Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 115

Wed, 15 Aug 2012

• 1. Re: The Talmud?s Many Demons (Lisa Liel)
• 2. Re: The Talmud’s Many Demons (Rafi Hecht)
• 3. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 4. Re: The Talmud?s Many Demons (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Akiva Miller)
• 6. Re: The Talmud?s Many Demons (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Zev Sero)
• 8. Sleeves that Cover the Elbows (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Shared Names (Liron Kopinsky)
• 10. Re: Shared Names (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Shared Names (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: The Talmud's Many Demons (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: The Talmud?s Many Demons (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: The Talmud?s Many Demons (D&E-H Bannett)
• 17. Who did Hakhel? (Micha Berger)
• 18. tv (saul newman)

On 8/14/2012 3:37 PM, Rafi Hecht wrote:
> 5. Chanoch (Enos) was taken away relatively early (he died at 205 when 
> everyone was living beyond 900 years of age). One of the reasons was 
> because he inadvertently introduced idolatry/witchcraft by teaching 
> that if one worships an agent of Gd (such as the sun, a tree, etc.) 
> with the intent on focusing on the objects' creator than it's as if 
> one worships Gd. People soon forgot the "intent" bit and worshipped 
> the objects as entities in and of their own. 

Chanoch is generally transliterated as Enoch.  Enosh is transliterated 
sometimes as Enos.  Two different guys, and you're conflating them.  
Chanoch was the one who lived a shorter time, and the mefarshim say he 
was taken early because of how *good* he was.  Not for introducing 
avodah zarah.

And even Enosh had nothing to do with it.  The Rambam says that this 
mistake occurred in the days of Enosh (Adam's grandson).  Not that he 
did it himself.  What a mishmash.

Lisa

On 2012-08-14, at 11:05 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:
> Chanoch is generally transliterated as Enoch.  Enosh is transliterated
> sometimes as Enos.  Two different guys, and you're conflating them...

> And even Enosh had nothing to do with it. The Rambam says that this
> mistake occurred in the days of Enosh (Adam's grandson). Not that he
> did it himself. What a mishmash.

Good point. Being too good was another reason for chanoch being taken early. Tying shoelaces was another.

You're right about my challenge in anglicizing biblical jargon. Thanks.

- Rafi Hecht

It is also interesting to note that while the Bavli seems to have a lot of
such references, the Yirushalmi takes an opposite approach. 

I am not certain if it is a difference between living in Israel and not, or
if it is just the style of either collection.

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel  

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


From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
To: The Avodah Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The Talmud?s Many Demons

There's a big difference between skipping the topic and ridiculing it the
way this guy does.

Lisa


On 8/14/2012 12:48 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://tinyurl.com/9vwk7t9
>
>
>       *Sages in a superstitious age accepted the existence of
>       invisible devils and the use of magic to render them visible*
>
>
[snip]

I cannot see what could be scandalous or even surprising 
about the existence of thousands of invisible demons all 
around us. After all, don't we all still believe in them?  I 
do, because the evidence is overwhelming.

Chaza"l failed in their attempts to see them because they 
didn't have the tools.  Today, we have the tools to detect 
them and have given names to many of the demons, e.g., 
germs, microbes, bacteria, microorganisms, viruses, etc. 
We've even found them in water. all kinds of usually 
invisible single or multiple cells, amoeba, paramoecia, 
etcetria and etcetria.

We even have found some of the good demons, yehudain, and 
they are added to our yoghurt and called probiotics that 
improve digestion.

Very brilliant of chazal to have figured out the existence 
of invisible demons and differentiating between types, from 
noting the results of their activities without any further 
knowledge of how to see them or control their actions.


David

R' Joel Rich wrote:

> 2. HKB"H creating demons, angels etc.. ... I have often
> wondered about the theology of angels and demons - perhaps
> they are psychological drives etc. but there is certainly
> what to talk about!

For some psychological effects, I totally agree. And similarly, for some
physical effects, such as illnesses, "demons" might be how Chazal chose to
describe germs and other physical things.

Similarly, R' Zev Sero offered:

> There is such a thing as Shedin Yehuda'in, "Jewish" demons, who
> do good.  In Yosef's case, he transmitted Torah that was said
> in one yeshivah to another the same day, filling a niche that
> would one day be taken over by the telephone and then by the
> internet.

