Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 206

Wed, 21 Oct 2009

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 16:07:24 -0700
Subject:
[Avodah] lemech


http://daat.co.il/daat/kitveyet/maaliyot/asara-2.htm

in re  rTK's  2  lemech lines  question,  i have nothing to add, but this 
article  does discuss the  parallel  names  in the parallel lines  of kain 
and shet , and analyzes ages , etc 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091019/234e800a/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 02:40:59 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] so is she married?


R' Saul Newman posted this link to a video:
http://achaslmaala.blogspot.com/2009/10/nefesh-keshura-bne
fesh-proposal-did-her.html

The video shows a young Jewish man and woman, who obviously know each
other. He says some romantic things to her in the presence of many others,
takes a ring out and presents it to her with the question, "Will you marry
me?" She gratefully accepts.

To this, RSN asks (in the title to this thread), "So, is she married?"

My guess is that RSN is worried about the ideas reported on that linked page:

> are they merely engaged? I am not so sure. He asked her to
> marry her in front of a lot of witnesses, some of whom are
> Mitzva observant adult men. She accepted in front of all
> those witnesses and he put a valuable ring on her finger
> in front of all those witnesses (and captured on video).
> Could it be that this constitutes a Halachic betrothal
> (erussin) and she is actually already mekudeshet and an
> eishet ish?

I don't know a lot about Hilchos Kiddushin, but I am somewhat familiar with the American practice of getting engaged.

I know that the poskim have teshuvos about when foolish teenagers pretend
to get married. But this was not a pretend marriage. It was a genuine
engagement. I am incredulous that anyone could confuse the two. It is my
respectful opinion that anyone who thinks that the woman in that video
might be mekudeshes does not adequately understand the circumstances.

I do recall some gemaras which point out that the formula "Haray at
mekudeshes lee" is not required; all we need is for the situation to be one
in which it is clear that she understands that she is marrying the guy who
is giving her this gift. But that is NOT WHAT HAPPENED here! She agreed to
become ENGAGED to him, that's all!

The Wikipedia article titled "Proposal of marriage" states: The proposal of
marriage is an event where one person in a relationship asks for the
other's hand in marriage. If accepted, it marks the initiation of
engagement. It often has a ritual quality, sometimes involving the
presentation of an engagement ring and a formalized asking of a question
such as "Will you marry me?".

Those are the exact words he used in that video when proposing to her.

There may be some people who will cite concepts such as "dvarim shebalev
ainam dvarim", to say that we can judge the situation only by what actually
happened and was actually said, and that we cannot presume what the people
had in mind.

To those people, I respond that "what actually happened" was the standard
procedure for a "proposal of marriage", and was not similar in any way to
any sort of actual marriage in this time and place. And "what was actually
said" was "WILL you marry me", not "DO you marry me" or "PLEASE marry me"
or "You HEREBY marry me."

Anyone who thinks this was an actual marriage is confusing this time and place with some other time and place.

UNLESS... Is it possible that local practices are irrelevant to these
halachos? Like I said, I have not learned these halachos in depth. If I'm
wrong, I'd love to be corrected.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Are you an Iron Chef?
Get info for hospitality, catering, pastry. Over 100  programs.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=5rxIVx_tT9gjf1uSs7fwCAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAPYoXD4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYAMAAAAAA=




Go to top.

Message: 3
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:18:38 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] minhag simchat tora




In Avodah V26#203, RSZN wrote:
> in many machzors, including
artscroll's , the have  a few  piyutim  before mussaf---sisu vsimchu,  the
avos kept  simchas tora, etc
> i havent seen these sung [anyone know  the nussach]  . i wonder how
prevalent  it is to actually do them..... <
and RRW replied:
> Yekkes AFAIK sing them.... <
They are sung (and danced [by the SHaTZ and two members of the Synagogue
Committee, a/k/a/ gabboim]!) at KAJ/"Breuer's" (or, at least, were when I
was growing up there), and the "nusach" is as outlined by RDS in Avodah
V26#205.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091019/1c7143bd/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 18:48:15 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin


On Sun, 2009-10-18 at 18:36 +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Has anyone ever asked why regarding the sin of the eitz hadaas,
> > the punishments meted out to Chava and Adam were transmitted to all
> > of mankind, whereas, when Kayin murdered Hevel, only he was punished.
> > It seem strange that the sin of the eitz hadaas had much more encompassing
> > consequences for all of mankind, but the consequence for murder was
> > restricted just to the perpetrator.
> 
> To me they look the same
> 
> The punishments are visited to the corresponding descendants in both
> cases! Anyway - How would it look otherwise?

The punishments are not visited to the decendents in Kayin's case. Kayin
built cities for his children (and named them after his children)
because his children weren't wanderers.

--Ken



Go to top.

