Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 3

Wed, 07 Jan 2015

• 1. Re: Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission... (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: December 31 at night (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Kenneth Miller)
• 6. Sura and Pumpedita (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission... (Kenneth Miller)
• 8. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Beris Metzitza Shabbos (Isaac Balbin)
• 10. Re: Beris Metzitza Shabbos (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: robot writing sefer torah ()
• 13. Re: Once the Slaughterer is Given Permission... (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: MAKING COFFEE ON SHABBOS (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)

On Mon, Jan 05, 2015 at 06:26:47PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
:> Looking around at life, I am not sure they are all that strong a factor.
:> It's a factor, but the primary one?

: What can we do when Chazal tell us over and over that it's so, and that
: every instance where it doesn't appear to have held is a special case?

Chazal say that it's a constant factor, but do they say it's a primary
factor?

Presumably my openng quote of "sekhar mitzvos behai lama leiqa" means
there is something significant lacking, and not that it's entirely
absent. But is there reason to think it is pointing out exceptional cases?

Or that "tzadiq vera lo" or "rasha vetov lo" are intended to refer to
an exception?

And of course my primary point -- is there anything about life as you
actually observe it to indicate that Chazal mean that even for us,
the cases where tzadiq vera lo are exceptional, rather than requiring
precise record keeping to determine whether it is even less common at
all than tzadiq vetov lo?

I find real problems with being asked to subscribe to beliefs that are
only believable if I compartmentalize away real life, rather than giving
me beliefs that help me frame more useful questions as I confront it.
(If not actual answers; some things, like theodicy or hakol tzafui
vehareshus nesunah are quite likely unanswerable by human minds.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             None of us will leave this place alive.
mi...@aishdas.org        All that is left to us is
http://www.aishdas.org   to be as human as possible while we are here.
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Anonymous MD, while a Nazi prisoner

REMT:
: The question was when the aveilus of the Three Weeks begins: whether
: with the date of 17 Tammuz, or with its fast. It has no relevance to
: any other fast.

... such as the one referred to in the subject line, 10 beTeves.

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 5:30pm EST, R' Joel Rich replied:
: TY. What is the status of doing "enjoyable" things on other fast
: days (e.g. having a foodless concert)? My understanding was that the
: point of those days (in addition to commemorating destruction) was
: introspection. If so, why wouldn't the same issue of night before apply?

Is this question based on a halachic argument or an aggadic one?

I could see saying that such celebration may be "inappropriate", but if
it's not actually assur, there could easily be overriding concerns. Also,
I'm not sure the line of reasoning would apply the night before a daytime
fast anyway, as we aren't asked to stop and think yet.

I would think the idea of celebrating the Gregorian New Year's Eve
has inherent issues, even if in years when it isn't also /or le10
beTeiveis/. Aside from marking holidays on dates other than "hachodesh
hazeh lakhem", there is also the question of whether it is still tainted
by Kalends (the machloqes between Rav and R' Yochanan) or being the
Catholic "Feast of the Circumcision" on its way to its current more
secular identity. (Not qua AZ, but derekh Emori?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 05:46:46PM -0500, Prof. Levine via Avodah wrote:
: From http://tinyurl.com/lc4rpdw

Quoting that Weekly-Halachah web page on Torah.org:
> The poskim advise, therefore, that one first fill the coffee cup with
> water from the urn, and then put the instant coffee into the cup; this way
> the instant coffee is being put into a keli sheini (a "second vessel"),
> which does not have the power to recook liquids which have cooled off.

There was a legend in my day about a bachur who was expelled from yeshiva
HS X (names withheld) because he came in the day of a test with his
right hand all bandaged, claiming he burnt his hand on a keli sheini.

If keli sheini were really about not having the power to cook, a KS that
is as 212 degF (100 degC), where the water in it were visibly steaming,
would be more problematic than a keli rishon at 174 degF (79 degC is
"yad soledes bo" according to the IM YD 2:52).

(The lowest bound for YSB is 43 degC (109degF), below which RMF says
there is no need to be chosheish [IM OC 4:74], and the Minchas Shelomo
puts it slightly higher at 45 degC (113 degF). But I was giving 174 degF
as a vadai number.)