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a limit to how far these
metaphors can go, and this was explicitly addressed in the article cited. I
am referring to the procedures which (we are told) can be used to make
these demons visible:

> The problem is that the rabbis did not intend it as a metaphor.
> This becomes clear from the ensuing discussion of the effects
> of demons and the ways of making them visible. ... All you have
> to do is find a black female cat who is the firstborn daughter
> of a firstborn mother, burn her placenta to ashes, grind the
> ashes, and put some of them in your eye, and you will be able
> to see the demons. Be sure, however, to place the remainder of
> the ashes in a sealed iron tube, lest the demons steal it from
> you.

I do realize that many wise men of the time, both Jewish and not, believed this stuff. But how should **I** understand it?

We on Avodah have had many conversations on these topics before. For
example, we've explained that maggots are not cases of spontaneous
generation scientifically, but that because the eggs are microscopic,
halacha considers the eggs as virtually non-existent. I am similarly
bothered when there is an electronic device where we *know* that lights are
being turned on and off, and poskim allow its use on Shabbos because the
lights are hidden.

At some point we cross the line from explanations to apologetics.

I am not sure that we have ever crossed that line, but we might have, and
I'm very uncomfortable about even being in the neighborhood. Sometimes, I
think I might prefer to say that sheidim really and truly did exist, but
stopped existing in modern times (similar to our loss of open [read:
Biblical-style] miracles). Or perhaps they even continue to exist, but that
our ability to *see them* was lost in modern times (again, similar to our
loss of open miracles).

Surely, none of this chevra laughs at the idea of Biblical nissim the way we (want to) laugh at the idea of physical sheidim, right? Why is that?

Akiva Miller

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. --- Arthur C. Clarke


.

____________________________________________________________
Better Than A Facelift&#63
Doctor Reveals Lazy Way To Look Up To 15 Years Younger in 17 Seconds
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/502b8c739e184c737d7ast04vuc

On 8/15/2012 5:24 AM, D&E-H Bannett wrote:
> Very brilliant of chazal to have figured out the existence of 
> invisible demons and differentiating between types, from noting the 
> results of their activities without any further knowledge of how to 
> see them or control their actions.

I'm just not aware of any microbes that leave chicken tracks.

Lisa

On 15/08/2012 7:46 AM, Akiva Miller wrote:
> Similarly, R' Zev Sero offered:
>
>> >  There is such a thing as Shedin Yehuda'in, "Jewish" demons, who
>> >  do good.  In Yosef's case, he transmitted Torah that was said
>> >  in one yeshivah to another the same day, filling a niche that
>> >  would one day be taken over by the telephone and then by the
>> >  internet.

> The problem, as I see it, is that there is a limit to how far these metaphors can go,

I did not mean this as a metaphor.  I take it for granted that shedim
do exist.  I was merely pointing out that they are not "devils", i.e.
evil creatures, whose existence poses some sort of theological problem.
Yosef Shida was a good sheid.  And if he did not exist, then how did the
seven shemaatos that were said in Sura become known in Pumbedisa on the
same day?  The only alternative the gemara considers is that perhaps
Eliyahu Hanavi transmitted them; but I don't see how that's any more
"rational" than Yosef Shida.   Rav Yosef also reports a conversation he
actually had with this same Yosef Shida; was he talking to a metaphor?
I simply don't see a greater problem with believing in sheidim than in
yetis. (The cat-ash recipe, OTOH, needs to be explained away somehow,
because I can't believe that it actually works.)

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RYL writes (on Areivim):
> I in no way justifying spitting, name calling and other modes of
> threatening anyone.  However, I must say that I think that these women
> undermine their own case by they way they are dressed in this video.  Are
> they not aware that halacha requires women to wear sleeves that cover their
> elbows, and that low necklines are not allowed?  And if they are aware of
> this,  then why do they ignore this?

How do you know that the halacha "requires women to wear sleeves that
cover their elbows"?

Yes, I am sure you could quote me a book written by the type of rabbi
whose opinion on the internet and secular education you would reject out
of hand who would unquestionably say this, but as with so often, these
sorts of books quote only one, and often one of the most machmir, shitos.

