Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 29

Tue, 24 Feb 2015

• 1. Tereifa - Psychological damage to an animal (Shalom Berger)
• 2. Re: Majority Rule? (Rich, Joel)
• 3. davening Musaf (Eli Turkel)
• 4. majority rule (Eli Turkel)
• 5. Eilu V'Eilu? (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Free Will (was Eilu V'Eilu?) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Kenneth Miller)
• 10. Meshech Chochmah on Kedushah (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Free Will (was Eilu V'Eilu?) (Kenneth Miller)
• 12. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Kenneth Miller)
• 14. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Eilu V'Eilu? (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Free Will (was Eilu V'Eilu?) (Micha Berger)

According to the Mishna in Hullin Daf 54a and Gemara that follows, an
example of an animal that is not a tereifa, is a Haruta Biydei Shamayim,
which the Gemara explains as a shriveled lung due to natural causes. Thus,
when an animal suffers a shriveled lung due to thunder, lightning, or even
a lion roaring, the animal will be kosher, but if the animal suffers the
same condition because of something that a person did, the animal will be a
tereifa. This appears as a halakha in the Rambam (Hilkhot Shehita 8:9) and
Shulhan Arukh (YD 36:14).

Can anyone direct me to a discussion of this halakha? Is there discussion
about the psychological damage done to an animal who witnesses another
animal being slaughtered, and why it is different from "natural" causes?

Thank you for your help,

Shalom

Rabbi Shalom Z. Berger, Ed.D.
The Lookstein Center for Jewish Education
Bar-Ilan University
http://www.lookstein.org
https://www.facebook.com/groups/lookjed/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150219/619cc54d/attachment-0001.htm>

I always thought that the majority rule is directly connected to "acharei
rabim l'hatos". That doesn't answer the question of whose vote gets
counted, but "rabim" seems to clearly look at the quantity of voters, not
their brainpower.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Yes, which is why it might be a chiddush as  the 2 extremes ( complete democracy, or the smartest guy in the room) would be easier to defend on pure logic
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.

<<But I want to mention two other minhagim that may be relevant:
1- Someone having yahrzeit that week getting the amud for mussaf
2- Giving preferance to the maftir when picking a baal tefillah for mussaf
 >>

My shul avoids this rule because the outcome is that all sorts of people
daven mussaf before the amud who really shouldn't be. Either because they
are not aware of many halachot or simply because they don't have a decent
voice.

I personally avoid davening musaf because my musical abilities are quite
limited and it would just casue a quarrel which is the opposite of what one
wants.

There are similar discussions about allowing a yatom to daven during the
week. I recall that that the shuls under R. Teitz have strict rules about
many minhagim of davening. They certainly would noy allow an outside
"chiyuv" to daven before the amud without checking him out.
My shul is more liberal but there are still limits as to whom can be
shliach tzibbur

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150220/2349f0f8/attachment-0001.htm>

<<I always thought that the majority rule is directly connected to "acharei
rabim l'hatos". That doesn't answer the question of whose vote gets
counted, but "rabim" seems to clearly look at the quantity of voters, not
their brainpower.>>

In a court situation one certainly follows a quantitative majority. There
are indeed reposnsa that deal with a court of 2 baale batim and a talmid
chacham and the non-chachamim outvote the chacham. Should he just casr his
vote knowing he will be outvoted or should he abstain/withdraw leaving only
2 judges

However, outside of the court system obviously brainpower quotes. 100
standard rabbis do not outway RMF. RHS has speeches were he complains about
rabbis of shuls paskening on questions that are beyond their abilities.

How one decides on this of course is a difficult question.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150220/7354deee/attachment-0001.htm>

From Yesterday's NY Times - The close illustrates something I've been
wrestling with regarding understanding eilu v'eilu (as well as free will
vs. predestination based on the multiple universe theory)

KT
Joel Rich

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/opinion/sunday/th
e-reality-of-quantum-weirdness.html?_r=0
[or <http://j.mp/1DdR4tW> -micha]

Over the past hundred years, numerous experiments on elementary
particles have upended the classical paradigm of a causal, deterministic
universe. Consider, for example, the so-called double-slit experiment. We
shoot a bunch of elementary particles - say, electrons - at a screen
that can register their impact. But in front of the screen, we place a
partial obstruction: a wall with two thin parallel vertical slits. We
look at the resulting pattern of electrons on the screen. What do we see?