Similarly bishul bechamah or chamei Teveriah have nothing to do with
temperature.

I would therefore think the melakhah of bishul includes derekh bishul
as part of its definition. Much the way boreir bekeli is different than
acheiving the same result by hand, bishul to is about how the cooking
happens as much as whether it happens.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

Two balebatishe comments:

1- Starbucks Via instant coffee includes raw coffee, so no bishul achar
bishul possibility there.

2- Tea meivinim (the people on support lines for whole leaf teas) insist
that the process does not cook the tea leaf, not even when using the
"dust" (technical term) found in tea bags. And in fact the very same
product can be made without heat, it just takes longer.

So the experimental data would confirm the hava amina RMF rejects for
metzi'us reasons, that tea is tavlin more than kalei bishul, and there
is no problem making tea in a keli sheini. RYBS said that R Chaim Brisker
was meiqil for this reason.

BTW, related to my previous post, note the AhS's language in OC 318:44:
"In a keli sheini, it is mutar to put in tavlin even though hayad solodes
bo -- dekeli sheini eino mevashel".

And in AhS OC 318:28 he requires making sense, or perhaps reuse tea that
was put in hot water before Shabbos. (See also 52-53 for a discussion
of nosein chamin besokh tzonein WRT sense.) In fact, the AhS writes that
making tea in a keli sheini or even keli shelishi would be chayav chatas
-- they are kalei bishul. Also, the tea leaves being oxidized before
you buy them (if it's not green or white tea, which RYME probably never
heard of) is prep for bishul, not bishul.

I am quoting the AhS on tavlin, not claiming he held tea was an example. I
am just saying that the experts in the field claim the metzi'us is that
of what I assume qualifies tea as tavlin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

R' Micha Beger wrote:

> Similarly bishul bechamah or chamei Teveriah have nothing to do with
temperature.
> I would therefore think the melakhah of bishul includes derekh bishul
as part of its definition.

I find much of this post to appeal strongly to my logic. But I can't help
but wonder where it leaves the whole concept of Kli Sheni. In what way does
Kli Sheni constitute Derech Bishul? Is there ANYthing that is normally
cooked in a kli sheni? (I think it might be proper for a pot of tea, but
are there any other examples?)

Everything I know about kli sheni and kli shlishi testifies to defining
bishul by temperature. Where it is assur to use them on Shabbos, it is not
because people DO cook that way, but because people COULD cook that way.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Apple's Crazy New Gizmo
Forget the iPhone 6. Next hit Apple product leaked. (see picture)
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ac2b96c9a702b965196st04vuc

 From wikipedia

*Sura* was a city in the southern part of ancient Babylonia, located west
of the Euphrates River <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_River>. It
was well known for its agricultural produce, which included grapes
wheat, and barley. It was also a major center of Torah scholarship,
and home of an important yeshiva, which, together with the yeshivas
in Pumbedita <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita> and Nehardea
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nehardea>, gave rise to the Babylonian
Talmud.

According to Rav Sherira Gaon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherira_Gaon>,
Sura ... was identical to the town of Mata Mehasia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mata_Mehasia> ... which is also mentioned
in the Talmud, however, Matha-Mehasia is cited in the Talmud, many times,
either as a nearby town or a suburb of Sura,[1] and the Talmudist academy
in Matha-Mehasia was sometimes moved or served as an additional branch
to the Talmudist academy of Sura. The academy at Sura was founded by
Rav (Abba Arika <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abba_Arika>) in the third
century.

A Syriac <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac> source describes
it as a town completely inhabited by Jews, situated between Mz
(i.e. Al-Mada'in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mada%27in>) and Al-Hira
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hira> in Southern Iraq. A responsum of
Rabbi Natronai Gaon <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natronai_ben_Hilai>
says that Sura was about 6 km from Al-Hira.


*Pumbedita* (sometimes *Pumbeditha*, *Pumpedita*, or *Pumbedisa*;
Aramaic ...) was the name of a city in ancient Babylonia close to the
modern-day city of Fallujah <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah>.
The city had a large Jewish population and was famed for its Talmudic
academy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumbedita_Academy> scholarship that,
together with the city of Sura <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sura_(city)>,
gave rise to the Babylonian Talmud. The academy there was founded by
Judah ben Ezekiel <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_ben_Ezekiel> in the
late third century. The academy was established after the destruction of
the academy of Nehardea. Nehardea, being the capitol city was destroyed
during the Persian-Palmyrian war.

There are maps of both on the wikipedia site

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Sechar may be leika, but in ordinary times mitzvos are definitely
> a protection.  We are told that over and over.  Not just tzedaka,
> mezuzah, aliya laregel, and a few others that have special protective
> qualities, but all mitzvos protect from harm.  Yes, they are not the
> *only*  factor, but they are a strong one...

and later:

> What can we do when Chazal tell us over and over that it's so, and that
> every instance where it doesn't appear to have held is a special case?

What we can do (it seems obvious to me) is to conclude that (as you wrote),
every instance where it doesn't appear to have held is indeed a special
case. Granted that this is the overwhelming majority of cases. But that's
galus haShechina, and though it pains me greatly, it doesn't surprise me a
bit.

This doesn't contradict Chazal at all. The protections that RZS mentioned
do indeed protect us. But I think that many people have unreasonably high
expectations of their effectiveness.  They were never guarantees, except
for Rashbi et al.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
What's your flood risk?
Find flood maps, interactive tools, FAQs, and agents in your area.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ac057e92a9757e24a1st02vuc

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:37:37PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I find much of this post to appeal strongly to my logic. But I can't
: help but wonder where it leaves the whole concept of Kli Sheni. In what
: way does Kli Sheni constitute Derech Bishul? ...

The answer is, barely, which is why it can only cook qalei bishul.
"Keli sheini eino mevasheil" (Shabbos 42b).

: Everything I know about kli sheni and kli shlishi testifies to defining
: bishul by temperature...

And yet the bachur "really" did burn his hand on a keli sheini, so I
was actually seeing the popposite testimony in the same data. Everyone
knows a keli sheini filled from a tanur (or one of our oven) could be far
hotter than a keli rishon filled from a kirah (stove). And certainly
yad soledes bo.

Actually, it would seem that a keli rishon taken off the fire and a keli
sheini (hahadachah hu kekeli sheini) are centrally not bishul because
they are cooling in the absence of the fire (Tosafos ad loc). Not their
temp and therefore not their actual cooking potential as they cool.

And even there, it may be a gezeira and not bishul at all -- the Y-mi
say that a keli rishon that isn't on the fire or a keli sheini are
assur derabbanan.

(Which, BTW, relates to last summer's discussion of hatmanah and my
thermal cup. Hatmanah mitigates the hadachah of the keli rishon by
preventing the cooling.)

And last, Rashi on our gemara (bavli) invokes "derekh bishul" for why
keli sheini is more lenient, and also does so for bishul bechama.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R Meir Rabbi surmised from Moshe Rabbenu that he agreed that they didn't
need a Bris. This is dangerous and inapplicable to Halachic. A Horoas Shooh
from a Novi is none of our business today.
As to requiring two kids to pass away, this isn't a din in Mila it's a din
in Health and Halacho and science and how a Rav who higia lehiro-oh with
shimmy should, is taught the masora on that issue. It has parallels
everywhere. I caution people not to determine masora by visiting different
skittish. One must have bittul to their Rav Hamuvhak. It's a Seif in
Shulchan Aruch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150106/cf4a2edd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 08:01:27PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: I asked if someone could please bring Halachic support for the Torah
: obliging us to perform BerisMilah even where there is danger to life? Or
: danger to limb Or significant risk.

Beris milah itself. Any surgery, particularly on a newborn, was more
risky, statistically far worse than nidon didan, for most of history,
at least until Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss (1847) pushed for handwashing
and fingernail scribbing by doctors, followed (1862) by Pasteur's
discovering germs and how to kill them. And people were doing metzitzah
bepeh with some percentage having HSV-1 in addition to many other things
we no longer deal with back then too. (It was just going out of style in
Germany around then; c.f. RSRH's pipette. Litta shortly followed.) Before
mouthwash and toothpaste, mouths were much germier places. This isn't
even a new risk; it's a much milder form of the old one.