Message: 5
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:16:19 EDT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question




 
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
>>Has  anyone ever asked why regarding the sin of the
eitz hadaas, the punishments  meted out to Chava and
Adam were transmitted to all of mankind,  whereas,
when Kayin murdered Hevel, only he was punished.
It seem strange  that the sin of the eitz hadaas had much
more encompassing consequences for  all of mankind,
but the consequence for murder was restricted just to
the  perpetrator.<<

 
 
 
>>>>>
We are all descendants of Adam and Chava, but the male line of Kayin  was 
completely wiped out in the Flood -- probably in at least partial payment  
for his sin of murder (which they perpetuated).





--Toby  Katz
==========



_____________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/1cbce665/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:18:06 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] so is she married?


On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 02:40:59AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: I don't know a lot about Hilchos Kiddushin, but I am somewhat familiar
: with the American practice of getting engaged.

: I know that the poskim have teshuvos about when foolish teenagers
: pretend to get married. But this was not a pretend marriage. It was
: a genuine engagement. I am incredulous that anyone could confuse the
: two....

There are poseqim who advise the boy to propose in a place where there
are no eidim so that if ch"v the engagement needs to be broken, she
won't need a get.

See
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=E#ERUSIN
MURESET%20FROM%20AREIVIM
RARakeffetR was chosheish for the problem of an engagement proposal accidentally
being a wedding in one of his recorded shiurim,

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's never too late
mi...@aishdas.org        to become the person
http://www.aishdas.org   you might have been.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      - George Elliot



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: Cantor Wolberg <cantorwolb...@cox.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:48:04 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin


> Zev Sero wrote:
>
> Adam and Chava's punishment changed their nature and the whole
> world's nature.  As their genetic descendants, we naturally inherit
> those changes, just as the descendants of someone who undergoes any
> mutation, for any reason, inherit it.  Kayin's punishment was to  
> wander,
> and after seven generations to be killed; what exactly is it that you
> expect us to have inherited from him?
> You missed the whole point. I'm not speaking about genetics. Everyone
> inherits genes. I'm speaking of the punishment specifically given to  
> them
> for which woman was made to suffer childbirth pain and man was made to
> have to labor by the sweat of his brow. That's not genetics. That  
> was the
> penalty that was given by God for the sin of Chava and Adam. You  
> used the
> word "inherited." This was not an inherited trait; it was  
> punishment. I don't
> expect us to have "inherited" anything from Kayin. My question is  
> why God
> didn't give some type of punishment (which could have been anything)  
> for
> which we all could have suffered as we did with the Eitz hadaas.
>
> My own answer to the question incidentally, is that Adam and Chava  
> were
> commanded by God not to eat of the fruit. Therefore, their  
> punishment was
> a direct disobedience and defiance of God Himself. In Kayin's case,  
> no formal
> commandment had yet been given by God not to murder. Hence, his  
> punishment
> was personal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/cb643ece/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:07:39 -0400
Subject:
[Avodah] Not Eating From the Etz Ha Das - A Classic Example


RSRH writes the following in his commentary about 
the commandment of not eating from the Etz Ha 
Das. I have bolded the last paragraph. YL

Bereishis 2

16 And God commanded man [saying]: From every 
tree of the garden you may indeed eat;

17 But from the tree of knowledge of what is good 
and what is evil you shall not eat, for on the 
day you eat from it, you must die.

The command set forth in verses 16 and 17 begins man?s training for
his moral calling. It begins human history, and it shows all future generations
the path in which they are to walk. It is a prohibition, and it
is not a Mitzva Sichlius, a rational prohibition. 
On the contrary, all the perceptive
faculties given to man ? taste, imagination, and intellect ?
oppose this prohibition. Man, with his own intellect, would never have
decreed upon himself such a prohibition. What is more: even after the
prohibition was given to him, he could find no reason for it ? other
than the absolute Will of God.

This prohibition, then, is a classic example of a Chok. Moreover, it is
a dietary prohibition, and those who were bound by it received it as an
oral tradition. It was communicated to Adam, yet Chavah and her descendants
were commanded to obey it. This command, then, is a Mitzvah lo Sa'asah,
  a Chok, it prohibits Micholos Isooros, and it 
was transmitted as Torah Sh'baal Peh.
Thus, all the aspects of the future Torah of Israel at which the
Yetzer Harah (our sensual nature) and the Oomos Haolam (the non-Jewish world)
have always taken umbrage are contained in this command, with which
God began man?s development.

