Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 76

Tue, 06 Jun 2017

• 1. Maharat (Isaac Balbin)
• 2. Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 4. Re: Better to die (Ben Bradley)
• 5. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 6. Re: Maharat (Lisa Liel)
• 7. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: MaPoles, Chamets, YiUsh (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Explanation of the Tur? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Kosher Dish Soap and Body Soap (Micha Berger)

I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his
students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the
aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was
a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter,
the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat,
is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is
'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin
and relay the answer.

We have fine female educators like Shani Taragin etc and we have Yoatzot
Halacha as above. I consider this ordination movement as a Western
valued and inspired institution. Indeed, these days I know Shules look
for husband *and* wife teams. The Rebbetzin occupies an increasingly
important place. This is most certainly also true of successful Chabad
Houses, and here I speak of people like Rivki Holtzberg hy'd whom I knew
well personally and I watched as the women gathered around her and the
men around her husband. This is the mimetic tradition not withstanding
exceptions. That, I believe is the thrust of the OU proclamation and
it is dead on the money. Judaism certainly adapts but it is not the
plasticine for Western values and aspirations.

Even at a funeral, where one expects little hope for Yetzer Hora, the
Halacha mandates the Shura to be separate for males and females. This
category of notion underpins our Mesora and always did; right back to
the days when our tents were arranged with Tzniyus in mind.

can anyone explain and
show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim
to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from
non-Kosher fat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170607/11bac827/attachment-0001.htm>

regarding Chamets buried under a collapsed building
where we remain the owner - we intend to salvage it after Pesach
but are not transgressing BY and BY
without needing to make Bittul

I explained that Halachic ownership
is determined by ones perception of control
and explained this is the reason that YiUsh means one is no longer an owner

for example
you forget your wallet
holding your ID and some money
in a restaurant
even though you go back in the HOPE of finding it
or are HOPING an honest person will return it
this is nevertheless YiUsh
you no longer believe you are in control

although RaMBaM encourages that the finder return it
Halachically the finder is entitled to tell you
Once upon a time this was yours - but you were MeYaEsh
so it is no longer yours
and I picked it up AFTER you were already MeYaEsh

This is the foundation for the Pesak of R Y E Spektor
that money lost by a woman at a trade fair
MUST be returned
because there was NO YiUsh

the money had been found and taken to the local Rav
it matched perfectly the description given by the woman who lost it
but the finder insisted he wants to keep the money
unless he is obliged to return it

even though the woman had Simanim Muvhakim
there was no doubt the money found was the money she lost
she was certainly MeYaEsh
she is not the owner

Reb Y E Spektor
Paskened that there was no YiUsh
her husband is the owner
and he, sitting many miles away
was unaware of the loss of the money
so there was no YiUsh


R Micha argues that this is not correct
he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control
then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs
i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost
so there is no YiUsh
however if they would know it is lost
they would be MeYaEsh

I would suggest that there is no problem
the Machlokes is simply a dispute about
ACTUAL belief one is in control versus
POTENTIAL  belief one is in control

for example
walking behind a fellow Yid
you notice a diamond fall off his ring
he would be unaware of his loss

if we say YiUsh requires DaAs
then there is no YiUsh yet
you would have to wait until you see the fellow stop
and look around for something
then you can take your foot off the diamond
and take it home
[BTW is such a person a Rasha? or worse, not a Mentsch?]

If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs
then you can take the diamond straight away
because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170607/30952992/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 08:50:08PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: The gemara says that this smitten man must not even even have a
: conversation through a partition with the object of his desire on pain of
: YaVY...

Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because
there is no actual issur la'avor.

I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on pain
of yeihareig?  Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where there's
an issur involved? That's why I'm suggesting that since it's on pain of
yeihareig then we know there must an issur la'avor so the point of the
sugya is to work out what that is.
The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below.

:                                              Since when is conversation
: hana'as issur arayos. The answer, which is surprising to us but causes
: the gemara no problem is that , even sexual hana'a from a conversation
: carries the din YvAY.