If the electrons were like little pellets (which is what classical physics
would lead us to believe), then each of them would go through one slit or
the other, and we would see a pattern of two distinct lumps on the screen,
one lump behind each slit. But in fact we observe something entirely
different: an interference pattern, as if two waves are colliding,
creating ripples. ........?

Here, one of the biggest issues is the interpretation of the so-called
wave function, which describes the state of a quantum system. For an
individual particle like an electron, for example, the wave function
provides information about the probabilities that the particle can be
observed at particular locations, as well as the probabilities of the
results of other measurements of the particle that you can make, such
as measuring its momentum.


Does the wave function directly correspond to an objective,
observer-independent physical reality, or does it simply represent an
observer's partial knowledge of it?

If the wave function is merely knowledge-based, then you can explain away
odd quantum phenomena by saying that things appear to us this way only
because our knowledge of the real state of affairs is insufficient. But
the new paper in Nature Physics gives strong indications (as a result of
experiments using beams of specially prepared photons to test certain
statistical properties of quantum measurements) that this is not the
case. If there is an objective reality at all, the paper demonstrates,
then the wave function is in fact reality-based.

What this research implies is that we are not just hearing different
"stories" about the electron, one of which may be true. Rather, there
is one true story, but it has many facets, seemingly in contradiction,
just like in "Rashomon." There is really no escape from the mysterious -
some might say, mystical - nature of the quantum world.

Joel I. Rich F.S.A. Senior Vice President
Sibson Consulting

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 08:29:52AM -0500, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
: From Yesterday's NY Times - The close illustrates something I've been
: wrestling with regarding understanding eilu v'eilu (as well as free will
: vs. predestination based on the multiple universe theory)

I'll just chime in beqitzur, because I have posted each of these ideas
enough times that another repetition might prove an irritant.

1- I agree with the observation that there is something basically
non-Boolean about literal understandings of eilu va'eilu. But I think
it comes more from how people internally deal with uncertainty, rather
than Quantum Logic and superposition of states.

One thing about quantum weirdness, we never directly witness it. But
AISI, one rav "observes" shitah X, and another, shitah Y. QM would be
more similar to the "unobserved" cloud of potential shitos before any
sevarah is delineated by anyone.

2- AISI, the multiple universe theory would eliminate bechirah
chafshi. Rather than having the power to choose between P or Q, I end
up doing both -- one in each universe.

The version of me in the universe where I chose P just lucked out to be
the one in that universe. Again, not a real choice.

QM's weirdness inserts randomness and probability into the mix. But free
will refers to something that is neither deterministic nor random.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 02/23/2015 12:28 PM, Micha Berger via Avodah wrote:
> 2- AISI, the multiple universe theory would eliminate bechirah
> chafshi. Rather than having the power to choose between P or Q, I end
> up doing both -- one in each universe.
>
> The version of me in the universe where I chose P just lucked out to be
> the one in that universe. Again, not a real choice.
>
> QM's weirdness inserts randomness and probability into the mix. But free
> will refers to something that is neither deterministic nor random.

I agree with this, and therefore propose that bechira, as a non-physical
process, is *not* subject to quantum uncertainty.  It's only physical
objects, which are made up of quarks, that are subject to the laws of
statistical mechanics, probability waves, and whatever magic effect an
act of measurement is supposed or not supposed to have on it.

IOW, my theory of alternative universes is the exact opposite of that
which was standard in classic science fiction.  In the classic model,
an alternative universe is created each time someone makes a choice
which could have gone another way.  This makes choice meaningless.
Instead I suggest that people's choices are the only things that *don't*
create alternative universes.  When a radioactive atom either decays or
doesn't, that creates a universe in which it did and one in which it
didn't, but when someone decides whether to get up or stay in bed
only one universe results -- the one in which that decision was made.
There's nothing uncertain about the decision, so there's no universe
in which it went the other way.  (Even if a person bases his decision
on a random event such as a coin toss, the universe splits when the
coin is tossed, not when the decision is made.)


