
> > indicate practical advice.
>
> Basically, the AhS says to make the Kiddushin, Nisuin, and all the Bios Al
> T'nai that if she is Nofel L'yibum then the whole thing will not be Chal,
> and that she will be - L'mafrei'ah - a Pnuyah M'yuchad to him. So, I'm sure

This is the view of Rema (157:4) and many Gedolei Aharonim:  Noda
Be'Yehudah (Kama EH 56) [who writes that there was a custom predating
his arrival in wherever he then was to make such a Tenai], Rav Akiva
Eiger (Resp. I, 93), Hasam Sofer (Resp. EH I 110 [who writes "v'gam
kibalti l'hakel me'rabosai"], Rav Yonasan Eibeschutz (Bnei Ahuvah Resp.
2) and others. There is also a dissenting view.  See Pis'hei Teshuvah
(ibid. 8).

> that someone must have already asked this, but why can't this solve the
> "Agunah Crisis"?

I have been meaning to research this.  There are entire works written
about the Agunah problem with titles like "Ein T'nai B'Nissuin", and
there's always R. Dr. Eliezer Berkovitz's Tnai B'Nisuin U'vGet. (Paging
R'MM ...)

A quick Google turns up what appears to be an excellent, extremely
comprehensive paper by Bernard Jackson, "Agunah and the Problem of
Authority: Directions for Future Research", in "Melilah: Manchester
Journal of Jewish Studies", available here:
http://www.mucjs.org/MELILAH/2004/1.doc
See the section on the French Proposals of 1907, beginning on page 10.
They seem to be pretty much what you have suggested. Google also finds
a undoubtedly erudite and informative lecture on the subject by R.
Bleich:
http://www.yutorah.org/showShiur.cfm/711684/Rabbi_Dr._J._Dav
id_Bleich/Tnai_Bnisuin

> MYG

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat

R' Yaacov Shulman:
"But where is the context of darkei shalom, which is to say, as I am seeing
it, the humanistic context: that 12-1/2 year old girls should not be
married, and in particular not to adults?"

You're making this assessment based on the society you live in. If you were
living in an era where the average lifespan was 35, would you still feel
this way?


KT,
MYG

On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:09:11 -0400
"Moshe Y. Gluck" <mgl...@gmail.com> wrote:

> R' YG:
> > I have wondered for many years whether there is *any* classic source
> > for the notion that one who is killed for being a Jew, as opposed to
> > one who *voluntarily* gives up his life for God, His Torah, His Mizvos,
> > or His people, can be said to have died Al Kiddush Hashem.
> <SNIP>
> > And so I throw down the gauntlet; I challenge anyone to provide a
> > classic, or at the very least pre-twentieth century, source for the
> > doctrine that being murdered for being a Jew is a sufficient condition
> > for being considered to have died Al Kiddush HaShem.
>
> Would the crusades qualify? See Kinnah 25 (Ashmenaz, Mi Yitein Roshi Mayim)
> where those killed are clearly considered to have been Mekadesh Sheim
> Shamayim (for example, "Al Yichud Sheim Hameyuchad Yichadu Sheim B'gvurah,"
> or, "G'onei Eretz U'n'kiyei Taharah Pa'amayim Kidshu sheim Hameyuchad
> B'morah").

The Crusades, and particularly the First Crusade of 1096 ('G'zeiras
Tatn"u'), were actually my paradigmatic example of the classic idea of
"Kiddush Hashem"; the Jewish martyrs were legendary for their
magnificent defiance of the Christians and their solicitations for
Shmad.  By defiance, I mean verbal and moral, not military; besieged
Jews, in imminent danger of death, taunted their besiegers with insults
like: "Worshippers of an executed, bastard god!"

I believe that the very lines you cite indicate this.  "Al Yichud Sheim
Hameyuchad Yichadu Sheim B'gvurah" means that they valiantly gave up
their lives for their belief in God's unity, as does the other line you
quote.  [I don't have many commentaries on the Kinnos handy, but see
the Kinnos Ha'Meforush, who explains as I do.]

In general, the language here and elsewhere is always active, e.g.
"Yihadu" and "Kidshu ... B'Morah" here, and "She'masru Nafsham al
Keddushas Ha'Shem" in Av Ha'Rahamim.  The implication is that we are
referring to an active decision to be Mekadeish Shem Shamayim, not a
passive state of victimization.  The active component may be merely an
attitude of Mesiras Nefesh, rather than any practical decision, but I
stand by my contention that there is absolutely no early source for the
idea that mere victim-hood is a sufficient condition for death Al
Kiddush Ha'Shem.