I meant that as more than a quibble. Gilui arayos is an issur that
trumps personal survival. But here it's not a matter of encountering
a greater issur. It's not even hana's issur arayos, it's hana'ah from
hirhurim.

From hirhurim?	Chazal were gozer yeihareig on hirhurei aveira? If that
were true we'd find the same din in a lot of other places. Which is why is
seems to me we must be dealing with something else here.

And much the same territory as your description of the 2nd MdA:
: That's the first man d'amar. The second MdA , that we mean even a penuya,
: causes the gemara problems because there's apparently no problem of
: hana'a from a penuya, or at least certainly not involving YvAY and
: certainly not from a conversation. So mai kulei hai?
:
: The chiddush here is that we're even gozer YvAY on hana'a from a penuya
: due to societal considerations of bnos yisrael not being hefker etc.

It's the same issur in Hilkhos De'os either way. The guy is doing nothing
assur on the arayos level; it's entirely abotu whether or not we feed the
downward character spiral.

Me'heicha teisi that we're dealing with Hilkhos De'os here? Where do you find a din of yeihareig in Hilchos De'os?
Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context
of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must
be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as issur
or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does.
Your partially stated assumption is that this din in both man d'amrim is d'rabanan. Rambam strongly implies otherwise.

Kol tuv

Ben


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170606/04038a24/attachment-0001.htm>

R. Micha wrote:
"In any case, I do not think semichah is required for hora'ah in every
situation. Semichah today is recieving reshus to pasqen, which is
unnecessary if one's rebbe passed away or is otherwise unreachable.
And in practice, it's an easy way for someone to know that someone
else assessed R Ploni and is willing to put his name on approving
R Ploni answering questions.

(The Rabbanut semichah test system does not fit this model. I believe
this raises problems with the system, not pointing to a floaw in the
model.)

This is a tangent from the original question. Regardless of whether or
not one needs semichah to be a poseiq, can one give a woman a "heter
hora'ah lerabbim" -- as the big print in the Maharat semichah reads --
or is hora'ah simply not something she can do with out without her
rebbe's license?"

me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all those
opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to clarify precisely
the meaning of the words they are using.  They are hiding behind
ambiguity.  if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then saying that women
cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do hora'ah.  AND, you cant
use the model of semicha to prohibit women from hora'ah, becuase in the
Venn diagram of the topic, there is hora'ah outside the lines of semicha.
So R. Micha et al need to provide some other basis for their issur of
hora'ah, AND, address all those who write that a woman can provide
hora'ah.  AND, address the quote from R. Penner that the semicha for REITS
graduates is not one to pasken(or perhaps even to give hora'ah).  AND,
address why(rather than simply say) the Rabbanut semichah test system,
perhaps the most popular semicha in Orthodoxy, does not undermine his
entire thesis.  One can give a woman 'heter hora'ah l'rabbim' because
there has not been a cogent argument presented not to do so, and  there are
many poskim who write that a woman can give hora'ah.  The argument
regarding 'what would HKBH' want is interesting.  Does he want us to
restrict women from doing things just so that we can say there are
differences between men and women? Or, did He establish Halakha to help us
sort out those that He wants, rather than ancient ones that and are
gradually being re-evaluated, similar to how we have gradually moved away
from embracing slavery, polygamy(in the vast majority of instances),
restrictions on the deaf/dumb, the devaluation of women(see Mishna in
Horiyyot 'men's lives are saved prior to women....),  the idea that a
women's wisdom is only with the spindle, one who teaches his daughter Torah
has taught her tiflut, etc.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170606/e334b75e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 6/6/2017 7:19 PM, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
> me- this response shows why it is very necessary for R. Micha and all 
> those opposing ordination for women(or leadership for women) to 
> clarify precisely the meaning of the words they are using.  They are 
> hiding behind ambiguity.  if semicha is not required for hora'ah, then 
> saying that women cant have semicha doesn't imply that women can't do 
> hora'ah.

Are you suggesting that the burden of proof is on those *opposed* to a 
radical change in Jewish practice?

Lisa


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

(And also some "Re: [Avodah] L'sheim shmayim".)