In terms of more original sources, it is noteworthy that the gemora in
Brochos 24b, which refers to women's tefach, shok and hair as being ervah,
does not mention arms. The mention of arms comes rather primarily in the
gemora in Kesubos 72b and the Yerushalmi in Gitten. After the Mishna in
Kesubos has said that a woman violates das Yehudis and can be divorced
without a kesuba, with one of the forms of violating das Yehudis being
to "spin in the marketplace" (along with going out into the marketplace
with uncovered hair), on Kesubos 72b Rabbi Yehuda explains this in the
name of Shmuel: that this is ????? ???????? ???? ??? mareh zroteha l'bnei
adam. In a not dissimilar discussion in Bavli Gitten 72a-b it says:

    ... this is the way of a bad man, that he sees his wife going out
    and her head is uncovered and she spins in the marketplace and wears
    split clothing on two sides and she bathes with men [and he does
    not object].

And Rashi there explains this as:

    And wears split clothing on two sides: -- revealing the upper arms
    in the manner of the non Jewish women in France that their flesh is
    visible from their sides.

The corresponding language in the Yerushalmi Mesechet Gitten Perek
9 halacha 11 actually mentions arms but the reference is uzeroteha
chalutzot ????????? ?????? -- ie:

    ... and from where that if she goes out with her head uncovered and
    the sides [of her clothing] open and her arms chalotzot, the Torah
    teaches if you find in her a thing of ervah...

Now the Rokeach in Hilchot Tephila siman 424 says:

    ... and the hair whether of his wife or other another woman or the
    shok or a tefach of basar or revealed arms [zerotecha megulot] is
    forbidden and if there is ervah opposite him even if he averts his
    eyes it is forbidden for him to recite shema or to pray...

Now it is true that the Eliyah Raba siman 75 si'if katan 2 says.... And
I see in the Rokeach siman 424 that a tefach of her flesh or in her
revealed arms is forbidden, ie he understands the Rocheach as holding
that a tefach of arm (whether you define that as the whole arm, or the
upper arm, parallel to the usual definition of shok) is assur, and the
Mishna Brura (75:2) specifically follows the Eliyah Raba.

However, as Rav Yehuda Henkin says (Understanding Tzniut p23):

    [a] close examination of Rokeach yields a different conclusion. Note
    that he changed the order of the Gemara and began with hair and shok
    followed by tefach, rather than listing tefach first; the implication
    is that tefach does not apply to either shok or hair. But he also
    did not write "a tefach of her skin or her upper arms" but rather
    "a tefach of her skin or when her upper arms are uncovered" ie
    tefach does not apply to zeroa either, which has its own measure,
    that of being uncovered. We are constrained to interpret this as
    being le-kula, as referring to uncovering most of the limb, for if
    more than fifty percent of the upper arm is covered, it certainly
    cannot be deemed "uncovered".

In addition, the Korban HaEdah mesechet Gitten perek 9 writes:

    ??' ????? ??? ??? ???' ?????. ?????? ?????? ??"? ???? ???? ????? ?"?
    ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??????
    ????? ?????? ??"? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?? ??????:

    Gemora .. sides: her clothes are torn even though no flesh is seen
    or alternatively we are dealing with when her flesh is seen and the
    arms this requires that they be fully exposed but if her arms are
    in torn clothing even though the flesh of her arms is seen this is
    not pritzus.


Rav Henkin thus concludes on pages 24-25:

    It thus emerges from Rashi, Yerushalmi and Korban Ha-Edah that pritzut
    in exposure of the upper arms comes not from the arms themselves
    but from the body being visible via the arms. ...

Rav Henkin himself prefers to follow the view that more than a tefach of the
upper arms is a problem, and hence writes as follows:

    A typology can be established according to this as follows:

    1. sleeveless dresses - forbidden by all opinions, as the body can
       be seen;

    2. short sleeves, loose - forbidden if body can be seen;

    3. short sleeves, tight - body cannot be seen, but prohibited if
    most of the upper arm is uncovered (rubo k'kulo);

    4. sleeves halfway to elbow - proscribed because of tefach meguleh,
       room for limmud zechut;

    5. sleeves to within a tefach of the elbow - minimum permitted;

    6. sleeves to elbow - recommended;

    7. sleeves to below elbow - first level chumra;

    8. sleeves to wrists - second level chumra.