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:28pm EST, I wrote:
: QM's weirdness inserts randomness and probability into the mix. But free
: will refers to something that is neither deterministic nor random.

To say something about bechirah chofshi I do not recall posting before...

I think the best we'll be able to say about bechirah is what it isn't.
Language is too rigid. Any process we could get a handle on in a way we
could articulate would be an algorithm. We would end up describing
something either deterministic or random. I expect free will would be
inherently ineffible.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> QM's weirdness inserts randomness and probability into the mix. But free
> will refers to something that is neither deterministic nor random.

There's a mistake many people make when the they try to understand
relativity, and this same mistake is *extremely* common regarding
perpetual-motion machines. Namely, people look at what they think is a
closed system, and don't realize that there are outside influences, and
that the closed system that they *want* to look at is somewhat larger.

I believe that this explains why science perceives a certain randomness to
quantum mechanics: They are looking at what they think is a closed system
(namely, the entire physical universe) and they find nothing in that system
to explain what they see. They made a similar mistake before with the Law
Of Conservation Of Matter, and only much later did they reformulate it as
the Law Of Conservation Of Matter And Energy.

So too, if one's tunnel vision causes him to look merely at The Entire
Physical Universe, of course he will be confused. He needs to look outside
the box, and include the Metaphysical universe as well.

A leaf will fall this way or that way, and quantum mechanics will say that
a "random" subatomic whatever occurred to push the wind this way or that,
when in actuality it was not random at all: A mal'ach (translate that
however you like) caused that subatomic whatever to occur, in a
deterministic manner not unlike larger-scale chemical occurences.

Likewise, my hand will move this way or that way, and a hard-line
determinist will trace it to specific chemical reactions in my brain, which
were ultimately caused by random quantum events. But in actuality, it seems
to me that my free will is what caused those bran cells to do what they
did.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54eb80b17dee5b12df8st02vuc

I said something on FB that I do not recall all my sources for. I was
asked their for those sources, and responsed that FB discussions don't
have the longevity that would make that effort worthwhile. By the time
I would get a response, the status post in question would have crawled
into ancient history. I recommended we take it here, and he joined Avodah.

So, here's the question, and I'm hoping we could crowdsource an
answer:

I recall a general pattern in the Meshekh Chokhmah, that all qedushah
comes from human activity. It's never inherent in a place or an object;
a person has to sanctify that place or object.

The most famous example is MC on Shemos 19:13. We can discuss qudeshah
lesha'atah vequdshah le'asid lavo WRT Y-m or Har haBayis because people
established it. But the moment the revelation was over, animals were
permitted to graze on Har Sinai -- the qedushah ended as well. See
also the MC on Bereishis 13:15 "sa na" and Devarim 1:8 (WRT qedushas EY).

Similarly, MC Shemos 32:19 says even the first luchos had no inherent
qedushah, and therefore once they weren't connected to us performing
Avodas Hshem, Moshe was permitted to destroy them.

R Yisrael Meir haKohein miDvinsk's thesis appears to be that only HQBH
is truly Qadosh (spelled out in the above citation on Yisro), and
therefore only through committing something to avodas H' can things
get qedushah.

That said, I believe the MC contrasts Shabbos and shemittah which are
muqdashim by HQBH and YT and yovel which we (Sanhedrin) sanctify. I
do not know how it fits.

Well, that should get the ball rolling. Anyone have ideas to add?
(Or mistakes to subtract from my formulation?)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> I think the best we'll be able to say about bechirah is what
> it isn't. Language is too rigid. Any process we could get a
> handle on in a way we could articulate would be an algorithm.
> We would end up describing something either deterministic or
> random. I expect free will would be inherently ineffible.

I've written this before, but I'd like to write it again.

I will begin by suggesting that a newborn does not yet have free will, or
at least, has not yet had an opportunity to exercise it. He will be quiet,
or cry, or scream, and this will either be random, or the result of
deterministic causes. Either way doesn't bother me.

But at some point between the ages of two seconds and seventy years, he
will make his first free-willed decision. By definition, this will not be a
random choice. By definition, it will also not be a deterministic result,
i.e., caused by the sum total of experiences and thoughts that he's had
until now (or any portion thereof).

How can this be possible? I can make a choice that's NOT totally based on
my life experiences? Well, yes, that's exactly what free will is all about.
Free will is not about what I have been taught to do, or what I've learned
or anything like that. Free will is about what I **want**.

Consider Adam and Chava at the Eitz Hadaas Tov V'Ra. Did Hashem set them up
to fail, or did they really have a choice? If they really did have a
choice, then there must be something more than "merely" life experience
that enables this. It must be something that is, well, as RMB put it,
"ineffible."

I can't help but wonder if this is the greatest miracle of all. Indeed,
perhaps it is the ONLY real miracle, now that quantum mechanics has allowed
G-d to split the sea without violating nature.

In my previous post, I mentioned the physical world and the metaphysical
world. I wonder if our Bechira Chofshis is even more removed that that. I
think it is truly Godly.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Protect what matters
Floods can happen anywhere. Learn your risk and find an agent today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54eb8e47b76f8e47159cst03vuc

On 02/23/2015 02:33 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
>
> A leaf will fall this way or that way, and quantum mechanics will say
> that a "random" subatomic whatever occurred to push the wind this way
> or that, when in actuality it was not random at all: A mal'ach
> (translate that however you like) caused that subatomic whatever to
> occur, in a deterministic manner not unlike larger-scale chemical
> occurences.

Yes, that would be a hard-HP theory, which is what is now almost universally
accepted among frum Jews.  I do subscribe to this, and accordingly there is
no need for multiple universes.   But what I wrote earlier about bechira
doesn't *require* hard HP.  One can subscribe to a multiple-universe
interpretation of QM and still believe in bechira.

-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

R' Zev Sero wrote:

> Yes, that would be a hard-HP theory, which is what is now almost
> universally accepted among frum Jews. I do subscribe to this, and
> accordingly there is no need for multiple universes.  But what I
> wrote earlier about bechira doesn't *require* hard HP.  One can
> subscribe to a multiple-universe interpretation of QM and still
> believe in bechira.

Wow. My mind is blown. I've often thought of the science and sci-fi
implications of the multiple-universe interpretation, but for some reason,
I never thought of it in the light of Bechira. But *now*...

"Multiple universes" means that any time a probabilistic quantum event
occurs, it's not an either/or situation. Rather, both events occur, in
separate universes which split off from each other. According to this,
there is another universe out there where I missed minyan this morning, and
another where I spoke lashon hara this afternoon. Those universes are real
(according to this theory), but I'm not aware of them because they are
separate from our universe. They are very real to their Creator, of course,
and the same G-d will judge me by my choices, and those other "me"s by
their choices.

Okay, let's follow through to the logical conclusion: If so, then there is
also a universe where Adam and Chava succeeded in fighting the nachash, and
resisted temptation, and Creation was fulfilled.

And another universe where we never made an Egel Hazahav.

But I suppose there was also another universe where Moshe Rabenu's tefilos weren't adequate, so Hashem "gave up" on us and started anew with him.

ALL THESE WORLDS (according to the multiple universes interpretation) are
equally real. Or in our context, equally real to Hashem. I can imagine Him
looking down at His multiverse, seeing worlds where things went better, and
worlds where things went differently. And suddenly, "vayinachem Hashem"
(Bereshis 6:6, Shmos 32:14, and elsewhere) has worlds of new meaning.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Old School Yearbook Pics
View Class Yearbooks Online Free. Search by School & Year. Look Now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ebd0cc1777950cb3e97st03vuc

On 02/23/2015 08:14 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> Wow. My mind is blown. I've often thought of the science and sci-fi
> implications of the multiple-universe interpretation, but for some
> reason, I never thought of it in the light of Bechira. But*now*...
>
> "Multiple universes" means that any time a probabilistic quantum
> event occurs, it's not an either/or situation. Rather, both events
> occur, in separate universes which split off from each other.
> According to this, there is another universe out there where I missed
> minyan this morning, and another where I spoke lashon hara this
> afternoon. Those universes are real (according to this theory), but
> I'm not aware of them because they are separate from our universe.
> They are very real to their Creator, of course, and the same G-d will
> judge me by my choices, and those other "me"s by their choices.