On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 10:48am CDT, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
: R. Micha- please define Semicha as you understand it, or at least as you
: understand the OU panel as defining it.  Otherwise you are just using a
: nebulous term and claiming that it has meaning.

To me, "semichah" is a secondary concept. My focus was to assert whose
halachic decision-making can qualify as hora'ah. That question involves
semichah in the discussion.

We were discussing the Rama YD 242:14. The Mechaber writes in strong
terms that a higi'ah lehora'ah is obligated to actually provide
hora'ah. The Rama there adds that this is only if there is no barrier
of kevod harav -- his rebbe passed away, gave him semichah, is a
rebbe-chaver, or the like.

He doesn't make semichah a definition of magi'ah lehora'ah, but only a
removal of a barrier, a necessary condition in the usual circumstances.
Not a defining feature.

If we look at the Rama in se'ifim 5-6, he tells you he is basing himself
on the Mahariq (113.3, 117 [and the OU panel adds, cf 169). The Mahariq's
position is based on assuming that what was true for classical semichah
is still true for modern day semichah.

The Rambam (Sanhedrin 4:8) agrees with that comparison -- he derives
the need today for netilas reshus from Mosaic semichah.

IOW, who needs reshus for hora'ah? Someone who is magi'ah lehora'ah
and has kevoad harav issues in giving hora'ah without one. A magi'ah
lehora'ah can only be someone eligable to sit on a BD of [Mosaic]
musmachim (or according to the Rambam, other mumchim). Not because
"rabbi" is defined by "has semichah", but because "yoreh yoreh" or
Yesivat Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim" declares someone to be a
hegi'ah lehorah.

I find the OU's argument compelling, fits the words of R/Prof SL's letter
and is probably his intent, and how I understood the sugyah in general
before the notion of an O woman as rabbi became a topic people would
seriously discuss.

I am interested to know if you asked R/D Novak which one of us understood
his intent. Did he mean to explain R/Prof SL's position or explain why
he differs with it in ways that makes Yeshivat Maharat an option?

Agreed that few rabbis pasqen, and that we could have female clergy
that avoid this first issue that I have even if a Maharat's semichah
read "Rabbah uManhigah" instead of "heter hora'ah lerabbim".

: The history of semicha is clear that there is no direct relationship
: between modern semicha(which more accurately should be termed neo-semichah
: to make it clear) and ancient semichah(for example, see here:
: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedia
: s-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/semikhah
...
: So essentially you are taking a category of (disputed) restrictions that
: apply to beit din.  That type of beit din(kenasot) doesn't exist...

And yet the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama all think that
one continues enough of the other that we can draw conclusions across
that bridge.

It's not me doing the category taking, it's the Rambam and the SA. What
greater authorities do you need?

While on the topic of magi'ah lehorah...
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 11:24am GMT, Isaac Balbin wrote:
: I am told that on the back of R' Moshe's Smicha testamur for his
: students was his phone number, and that he was heard to say that the
: aim of his Smicha was that those who received it knew when there was
: a Shayla and would ring him. The former I heard from Rav Schachter,
: the latter from his Talmidim. My cousin, a Yoetzet Halacha from Nishmat,
: is most definitely not a feminist and advises women on what she knows is
: 'blatant' Halacha and for anything else would ask Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin
: and relay the answer.

There is a difference. Hopefully, someone who get "Yoreh Yoreh" is first
magi'ah lehora'ah. But that's a sliding scale. They could get reshus to
pasqn because there are less weighty or less involved questions they
can and should be answering, while still being aware when they are in
over their heads and should call RMF.

Whereas the impression I got from RYHH's posts here on Avodah is that a
Yo'etzet isn't supposed to ever be giving pesaq; only answering questions
that the community has definite answers for -- reporting halakhah pesuqah.


But then there's the second and third issues....

2- How do we know shul is no supposed to be a men's club? Men's clubs work,
or at least the Rotary and the Masons have for centuries. Movements that
went egalitarian now have issues getting male participation in shul;
this is a big topic in Federation of Jewish Men's Clubs (C umbrella
organization) discussion.