    The above does not supplant any communal or familial minhag.

Similarly with necklines, Rav Henkin has an extensive discussion and
provides different calculations on what might be considered a tefach
when referring to "tefach b'isha ervah" - and notes on p17 "if this
third definition of tefach is used [where both the length and the width
need to be at least a tefach], few of the necklines women normally wear
today expose a tefach."

> It is a far cry from dressing according to the guidelines of Tznius and
> "making women disappear."  YL

But there is also the small matter of making different halachic
interpretations (including those of tznius) disappear into the global
mash of chumrisation that is at work today.

These women are operating within a community that has these particular
dress standards (you can see that pretty clearly from the fact that they
all dress in a not dissimilar way). It may not be your halachic standard
(it might not even be Rav Henkin's) but there is enough ambiguity in the
primary sources rishonim and achronim for this to be a valid halachic
explanation of what is in those sources, even if it is not the opinion
that has come to dominate today.

Regards
Chana

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

> Chanoch is generally transliterated as Enoch.  Enosh is transliterated
> sometimes as Enos.  Two different guys, and you're conflating them.
>

Trivia Question:
What other name(s) are repeated in Sefer Bereishit?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120815/50895986/attachment-0001.htm>

On 8/15/2012 5:09 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> Trivia Question:
> What other name(s) are repeated in Sefer Bereishit?

Lemech.  Yered.

Maybe the problem is the translation into English as "demons".  I'd
prefer to translate them as "fairies", "sprites", or something of
that nature.  It better fits the way the gemara and medrashim talk
about them.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 15/08/2012 6:09 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net <mailto:l...@starways.net>> wrote:
>
>     Chanoch is generally transliterated as Enoch.  Enosh is transliterated sometimes as Enos.  Two different guys, and you're conflating them.
>
>
> Trivia Question:
> What other name(s) are repeated in Sefer Bereishit?

What do you mean by "other names"?  These names are *not* repeated.
There is only one Enosh, and only one Chanoch.

As for names that *are* shared: Lemech, Nachor, Chanoch (ben Midian),
Utz (three of these), Aram.



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

The problem, as I see it, is that there is a limit to how far these
metaphors can go, and this was explicitly addressed in the article cited. I
am referring to the procedures which (we are told) can be used to make
these demons visible:

> The problem is that the rabbis did not intend it as a metaphor.
> This becomes clear from the ensuing discussion of the effects
> of demons and the ways of making them visible. ... All you have
> to do is find a black female cat who is the firstborn daughter
> of a firstborn mother, burn her placenta to ashes, grind the
> ashes, and put some of them in your eye, and you will be able
> to see the demons. Be sure, however, to place the remainder of
> the ashes in a sealed iron tube, lest the demons steal it from
> you.

I do realize that many wise men of the time, both Jewish and not, believed this stuff. But how should **I** understand it?


=======================================================
I can't tell you how to understand it, I understand it that they were
operating on the "best" information they had (not from Moshe misinai but
from being "observant") as to how the world operated.  I  encourage folks
to consider the famous quote from Theodoric of York in this context (and
think about we knew about how the brain operates 50 years ago and today):

"You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the
time. Why, just fifty years ago, they thought a disease like your
daughter's was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays we
know that Isabelle is suffering from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps
caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach."

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.

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 01:24:04PM +0300, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: It is also interesting to note that while the Bavli seems to have a lot of
: such references, the Yirushalmi takes an opposite approach. 

I think it should be noted that demons figure significantly in Zoroastrian
scripture. The Avestan word is daeva, "being of shining light". The
word actually evolves for the pre-Zoroastrian term for gods -- the pre-Z
gods worshipped by the "false priests" are thus identified with demons
(Yasna 32:4) Anyway, later Zoroastianism, once their monotheism split
into a war between good and evil, relies heavily and battles between
angels and devils.

Whereas the idea plays little to no role in Roman religion.

So, the difference REG notes is also true of the surrounding cultures
of the two groups of amoraim. Although Josephus writing in EY for
a Roman audience (Wars 7:6:3) mentions sheidim and their ability to
posess someone.