I would say therefore that "significant risk" is a higher bar than
you're setting. Somewhere between surgery in a shtetl in the 15th
cent and the midbar.

: So I was correct in suggesting that no one will bring a proof because there
: is none, and the Halacha actually forbids Metzitza on Shabbos.

??? I lost where you get that last clause. You wrote in the prior post:
> Now this is just not true. Metzitza [not MBP] is enforced by the Gemara
> not as a Halachic requirement but a medical requirement. Performing
> Metzitza on Shabbos is Muttar for no other reason but for the health
> benefits it provides to the baby....

I don't know where it says metzitzah would otherwise have been assur.

Nor do I know where "no other reason" from.

And you say something similar in this 2nd post:
: So, Metzitza [not MBP] is enforced by the Gemara not as a Halachic
: requirement but a medical requirement...

Actually, it does assert a medical requirement, for which the mohel should
be fired for risking lives (as they believed it then).

But the gemara does NOT assert that it's the only requirement. What do
you do with the argument from cleaning up remaining tzitzin on Shabbos
(assuming the veris is kosher as-is), in which being before metzitzah is
considered going back before the beris is done, but being after metzitzah
but before bandaging is not? Does that not imply that metzitzah is NOT
like other medical steps, that it is indeed ALSO part of the milah?

: No one in their responses refuted either of these facts.

I really thought the above argument did, which is why I'm repeating it
now to push you to explain why you're dismissing it.

All I have so far is from the end of your post:
: I will write more about this when I have time - but to leave you with
: something to think about - when picking fruit on Shabbos for a Choleh do we
: permit the picker to continue picking or pulling off additional parts of
: the fruit once enough has already been collected - just because he's still
: in the middle of his task?

But lehalakhah, the parallel is broken without our discussion. The gemara
does state that going back and cutting these tzitzin is allowed before
metzitzah no less than before peri'ah. And unlike other medical precautions,
where not being done with the medicine does NOT permit going back and
doing non-me'aqeiv clean-up work.

There is no symmetry, regardless of your acceptance of this case in
the gemara as proof about the ritual nature of metitzah.


I will add a 2nd argument. The CS allows the use of metzitzah bekeli.
But in general, most posqim do not. The vast majority of acharonim are
split between whether a pipette is metzitzah bepeh or only if the mouth
is in direct contact does it qualify? Would this make sense if they held
metzitzah was medical and only needed to fit the bloodletting function?
Doesn't the whole discussion of pipettes presume we're also dealing with
ritual, and thus the fear of distorting the ritual beyond the halakhos of
metzitzah? Otherwise, why argue? (Even the Maharam Shick, his own talmid,
unknowingly disagrees with the CS.) And why pipettes rather than everyone
agreeing with the Chasam Sofer?

Jumping back to your proposal:
: But there should be no argument at all that on Shabbos we should only PRETEND
: to perform metzitza. Metzitza itself, which is performed to cause the wound
: to bleed, is an Issur DeOraysa, and is being performed only to maintain
: traditions. This is not Doche Shabbos.

Assuming you were right, and there is no 2nd component to why we do
metzitzah, I would think midevar sheqer tirchaq would require doing
away with the pretence. One would have to show how pretending to do
metzitzah increases shalom sufficiently to matir shinui deavrim, and
instruct mohelim to avoid stating sheqer outright.

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

On 01/06/2015 01:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> If keli sheini were really about not having the power to cook, a KS that
> is as 212 degF (100 degC), where the water in it were visibly steaming,
> would be more problematic than a keli rishon at 174 degF (79 degC is
> "yad soledes bo" according to the IM YD 2:52).

Who says it isn't?   While normally it's permitted to pour cold water into
a keli sheni, because liquids are not kalei habishul, it's forbidden if
the KSh is cham ke'ambati.  Your example is clearly that.


> Similarly bishul bechamah or chamei Teveriah have nothing to do with
> temperature.

That's no proof of anything, because they violate another element of the
definition of "bishul", which is that the heat is derived from combustion.
The same chemical process done without fire is simply not "bishul".  This
doesn't imply that when the heat *is* from a fire the temperature doesn't
matter.