And more fundamentally, how do we know that this social dynamic was
not Anshei Keneses haGdolah's intent? I would assume indeed it was.

This would rule out having a woman for much of the congretational role
of rabbi.

3- Halakhah is inherently non-egalitarian:
a- Importing an external value over those implied internally.

And more functionally, we are telling women that indeed, the traditionally
male role is the better path to holiness -- let us help you run at that
glass ceiling.

b- This is bound to lead to greater frustration as soon as LWMO has gone
   as far as it could up to that halachic limit.
and
c- It is making a claim that is false. One is sacrificing Judaism's model
   of equal worth despite hevdel for the sake of egalitarianism and
   erasing havdalah.

The last being more of a perceptual issue. And this may explain why
you can get a bit further not using the word "rabbi". It's not merely a
word game, there is an issue at stake; are we trying to be egalitarian,
or to accept a system in which kohanim not only defy egalitarianism,
but apparently start out holier than I am.

Here might be a good place to detour and reply to RBW.
On Sun, Jun 04, 2017 at 7:51am IST, Ben Waxman wrote:
: For decades, the DL community has said to the Chareidi community
: that the latter can't cut out the former because of issues like
: Zionism or secular learning, issues which many in the Chareidi
: community consider to be kefira.

Let's be honest, if pushed, they would admit that they mean "'kefirah'"
(in quotes), not "kefirah". E.g. were they worrying about whether DL
Jews handled their wine before bishul? Of course not!

:                                  If so, than kal v'chomer many of
: the issues dividing some of American Orthodox communities. There are
: some real issues, no doubt about it. But I don't see the point in
: getting hung up on multiple non-issues.

There are two possible sources of division here.

1- A large change to the experience of observance, even if we were
only talking about trappings, will hit emotional opposition. My
predition is that shuls that vary that experience too far simply
de facto won't be visited by the vast majority of non-innovators,
and therefore in practice will be a separate community.

Comfort zone isn't only a psychological issue. it nostalgia, mimetic
tradition, Toras imekha or minhag Yisrael sabba, communal continuity is
a big issue.

2- The ideological problem isn't in the bottom-level issues but in
how they highlighted the loss of common language. The opposition
to these changes are talking about Mesorah, values, etc... and the
proponents just see the issue as "if it's halachically allowed, why
are you giving us a hard time?"

This lack of common language, more specifically, the lack of a notion of
metahalakhah* is disconcerting. So to my mind the schism-level battle
isn't over ordaining women, Partnership Minyanim, or whether Document
Hypothesis is a viable option without O as much as these decisions are
apparently being made by a different set of rules.

And that could quite validly be a schismatic level issue.

(* In this sense of the "word" "metahalakhah". We on Avodah have also
used "metahalakha" to refer to the halachos of making halakhos, even
when the rules are more black-letter. Such as discussions of when we
say halakhah kebasrai, or whether there is acharei rabbim lehatos in
this post-Sanhedrin era.)

Back to R/Dr Noam Stadlan...

I believe in a role for women in the clergy that isn't that of
poseiq, part of minyan, nor claiming to be egalitarian. The OU thinks
that categorizing the resulting role set as "clergy" is itself too
egalitarian. Again, I see that as a perceptual issue. But they too end
calling for finding more venues for women to contribute communally and
to be visible role models.

(An Areivim-esque tangent: It would be interesting to see if the OU acts
on these closing remarks as rapidly as they did about the 4 member shuls
that already have Maharatos.)

But then, the only difference between the position now taken by Aish
or Chabad kiruv today and the actual permission granted in the driving
responsum is perception as well. In terms of dry facts, both were
premitting causing the non-observant to drive on Shabbos rather than
let them remain disconnected. They only differed in how they let the
person perceive his own driving. And yet one was a major part of a
broad collapse of observance, and the other is apparently increasing
observance. Presentation and perception matter.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:23:51AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: R Micha argues that this is not correct
: he suggests that if ownership hinges upon ones belief they are in control
: then it is impossible to make sense of the Machlokes re YiUsh MiDaAs
: i.e. someone loses something but is unaware it is lost
: so there is no YiUsh
: however if they would know it is lost
: they would be MeYaEsh

Rather, I was saying ownership hinges on responsibility, which I suggested
was both a consequence of and license for having actual control.