That said, Moshe Rabbeinu (as recoded by HQBH -- Devarim 32:17) and
David haMelekh (Tehillim 106:37) mention sheidim as things people would
make sacrifices to. The similarity of the evolution of the word "daeva"
is striking. The word "sheid" appears to be cognate to shedu, the 7 evil
storm demons of Chaldean religion, winged bulls.


As I see it, there are three possible approaches to understanding the
gemaros about sheidim:

1- Chazal were discussing actual metaphysical entities. After all, Tanakh
mentions numerous kinds of mal'akhim. Why can't there be parallel entities
created by sin which are the embodiment of the metaphysical forces that
bring about sin's negative consequences?

But then we're stuck explaining the gemara's means of handling sheidim
that don't involve teshuvah for the initial offense. Mnemonic tools
that teach lessons and thus create an atmosphere condusive to teshuvah,
perhaps?

In any case, Bavli Jews would more naturally discuss sheidim more often,
so they come up in their shas more.


2- Chazal were using existing natural philosophical theories. In which
case, we could replace references to sheidim with current scientific
theories that explain the same phenomena. Which tend to involve virii (R'
Aharon Soloveitchik mentions this) or pyschological theories (as per R'
Aharon Lichtenstein about why they attack at night).

In which case they show up in the Bavli far more often because the amoraim
of EY were working with Greek natural philosophy. And would empower the
Rambam to "kill off" the shedim by showing why Greek thought is a better
choice than Persian.


3- It's aggadia -- assume metaphor. This doesn't rule out #2; even today,
people use popularized versions of scientific ideas as meshalim to make
metaphysical points. But it doesn't require that sheidim exist outside
the metaphoric, either.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
mi...@aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 10:26:07AM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I'm just not aware of any microbes that leave chicken tracks.

The most common (today) are salmonella, listeria, campylobacter ("food
poisoning") and staph. All of which can be caught from chickens.

Admittedly, playing this game we're left with the opposite problem.
It would mean chazal were unaware of how many other domesticated animals
also carry disease.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Re: RnLL's <<I'm just not aware of any microbes that leave 
chicken
tracks.>>

Oh, those marks in the sand you put on the floor are caused
by the cockroaches and ants that wander about in the dark
during the night and are usually invisible during the day.


David

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 04:58:49PM -0400, R J Chesky Salomon wrote to Areivim:
: On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
:> Side-note: Shelomo calls himself "Qoheles ben David" in a fit of Ruach
:> haQodesh. He was the only king to fulfill Haqhel -- before him there was
:> no BHMQ, and after him 10 of the shevatim wouldn't come. Related is the
:> yeish omerim in Rashi, that Qoheles is a collection of things said he
:> at Haqhel.

: Enough of the 10 shevatim returned under Yoshiyahu so they could have
: a Yovel year; would Hakhel not have occurred as well?

Since according to Qoheles Rabba it didn't, this shitah's answer must be
"no". (I now also see that QR includes Rashi's source.) Now we just
have to figure out why.

Here's how I do the math...

The shevatim returned in Yoshiahu yr 18. That's when they started
counting the yovel -- not actually observing a yovel year. There
are 14 years of Yoshiahu and Yehoyakim and Yehoyachin were 11 yrs,
Tzidqiyahu another 11. 14+11+11 = 36 years. So, as the gemara concludes
(Eirchin 12b), the next yovel would have been 14 years after the churban.

Yoshiahu's restoration of enough of the shevatim to restart yovel didn't
lead to an opportunity for Haqhel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             People were created to be loved.
mi...@aishdas.org        Things were created to be used.
http://www.aishdas.org   The reason why the world is in chaos is that
Fax: (270) 514-1507      things are being loved, people are being used.

rSBA  sent around an appreciation of the satmar  rov. zkl  .
it listed  responsa  which included that-

  He also rules that television is certainly to be considered Avodah Zarah
and Gilui Arayos, non-kosher and apikorsus.

---now  given that  the  'street'   ,certainly in the non-haredi
communities  , and  maybe  even some of them too,  don't  seem to hold
that  way,   do we  consider this  as  an  individual psak   , that others
disagree with ,
 as  a gzeira  , that  the  people did not  accept , or
an area of  life that  some just  feel is not in the purvey  of   psak?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120815/702b5f7c/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 115
***************************************

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..."