 

From: Micha Berger via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>
To:  Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>,    The Avodah Torah  Discussion

On Thu, Jan 01, 2015, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
:>  Could the scroll written by this robot be used in a synagogue? The  
answer,
:> alas, is no.
...

: As to kavanah and le-shma is it  any different then machine shmura 
matzah...

There is also an issue that  came up when we discussed R' Abadi's silk 
screen.

When the gemara says  that ink spilled to form a letter would not make a
sefer Torah, what is the  problem? 
-- 
Micha  Berger            




>>>>>
 
I don't understand how or why a Sefer Torah written by a robot would be  
conceptually any different from any sefer printed by a printing  press.  I 
haven't been following this thread closely but I don't even see  where a 
question arises.  A machine is not a person.  A Sefer Torah  has to be written by 
a person.
 
Maybe the the question here is, "Can a robot think?  Can a robot  have an 
intention?  Can a robot be a person?  Can a robot be a  Jew?"  The answers to 
all four parts of this question are no, no, no and  no.
 
The Turing Test by the way is not a valid test at all for reasons I  will 
get into at length if anyone cares and if it fits Avodah's mission.   Thank 
you.
 

--Toby  Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20150106/cd6ab638/attachment.htm>

On 01/06/2015 12:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Presumably my openng quote of "sekhar mitzvos behai lama leiqa" means
> there is something significant lacking, and not that it's entirely
> absent. But is there reason to think it is pointing out exceptional cases?

Why do you assume that protection is a form of sechar, rather than an
automatic effect of the mitzvos?


> And of course my primary point -- is there anything about life as you
> actually observe it to indicate that Chazal mean that even for us,
> the cases where tzadiq vera lo are exceptional

Looking around me life appears to be completely random, and I don't
see signs of Yad Hashem any more often than one would expect to "see"
them even if it weren't there.  But the Torah tells me that it's there
anyway, and that my observations are flawed.

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 04:24:34PM -0500, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
: On 01/06/2015 01:07 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
:> If keli sheini were really about not having the power to cook, a KS that
:> is as 212 degF (100 degC), where the water in it were visibly steaming,
:> would be more problematic than a keli rishon at 174 degF (79 degC is
:> "yad soledes bo" according to the IM YD 2:52).

: Who says it isn't?   While normally it's permitted to pour cold water into
: a keli sheni, because liquids are not kalei habishul, it's forbidden if
: the KSh is cham ke'ambati.  Your example is clearly that.

AhS OC 318:39 says that a keli rishon remains a keli rishon as long as it's
yad soledes bo (YSB). (Distinguishing from issur veheter, where beli'ah
can happen even if no longer YSB.)

RYME then (s' 40) says that what you take as a given as "veyeish sovarim",
quoting the MA s"q 28. Then he pasqens "ein lanu lehachmir" neither on
a keli sheini shehaYSB, nor on a keli rishon she'in haYSB.

The AhS I quoted already, s' 48, explicitly includes YSB: "In a keli
sheini -- it is mutar to put in tavlin even though haYSB, because a
keli sheini eino mevasheil."

:> Similarly bishul bechamah or chamei Teveriah have nothing to do with
:> temperature.

: That's no proof of anything, because they violate another element of the
: definition of "bishul", which is that the heat is derived from combustion.
: The same chemical process done without fire is simply not "bishul".  This
: doesn't imply that when the heat *is* from a fire the temperature doesn't
: matter.

Actually, it appears we both agree that there are more requirements to
bishul than "is something cooking", and a keli sheini doesn't qualify for
those reasons, not because of heat.

So you're dismissing my proof, but not the conclusion. I don't see
it... there is no fire in a keli sheini either. I'm saying that a lack
of fire is part of a general "derekh bishul". Are you arguing that there
is no general category and only the need for combustion?

(Combustion or fire?)

Because if you are saying the need for combusion is the only other
element, wouldn't that means that chazarah is assur even with a blech,
if the blech is YSB and a fire is involved?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/06/2015 01:34 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> Two balebatishe comments:
> 1- Starbucks Via instant coffee includes raw coffee, so no bishul achar
> bishul possibility there.

I don't know how reliable this is, but see:
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/14308/starbucks-via-on-sha
bbat

KT,
YGB


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



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


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


*************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)