: I would suggest that there is no problem
: the Machlokes is simply a dispute about
: ACTUAL belief one is in control versus
: POTENTIAL  belief one is in control

It would help if you can find a case where
somone has potential of believing they control an item for reasons other
than having actual control, and has the din of ba'al,
OR
someone has potential to believe they lost control of an item for
reasons other than actually losing control, and does not have ba'alus.

Yi'ush is giving up on finding it again, not knowledge of loss of control,
real or potential. Let me use your example to explain how I see it:

: for example
: walking behind a fellow Yid
: you notice a diamond fall off his ring
: he would be unaware of his loss
...
: If we hold YiUsh does NOT require ACTUAL DaAs
: then you can take the diamond straight away
: because we know he WILL be MeYaEsh as soon as he discovers his loss

But this is a case where he loses actual control. The yi'ush shelo
mida'as is more of an expectation not to regain it.


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 Thu, May 18, 2017 at 09:53:30PM +0100, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
: However, in describing what is permitted to teach women in Shut HaMaharil
: Siman 199, the Maharil writes:
...
:> And to teach women even though they need to fulfil all the positive
:> commandments and negatives also that are not time bound, in any event, we
:> should not teach her since it is like teaching her tiflut ...

:> And if in order that they should know to fulfil the mitzvot it is possible
:> to teach them according to the tradition the sources and the general rules
:> and when they are in doubt they should ask to a teacher, just like we see in
:> our generation that many are experts in many laws such as salting and
:> hadacha and nikur and the halachot of nidah and similar to this, all is by
:> way of tradition from outside,

I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi
haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual
sources, like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah"
in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather
than knowledge of abstract ideas.

However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil
haChadashos 45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. There
I ass more promise. he quotes the Rambam (which you already discussed)
and the Sema"q's haqdamah (from near the end). There the Maharil talks
about oseiq beTorah as in kol ha'oseiq beparashas olah kei'lu hiqrivu
qorban, and that this should apply even to mitzvos in which they are
NOT obligated (like qorbanos). Is this exclusively TSBK? It might; the
Maharil talks about men saying birkhos haTorah before reading pesuqim
they do not understand. Ayin sham.

: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling in
: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21  writes about what used to happen in previous
: generations:

:> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us when
:> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the fathers
:> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers went and like
:> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this it was possible
:> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their practice on their
:> upright fathers.

Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion.
Which the Maharil you cited appears to be doing as well. I place more
hope on the second Maharil.

Which is why I disagree with:
: But hold on a second.  Isn't what the Chofetz Chaim is describing as the
: ideal in past times, and the Maharil describing as the correct way to teach
: women, in fact the classic definition of Torah Sheba'al peh, as it was
: taught prior to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi writing down the Torah sheba'al peh in
: the form of the Mishna?...

Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing
rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one.
I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only
when you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to
have an example to imitate.

(Tosafos believe Rabbe compiled the mishnah; writing down didn't happen
for centuries. So what the mishnah was to the amora'im was an official
text to memorize and repeat. As in "tani tana qamei deR' ..." Not that
it really touches on our discussion.)

: So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what
: the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women
: to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al
" peh...

True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather
than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she
noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She
may ask why, etc... but it's not an "education" setting.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is our choices...that show what we truly are,
mi...@aishdas.org        far more than our abilities.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - J. K. Rowling
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:26:41AM +1000, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: can anyone explain and
: show some Halachic source from the Gemara and Rishonim
: to explain why it might be preferable to avoid using soap made from
: non-Kosher fat

"Preferable"? Because we make a point of using dish soap that is ra'ui
la'akhilah. So, using a treif one means taking a position on akhshevei.

I believe the OU knows they are just pandering to the market when they
give such a heksher, though, and don't lehalakhah require it. (But you
did say "preferable", and avoiding even a shitah dechuyah could be deemed
preferable.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)