See the hair raising and heartbreaking description in the Kinnah
"Haharishi Mi'Meni Va'Adaberah" of the unknown martyrs' decision to
implement a communal murder / suicide pact:

<Quote>

And they gathered B'Prishus and in purity
to sanctify God's great and awesome name
and each man strengthened his brother with support
to cling [to him] with pure awe
to refrain from bowing to Avodah Zarah

...

and they spoke to them saying:
"we have not merited to raise you to Torah
we will offer you as an Olah and Haktarah
and we will merit with you to the light
that is hidden from all and obscured"

</Quote>

For more background on this, see Avraham Grossman, "The Roots of
Kiddush Ha'Shem in Early Ashkenaz" (Heb.) in "K'dushas Ha'Haim V'Hiruf
Ha'Nefesh", Y. Gafni and A. Ravitzky eds.

While Googling the subject, I turned up a rather provocative
revisionist article (David Malkiel, "Destruction or Conversion,
Intention and Reaction, Crusaders and Jews in 1096", Jewish History,
Volume 15 Issue 3 October 2001) which claims that, contrary to the
accepted narrative that the victims of the First Crusade were always
offered the choice of baptism, in actuality the primary intention of
the Crusaders was mayhem and destruction, and that offers of
salvation through conversion were only occasional and sporadic.  From
the article:

<Quote>

H.H. Ben-Sasson expresses this notion as follows: ?Because every Jew
was offered the choice of converting to Christianity, and there were
those who apostatized and hoped to return to Judaism, the voluntary
sacrifice of the martyrs appears in bold relief.? For Ben-Sasson it is
clearly important that the martyrs of 1096 acted voluntarily; he
implies that the presence or absence of choice is crucial for the
proper evaluation of their behavior. Almost all other historical
accounts of the 1096 massacres present the same picture, though the
ideological significance of the option to convert is nowhere as obvious
as it is in Ben-Sasson's formulation. Jacob Katz and Salo Baron agree
that the martyrs faced the alternatives of death or conversion.10
Norman Cohn feels that there was ?no doubt? that ?a Jew could always
save both life and property by accepting baptism.? Avraham Grossman
states that the martyrs took their lives and those of their wives and
children ?primarily because of the concern that the Gentiles would
baptize them against their will.? Haym Soloveitchik asserts that the
Jews of Ashkenaz ?committed suicide rather than have baptism forced
upon them, rather than be dipped in what they called ?contaminated
waters.? ? Robert Chazan writes that the purpose of the attacks on the
Jews of Worms, Mainz and Cologne ?was to eliminate entirely the Jews ?
preferably by conversion, or, failing that, by slaughter.? Jeremy Cohen
agrees that the Jews of Ashkenaz were ?compelled by their attackers to
choose between conversion to Christianity and death.? Anna Sapir
Abulafia declares that the ?hordes? approached the cities with Jewish
populations ?voicing their intention of killing any Jew who would
refuse to be baptized.? Jonathan Riley-Smith claims that ?every- where
attempts were made to force Christianity on the Jews, who had heard
that the crusaders intended to offer them the choice of conversion or
death.? Gavin Langmuir, too, states categorically that ?Jews were not
killed if they would accept baptism.? Citing Hebrew and Latin sources
alike, Jean Flori asserts that the crusaders ?did not seek to kill the
Jews, but rather forcibly to convert them.?

</Quote>

Malkiel disagrees that this is what actually occurred, although he does
concede that this was the medieval Jewish understanding of the events:

<Quote>

The notion that the martyrs spurned conversion ? had the
opportunity of spurning it, to be more precise ? has resonance only in
the medieval Hebrew chronicles of the events, which were mostly
written, and clearly edited, well after the events. The chronicles
describe the large-scale slaughter of the Jewries of Worms and Mainz
(and elsewhere), but also contain personal anec- dotes in which the
option of converting is heroically, and tragically, rejected. One
might be tempted to accept that at least these particular martyrs
really did choose. Yet the chronicled accounts are too problematic and
clearly directed toward other aims than those of the modern historical
scholar restricted by modern historiographical limits to permit reading
them at face value, certainly not as a simple historical record.

</Quote>

From his conclusion:

<Quote>

For reconsidering the textual evidence, what, we ask, are we to do with
the old hypothesis, the one which Baer and so many others have argued?
Perhaps their case, with respect to what really happened is valid. But
the texts, as we have seen them, will not vouch for this. At the same
time, are we entitled to rewrite the story on the basis of the
chronicles, to suggest that murder was in fact the prime goal and
conversion was of survivors alone, or if conversion and murder were
simultaneous, was conversion a product of force or, again to cite
Baron, ?the weak-kneed? alone? The answer is no. For this would be to
treat our sources unfairly as composites, as material of a single and
whole cloth. Were not the chronicles put together from preexisting and
not necessarily interdependent strands? If, too, we question the
historicity of the chronicles, Latin or Hebrew, or refuse to impute to
their authors modern historiographical procedures, then how may we
privilege one hypothesis, one version of the chronicles, as true
historically as opposed to another?

</Quote>

Note that I do not know that much about the period, and I have not yet
even had a chance to read the whole Malkiel article carefully.

> MYG

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - bdl.freehostia.com
An advanced discussion of Hoshen Mishpat



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 233
***************************************


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..."