Only if these choices are subject to QM.  As I wrote earlier, I see no
reason why they should be; choice is not a physical process, so it needn't
be subject to physical laws.  Thus, if we accept the multiple-universe
interpretation of QM, free-will choices are the only things that *don't*
result in the universe forking.  When you decide to go to minyan (or to
take one route rather than another), no probability wave collapses; you
determine the only reality.

But whether your alarm clock goes off in the morning is a physical process
that is subject to QM.  There is only a 99.9% probability that it will
happen, so according to the multiple-universe interpretation there is one
world in 1000 in which it didn't go off, and thus you missed the minyan
without deciding to do so.   The Copenhagen interpretation would say that
no, there is only one universe, and at the moment you woke up the
probability wave collapsed and the clock went off.  The strong-HP
interpretation would say that Hashem decided that it would go off,
so it did; every once in a while He decides it won't, so it doesn't.


-- 
Zev Sero               I have a right to stand on my own defence, if you
z...@sero.name          intend to commit felony...if a robber meets me in
                        the street and commands me to surrender my purse,
                        I have a right to kill him without asking questions
                                               -- John Adams

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 07:33:12PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: A leaf will fall this way or that way, and quantum mechanics will say
: that a "random" subatomic whatever occurred to push the wind this way or
: that, when in actuality it was not random at all: A mal'ach (translate
: that however you like) caused that subatomic whatever to occur, in a
: deterministic manner not unlike larger-scale chemical occurences.

If you believe in universal hashgachah peratis (HP), that's pretty
much the definition of randomness.

And even though QM cannot describe the outcome of any given measure,
it does accurately provide a probability function that gives the
overall frequency of each outcome.

And even worse, QM shows that until measurement, it is those functions
(actually, a complex function whose magnitudes relate to the proability
density) that actually interact when not looking.

It's not a simple "I don't know", there is stuff there acting in a way
that fits random models.

Unlike human decision-making. Free will is not, AFAIK, constrained
by having to make the law of large numbers work out; that a given
neuron has to fire n% of the time in order to find the Quantum
Model. If it were, it would be less free.

More of that, though, on the other thread.

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 Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 08:31:34PM +0000, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
: I can't help but wonder if this is the greatest miracle of all. Indeed,
perhaps it is the ONLY real miracle, now that quantum mechanics has
allowed G-d to split the sea without violating nature.

As I just wrote, human decision-making isn't likely to conform to the
kind of constraints QM places on its random outcomes. If it were, it would
be less free.

I do not know
how metaphysics and physics interact, how brains, minds and souls relate,
to say that choice is definitely not a physical process. After all,
a falling rock is a physical process, but there is metaphysics driving
that proces s too. Perhaps choice is the same way -- fully physical
while also being fully metaphysical.

But in any case, since choice is something other than randomness,
I would place free will outside of QM.

BTW, before Newton, we were in the same place we are after QM, and even
more so.

In Aristo's Physics, all action begins with an intellect imparting
impetus to an object, which is then in motion until the impetus runs out,
or more impetus is added.

The Ralbag, in a statement too extremely Aristotilian to find even
in the Rambam, says that all miracles are of this sort -- Hashem (via
the Active Intellect) causing just the right impetus at just the right
time. That actions that seem out of nowhere are possible, but He would
never perform a miracle that requires changing the nature of objects. See
his commentary on "shemesh beGiv'on dom".

You seem to be saying the same of QM, but since QM is statistical, a
really long shot violation of conservation is possible -- if really
rare. But again, we would still have to fit the probability function.

I am more comfortable saying that nissim can even violate the statistics,
that they aren't corner cases of the usual chi-wave evolution.

BTW, QM isn't really random if you look at wave functions. It's "just
that objects as we see them are not ontologically primitive; they are
products of the evolution of wave functions -- which can be calculated
precisely -- and measurement.

: In my previous post, I mentioned the physical world and the metaphysical
: world. I wonder if our Bechira Chofshis is even more removed that that. I
: think it is truly Godly.

As for being truly G-dly -- you mean "betzalmeinu kidmuseinu", perhaps?

According to the Aristotilians, metaphysics is composed of intellects.
(See Rambam YhT 1:1 and the middle of pereq 2.) What you're dicussing is
what they see as metaphysics itself.

Including the Borei, who is also beyond (a/k/a "meta") physics.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter


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



_______________________________________________
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.)