And this command was given la daas tov va rah: Through this command
it will become known and revealed what is good for man, so that he
should choose it, and what is bad for man, so that he should reject it.
The subordination of our nature to God?s Will is a basic condition
for all morality, a condition that is inseparable from man?s moral calling.
Moral freedom is the foundation of man?s higher dignity, and there can
be no moral freedom without the ability to sin. Yet man cannot sin
unless his senses are attracted to evil and repelled by goodness. Otherwise,
man, too, when choosing the good and shunning evil, would be
acting only according to instinct, and he would cease to be man. Man?s
mastery over the urges of his senses, the subordination of his nature to
the Will of God ? that is the whole eminence of man and the foundation
of his whole education. The Educator of mankind laid down in
His first command the first principle of education.

Things have not changed, and the same applies today: We all stand
before the tree of knowledge, as did Adam and Chavah in their day.
Faced with the demands of God?s moral law, we have to decide whether
to obey bodily sensuality, the imagination of the sensual mind, the
wisdom of instinctive animal life, or to be mindful of our higher calling
and to obey the voice of God. Today, too, we do not hear God?s voice
directly, but rely on an oral tradition, just as the first command was
given to man as a tradition to be transmitted orally.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/e5034e83/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:18:50 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] two Lemech's


RnTK noted on Sun Oct 18 9:07pm EST:
>  noticed a curious thing in the parsha yesterday, something that had
>  never struck me before:
>  Noach's father and father-in-law both had the same name --  Lemech!  
...
> Anyway, I wonder if anyone else here ever noticed that Noach's father
> and father-in-law were both Lemech's? and whether the name has any
> significance, or whether the two Lemech's had some [cosmic] relationship?

Perhaps this is address in a CC post from our new chaveir RYA, one that
I'm sure would make R' Prof YLevine happy. See
<http://www.cross-currents.com/archives/2009/10/20/abandoning-the-masses
>.
He opens:
> I often find the thoughts of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch utterly
> exhilarating in their relevance a century and a half after they were
> written. (Biased I am. During the great controversy around the
> bicentennial of his birth, I spelled out my belief that his writings
> were some of the most useful to contemporary thinking Jews.)

> Several passages in parshas Bereishis always excite me. In one of them,
> RSRH detects not only meaning in the names in the geneologies of both
> Kayin and Shais, but treats them as a pattern that governs the pendulum
> swing of societies. That pattern invites comparison with our own times.

It would seem that the two aspects of the "pendulum" were in extreme
sync by Lemech's day. Which would make sense, since their children were
a zivug, and mark the end of that whole era.

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



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:03:26 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Water bottle in the desert



In Avodah V26#204, RJIR asked:
> But what if shimon takes the water bottle with a claim that reuvain owes
him money and let bet din decide. <
I may be totally off-base and in left field (hmmm, any other baseball
metaphors? :)), but I would say Shim'on's rationale is irrelevant -- he's a
thief, and he has been qoneh the bottle.

> Does reuvain have the right to kill shimon if that's the only way to get
the water back? what if shimon has no claim other than he wants to live? <
Perhaps R'uvein's dilemma depends on whether "haba bamachteres" applies
even after the thief has stolen from the property owner?

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/fabad8ed/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Gershon Dubin" <gershon.du...@juno.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:10:26 GMT
Subject:
[Avodah] Quoting Terminology


Does someone have a rule or rules when a tefila quotes a pasuk, when it
uses "kakosuv" , "shene'emar" and the real puzzler, "kemo shekasvta aleinu
besorasecha"?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com
____________________________________________________________
House Rescue Bill Passed
$133,000 mortgage under $679/mo. Compare rates and save!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=Pyo4vwlnQzKWacPHmm2megAAJ
1BiYjhMSt0qMJcLz_08tNkJAAQAAAAFAAAAAGgvTT8AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaTcQAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/77425f84/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:07:32 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question Sin of Adam vs. Kayin


Cantor Wolberg wrote:

>> You missed the whole point. I'm not speaking about genetics. Everyone
>> inherits genes. I'm speaking of the punishment specifically given to them
>> for which woman was made to suffer childbirth pain and man was made to
>> have to labor by the sweat of his brow. That's not genetics.

Painful childbirth certainly is genetics.  As for having to grow our
food rather than the whole world being a tropical paradise where we
can just pick it off the trees, that's a function of our no longer
living in Gan Eden.  No, it's not genetic, but nor is it a punishment,
any more than, when an illegal immigrant is deported back to Mexico,
and as a result his future children are born there rather than here,
they can be said to have been "punished".  We are citizens of this
world, because our ancestors were deported here.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:12:21 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] two Lemech's


Micha Berger wrote:

> It would seem that the two aspects of the "pendulum" were in extreme
> sync by Lemech's day. Which would make sense, since their children were
> a zivug, and mark the end of that whole era.

Except that the two Lemechs were not really contemporaries!  The first
Lemech was already a father when he killed Kayin in 130, while the
second Lemech wasn't born until 944.  So their shared name can't be
attributed to any global phenomenon.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher



Go to top.

Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:56:01 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Question


On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:16:19AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: We are all descendants of Adam and Chava, but the male line of Kayin  was 
: completely wiped out in the Flood -- probably in at least partial payment  
: for his sin of murder (which they perpetuated).

But, as already noted, we don't find the subsequent generations that
Qayin did produce suffering for his curse. And lehefech -- while he was
"na vanad", his offpring invented the concept of city.

To enlarge the question... In general, which kinds of aveiros carry
effects that are inherited? Apparently Cham's aveirah warranted a
long-term qelalah. (Unless someone says Noach erred...) And lehefech, WRT
qedushah: Levi's lack of participation in the eigel indicated something
positive that carries through ledoros. The Avos. Aaron. Etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A person lives with himself for seventy years,
mi...@aishdas.org        and after it is all over, he still does not
http://www.aishdas.org   know himself.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter



Go to top.

Message: 15
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:04:20 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Mei Marom


On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:41:52AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> Tshuvah Me'Ahavah...

: Which part - that the baal tshuva will be purged or that he will enjoy it?

Personally, I find the former a HUGE chiddush. Here Reish Laqish says
that they are not only erased, they are turned into zekhuyos. So why,
even if we don't take Reish Laqish's opinion, would we conclude that the
person requires any further repair in olam haba? How does RYMC define
"nehepach" in Reish Laqish's statement?

Does teshuvah not heal "illness" as R' Yonah puts it (ST 4:1) whose
symptoms are what we call "oneshim"?

Second, less acute but still real: The Ikkarim (4:33) defines the onesh
of gehenom as being the accute bushah of "standing" in the olam ha'emes,
before HQBH, and facing ones own failings with nothing to hide behind,
no room for comforting excuses, etc...

In order for it to be possible for someone to enjoy gehenom-dik
punishment, one has to reject the Ikkarim's position.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha



Go to top.

Message: 16
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:12:44 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] (no subject)


On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 7:50pm EDT, R Yitzchok Levine quoted the new
RSRH chumash, Bereishis 2:
: What is it that sets man apart from the animal? The living individuality
: of the animal depends on earthly matter; like its body, so its soul,
: too, was taken from the earth. Not so man. In the creation of man,
: only the inert material was taken from the earth; only when God breathed
: into him the breath of life did he become a living individual. Herein lies
: the nobility and immortality of man, and this is the whole source of his
: freedom. That which gives the animal its individuality emanates from
: the earth and must eventually return to the earth. Not so that which
: makes man a ?living personality.? Man?s preeminence over the animal
: is not only in his spirit, but also in his vitality. His vitality is linked 
: not : to his body, but to his spirit...

This is leshitaso WRT his explanation of "lo sevasheil gedi".

In an animal, the creative force and the animalistic drives are one. The
milk, its production, is one with its meat. People, however, have the
power to have a distinct creative act. To consciously choose to engage
in creation and what to create. Not just as a reflex to animal need.
Therefore, we are commanded to separate meat and milk.

This is why the meat is called "gedi", which as we see from the name
"Gad" refers to essential force, in contrast to "chaleiv imo", drawing
our attention to milk as an aspect of production and procreation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507



Go to top.

Message: 17
From: Michael Poppers <MPopp...@kayescholer.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:58:06 -0400
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] What is it that sets man apart from the animal?



In Avodah V26#204, RDrYL quoted from RSRH:
> A plant?s
existence depends on the earth ? below. An animal?s life depends on
its heart ? the center. A man?s life depends on his head ? the crown;
his life depends on his spirit. <
Anyone know if RSRH held that misah is dependent on the head rather than on
the heart?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091020/81f392ce/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 18
From: "SBA" <s...@sba2.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:11:38 +1100
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] minhag simchat tora


From: Danny Schoemann 
Correct - we not only sing them, but (at least where I grew up the Adas
Yeshurun of Johannesburg) it was done in the following manner:
3 men holding Sifrei Torah would go up next to the Bima; the one in the
middle would be Chazzan.
The Chazzan would chant "Ogil V'Esmach B'Simchas Torah" and bow forward,
Then he would turn to his right and bow while chanting "Bo Yovo Tzemach
Bsimchas Torah"; the person on his right would bow too.
Repeated to his left for the next verse.

Then each of the 3 would dance  "on their own axis" (essentially spin) while
chanting the refrain "Torah Hee Eitz Chaim..."
This was one of the highlights of Simchas Torah. :-)

In my great-grandfather's Machzor he had pencilled in "singen" and "tanzen"
various times in the margin; so in 18th century Germany (Zeltingen) they had
a similar setup.
>>

Presumably that was the ONLY dancing done by Yekkes on ST..

SBA



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 206
***************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >