Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 2

Sat, 02 Jan 2010

• 1. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: reform and conservative (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Richard Wolpoe)
• 6. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (Richard Wolpoe)
• 7. Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Seeing G'zeiros Everywhere (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Condensate and Kashrus Rema YD 92:8 (Meir Rabi)
• 11. Re: status of chilonim (Richard Wolpoe)
• 12. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (D&E-H Bannett)
• 13. Re: Hilchos Kaddish (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: how to reconcile (Ben Waxman)
• 15. Re: how to reconcile (Ben Waxman)

R' David Bannett wrote:
> The word sh'meih appears seven times without a yud. It
> never appears with a yud. That proves something about
> the spelling of words in Aramaic.

Does it really prove something? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

How do you spell "tzitzis"? What is its gematria?

"Tzitzis" is found four times in Tanach (according to Mandelkern). Three
times in the Shma, and once in Yechezkel 8:3. All four have only one yod,
the first one. Does that prove anything?

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Weight Loss Program
Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=zHBO6kI0Zx5_FfeS1QILiAAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> from daily halacha
>
> 1186. One may not count one who denies the truth of Torah Sh'baal Peh
> - aka The Oral Torah (and certainly one who denies The Written Torah
> received at Sinai via Moshe Rabbeinu) towards a minyan. [One may not
> count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan.] Shulchan Aruch
> w/Mishnah Berurah 55:11, Piskei Tshuvos 55:21
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
>


ther first part is Halachah p"suqa
The second part VIZ.:

"One may not count Conservative or Reform Jews towards a minyan."
is AIUI an extension enforcing the first part


or I might have chosen to phrase it thusly

> "We may not count REFORM Jews into a minyan - as  a S'yag or policy  --
> SHEMA we might come to count deniers of TSBP..."
>

Then you might have to come up with a new Term for just such a policy :-)
And then you might find MORE AND MORE of them :-)


Good shabbos




-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100101/c62b7fb5/attachment-0001.htm>

Some of my sources have been uploaded to asidas courtesy of our esteemed
Moderator Reb Micha
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/faxes/gezeirahSources.doc

Note
I omitted sources on Gozrin Taanis Tzibbur and the SA project did not have
Chosehn Mishpat online so I wll try to get it off another location later



On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 7:55 PM, <kennethgmil...@juno.com> wrote:
> R' Rich Wolpoe wrote:
>> G'zeira is about s'yag or policy and could take into
>> consideration k"vod RMF or RYDS and another non-rigorous
>> considerations and requires no such rigor, but I would love
>> to see it so labeled.
>> If you want to term this NEITHER p'saq NOR g'Zeria but a
>> third kind of "animal" fine.

> I have long wondered about where we draw the line between making a new
> halachah or minhag, as opposed to setting policy. A new halachah will be
> binding upon all subsequent generations, but a policy is clearly dependent
> upon the current situation.
> Akiva Miller

There is a category of G'zeira that is simply policy - BUT AISI it
properly has to be a SYAG

The big hilluq between G'zeiros of BD hagadol through Talmud and those
that are Post Talmud is merely the scope of the authority of the Gozrim!

RMF is STILL Respected on the Lower East Side re: policy
Same for RYDS at Stern College re: Women reading m:gillah
Same for R  Henkin Sr. for the Ezras Torah Luach

These are POLICIES, and there is nothing wrong with that

my kvetch - and the kvetch of like-minded intellectuals - is that posqim
SHOULD make distinctions between p'Saq and policies and they often DO NOT.
But AISI Rambam, SA and Rema et al. - at least in their CODES - did.
Maybe in their Shu"tim they did not.

Someone quibbled with me offline re: the scope of the policy institution
It could be a:

   1. Community
   2. a BD - EG we will not appoint a dayan who does X
   3. A kashrus Agency - Which is sometimes a BD

When Rabbanim and Dayanim issue a g'zeira and explain the "shema" fine.
Then the tzibur can accept or reject the g'zeira as these things go.

Good Shabbos

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> Years ago A kashrut agency told me of some changes they would make when
> they would take over a given resaurant.
>  I asked: "Is this Halachhically required?
>
> They answered "no" [meaning not necessarily] that they had "standards". 
>
> And so I say that any standard that is beyond halachah and that is
> absolutely required by an agency anyway is g'zeira upon the community
> of food purveyors AND upon their mashgichin.
> Why? 
> Because
>   
No it's not.  The "community of food purveyors AND ... their mashgichin" 
can just use a different agency.  All the kashrut agency is doing is 
assigning a particular meaning to its particular stamp of approval.  
"Gzeirah" implies coercion.

David Riceman

No it's not.  The "community of food purveyors AND ... their mashgichin" can
just use a different agency.  All the kashrut agency is doing is assigning a
particular meaning to its particular stamp of approval.  "Gzeirah" implies
coercion.

David Riceman


no g'zeira implies that
"anything halachically muttar taht is prohibited as a "syag"

See my posts on g'zzeira from Rambam and Shulchan Aruch

also I define it to apply to POLICIES


-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100101/16af16c5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 6:32 AM, D&E-H Bannett <db...@zahav.net.il> wrote:

> Re:  <<OTOH Tosafos [and others] presume a Yud in sh'meih to mean or imply
> sheim Kah>>
>
> Why not determine the yud or lack of yud in sh'meih of y'hei sh'meih rabba
> from the usage of that word in the Aramaic sections of Tanakh.
>
> The word sh'meih appears seven times without a yud. It never appears with a
> yud. That proves something about the spelling of words in Aramaic.
>
>
>
> David


The simple p"shat is that the yud is there due to k'siv malei to stand in
for a tzeirei and so as not to be confused with a Qamatz

But in one lashon of Tosafos he does not go down the road of that p"shat
rather he claims that Yud and Heh refer to sheim Hashem "kah"

Dovteials well with seeing this as a targum for *yehi sheim* Hashem as
opposed to simply *yhi shmo*


Good Shabbos

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100101/5fc684d0/attachment-0001.htm>

As I use the term g'zeira with regard to

   1. an orgnanization,
   2. a community
   3. qhilla
   4. kashrus agency [KA]
   5. Regions [think Qitniyyos in Ashkenaz]

it means terms such as [but not exhaustively]

   1. Policies
   2. Standards
   3. Bans

Illustrations [afaik non are in standard halachic codes]

   1. Q:'hilla bans simchas costing more than $20K
   2. BD band members who believe world is older than 5770
   3. KA"s
      1. Ban using non mevushal wine in Restaurants
      2. ban bringing in outside foods
      3. ban using FRESh broccoli [See OK Vegetable guide]
   4. One Q'hilla prohibited me from using ther kashering  to kasher a
   becher for Passover because their minhag disallows kashering when a becher
   has been used for liquor or ber over the course of the year.  The Dayam
   specifically told me it was "only a minhag" and implied it was OK for me to
   kasher it ELSEWHERE - but I was not permitted to use THEIR kashering
   facilities since it failed to conform to THEIR local minhag
   5. In Teaqneck a shul banned collectors from collecting in the 'sanctuary
    and allowed them ONLY in the lobby

If you wish to come up with a different term than g'zeira for extra Halachic
Bans/standards/policies - gezundheit!  I am not going to quibble about using
another term

But Hanhagos and Taqqanos are imho just as taken anyway, and let's face it,
Bans/standards/policies when  based upon a "syag, why NOT use the term
g'zeira anyway?

As far as the pisqei Halachah which are perpetuatedfor non-Halachic reasons
EG

   1. Not overriding RMF's ps"aq on Eruv
   2. not Overriding RYDS"s p"saq on Megillah by women for women

Where there COULD be a new halachic p'saq but as a po,licy matter they
refuse to do that out of kavod for the Late Gadol, if you want a different
term than G'zeira for that policy FINE
Come up iwth one. But calling it p"saq is IMHO disingenuous when the p'Saq
is ONLY not to revisit the issue and to let an old p"saq stand.

Now if the issue WERE indeed re-opened from scratch and reviewed and the
same old p"saq  was upheld - that is NOT policy that is another p"saq!

Illustration:
Breuer's limits availim from taking the Amud on days w/o Tachanun as a
matter of policy not p"saq - or so I was told. Rav Breuer instituted it.
But later Rabbnonim perpetuated it as a policy.  The p"saq was to continue
to follow the old policy as a matter of policy.  they would NOT object to
OTHER shuls having a different policy.

So if you have a better term for local policy fine!   Go for it. come up
with a taxonomy for these bans/standards/policies that irritates you LESS
than g'zeiros

But the irony here is that many here are GOZEIR - IE IMPOSING - thou shalt
NOT use G'zeira as Rambam SA and Rema have used it Rather thou shalt use it
otherwise or else!  It's actually kind of funny to see that.

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100101/70b61101/attachment-0001.htm>

I would just like to point out to R'nCL and all those who wonder what
RRW is harping on about, that RRW is quite obviously intentionally
misusing the term gezeirah, as he himself stated. He is not
investigating the creation of mitzvot derabbanan, but investigating
whether any legislation binding on at least some people can be created
nowadays lemigdar milta.

Yes, R'nCL addressed that by protesting that this gets us into humpty
dumpty (or whatever his name, I think for Alice in Wonderland, right?)
territory, of using words as pleases us, rather than following
convention. Thus, she disagrees with the use of the term gezeirah.
However, since RRW has explicitly stated and repeatedly made clear
that he is interested in the question of binding legislation lemigdar
milta, we can forgive the use of the term gezeirah and look beyond
that to the very interesting question he is dealing with.

From my perspective, I see this as a most interesting question
nowadays, when outside of Europe and of 'hassidishe communities (and
also of KAJ and Elisabeth), there are no qehilloth. (nu, there m,ay be
another few exceptions, but the US and Israel have few qehillot). How
do you define the group on whom edicts are binding? Can such edicts be
introduced from a back door? Can they, over time, spread and become
real worldwide minhaggim that are very close to actual gezeiros?

I admit that those are ineresting questions.

Kol tuv & good week,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

RAF writes:

> I would just like to point out to R'nCL and all those who 
> wonder what RRW is harping on about, that RRW is quite 
> obviously intentionally misusing the term gezeirah, as he 
> himself stated. He is not investigating the creation of 
> mitzvot derabbanan, but investigating whether any legislation 
> binding on at least some people can be created nowadays 
> lemigdar milta.
> 
> Yes, R'nCL addressed that by protesting that this gets us 
> into humpty dumpty (or whatever his name, I think for Alice 
> in Wonderland, right?) territory, of using words as pleases 
> us, rather than following convention. Thus, she disagrees 
> with the use of the term gezeirah. However, since RRW has 
> explicitly stated and repeatedly made clear that he is 
> interested in the question of binding legislation lemigdar 
> milta, we can forgive the use of the term gezeirah and look 
> beyond that to the very interesting question he is dealing with.

I do think that it is an extremely interesting question, and one that it is
valuable to explore.  What I am trying to say is that exploring the question
is not helped by misuse of terminology, rather it is severely hindered.
Because once you point people in the direction of the sources and they see
that what is being discussed appears (due to misuse of terminology) to be
directly in contradiction to the rishonim (not to mention gadolim of the
current generation), most people who consider themselves Orthodox will
switch off, making the conversation impossible.  And in fact the
consequences could be worse than that.

Let me give you an example using the melacha.

If someone tells you that they are going to misuse the term melacha to
include standing on one foot.  Then they tell you that melachos are
permitted on shabbas.  Proof, standing on one foot is permitted on shabbas.
Is this going to help a conversation with anybody Orthodox about the nature
of things that may actually be permitted on Shabbas?  I would argue no.
Because you and I are of necessity going to need to stand up and say loud
and clear that melachos are not permitted on shabbas, lest there is anybody
out there whose knowledge of halacha is sufficiently shaky that they may get
confused, and because of this we cannot have a conversation, certainly not
on a public list, about "melachos" which are permitted on shabbas.  Avodah
is a public list.  It is fully googleable.  You and I cannot enter into some
game world where the word melacha is used to mean something permitted on
shabbas without potentially somebody grabbing your words from the public
list and claiming that RAF permits melachos on shabbas (and for you the
consequences are probably even more severe than for me).

Similarly I do not think it at all helpful to discuss the question by
misusing the terminology of gezera.  And remember this whole thread was set
off due to a statement that I quoted from ROY (which as I subsequently
demonstrated, was based on the rishonim), that we cannot have new gezeros
today.  With the response being that rather, there are gezeros everywhere. 

Once we tidy up the language and use it properly, then indeed I think one
can morph this thread into something extremely interesting and relevant
namely the questions you ask below:

> From my perspective, I see this as a most interesting 
> question nowadays, when outside of Europe and of 'hassidishe 
> communities (and also of KAJ and Elisabeth), there are no 
> qehilloth. (nu, there m,ay be another few exceptions, but the 
> US and Israel have few qehillot). How do you define the group 
> on whom edicts are binding? Can such edicts be introduced 
> from a back door? Can they, over time, spread and become real 
> worldwide minhaggim that are very close to actual gezeiros?

Well Israel, I am not totally sure this is true.  Although there are no
kehillot, there is the entire country.  And certainly the Chief Rabbinate in
the early years of the state passed a whole list of takanot - I can look up
the list if you want, they are at the back of Rav Hertzog's book that I
have.  What is the status of these takanot?  My understanding is that the
courts of the rabbanut will enforce them, and given that they involve
matters such as child support etc, and they are the ones dealing with that,
then it would seem to me that they exist and are binding.

The question of becoming a binding minhag I suspect is linked in to some of
the questions raised by RRW regarding the appointing of unfit dayanim, which
I hope to get to at some stage - or at least I think they probably can be
linked.   To my mind it has to do with the bottom up rather than top down
nature of minhagim, which also raises its head vis a vis dayanim.

> I admit that those are ineresting questions.

I agree, just please don't call them gezeros, and then I will be happy.
> 
> Kol tuv & good week,
> -- 
> Arie Folger,

Shavuah tov

Chana

R Micha proposes that

A related pesaq I actually got, with similar results from two co workers'
LORs...
One of my co workers wondered how can you use the hot water machine at work?
What about the steam from treif soups and hot chocolate
(the company-provided hot chocolate has marshmallows)?
Now admittedly, this isn't about meat directly, it's about whether the
spigot, a keli, would become treif.

I presume R Micha means that the LOR permitted using the hot water even
though it may be used or is certainly used for non-K foods. This is a
question of whether the stream of hot water is deemed to be a connection
that will transfer TaAm. If the Rema deems steam of YSoledes to be a
connection in such matters it must certainly be so with regard to boiling
water.
My query however deals with the apparent assumption of the Rema that
condensate from hot milk is not milky but pure water and poses no reason to
avoid hanging meat above a cooking pot of milk.

R Micha further asserts that
I would bet we wash the meat not to kasher the meat, but to make sure we
don't put any milk condensation into a pot with the meat and then cook it.
*Bedi'eved* I would guess it would be batul, but lekhat-chilah, why not wash
it down?
I do not think the Rama is assuming the condensate may be
ignored lechat-khilah, and was only writing about whether the entire meat
would now qualify as basar bechalav.

Regarding these comments of R Micha, I wish to make the following
observations

   - The Rama may be talking about meat that does not require cooking but is
   already cooked and now being dried or is raw but is prepared for consumption
   by drying.
   - I dont think it wise to determine Halacha by placing bets, I mean to
   say that such an attitude merely reflects the careless manner in which we
   approach Halacha and make assumptions that may well not be valid. I
   forewarned this by remarking that we are not permitted to place meat in warm
   butter even if we are assured that the meat will be rinsed or scrubbed.
   Furthermore there is no need to place bets, I mentioned that some Acharonim
   are of this opinion, however the Rema does not support such interpretation
   or addition.
   - It is not a Q of Lechatchila wiping it down, it is a Q of who would
   ever, in the mindset we have today of Halacha, be Mattir what the Rema is
   Mattir?
   - In a similar vein, R Micha's appeal, "Why not wash it down?" goes
   pretty close to the core of what I am trying to illuminate - we tend to
    extend the Halacha by appealing to what appears to us to be sensible, when
   in fact the Halacha makes no such demand and has no such expectation.
   - I do not see how there is any way to understand the Rema but to say
   that he was not at all concerned about the condensate of the boiling milk.
   It is only a problem if it is YSoledes because then it is deemed to be
   connected to and cooked with the milk; otherwise there is no issue.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100103/ffed2435/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Dec 31, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For a halachic discussion of the status of chilonim
> by R. Navon of the Gush see
> http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak70/09halak.htm   (part 1 so far)
>
>
> --
> Eli Turkel
>


> The status of a *chiloni *may have yet another ramification. The Geonim
> ruled that if a man died without children, and his brother is an apostate,
> the widow of the deceased is exempt from levirate marriage and *chalitza.
> *
>

Is this Gaonic ruling based upon the shqla v'tarya in the Talmud itself or
upon a Hiddush based upon some kind of "legislation"?f

-- 
Shalom uVRacha
RabbiRichWol...@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Nishma-Minhag/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100101/c9cc5b2e/attachment-0001.htm>

Slight correction:

I'm sure that those who know how to count above ten without 
taking off their shoes realize that I meant to write that

if we DO NOT add a yud in shmeih, there are 28 letters in 
the response from yehei to al'maya (for those who don't add 
yitbarakh).

Sloppy, I am.


David 

R'D Bannett wrote:
> But another interesting OTOH that, however, proves nothing.
> One says yehei shmeih with all his "koach".   Koach in
> gematria is 28.  There are 28 words from yehei to b'alma
> (except for the Gr"a). this is why we say min kol during the
> year and mikol when we add a second l'eila.  And, if we add
> a yud in shmeih, there are 28 letters in the response from
> yehei to al'maya (for those who don't add yitbarakh).


First of all, the minhag to insist on 28 words is Lurianic, and was
not accepted by all communities. The R?delheim siddur doesn't have
mikol, and in Basil, we say le-ejlo, le-ejlo mikol birchohsso ...

Secondly, the Roqea'h does talk of the number of letters in the phrase
yehei...'almaya, and he has a drash on it, that does not involve any
plays on koa'h=28. Instead, he has 29 letters, which, since we recite
qaddish 7 times a day (so says the Roqea'h), gets us to 203 letters.
We also recite amen of before that phrase, seven times, totalling
203+7=210. That is to save us from the ReDU, which is the sod of
'hatzot layla aqum lehodot lekha.

I am sorry of I can't explain the above beyond what the Roqea'h
writes, but I fear, not being an expert (or even a novice) in the
thought of 'Hassidei Ashkenaz, that I am seeing this through
anachronistic Lurianic eyeglasses.

Anyway, please do not silently combine olde minhag Ashkenas with more
recent "touch ups."

(I would sign with a Seinfeld reference, as the Nussach Nazi, but in
connection with Ashkenaz, this is a particularly bad joke, so ...)


Sincerely yours,
the Nussach Zealotry Student,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Was die j?dische Frommigkeit animieren soll
* Equal Justice for All - even in Israel?
* The Warmongering Laboring Amazons
* But is it Still Pork?
* Glaubensweitergabe ? Ein Videovortrag

I remember seeing a parshan stating that this is why it took Rivka 20 years 
and Yitzhaq's tefilla before she could get pregnant; had she gotten pregnant 
right away, then she might have thought that Lavan's bracha to her 
contributed to her pregnancy. So by waiting 20 years she knew that what he 
said was meaningless.

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com>
>
> A careful read of Rashi says HUZQAQ not punished! Huzqaq because Yad 
> Hashem
> had to NOT be diluted with assistance from the sar hamashqim.
>
> And so this was really a Teaching a Lesson. That If Yosef had been 
> released
> by the sar hamaskim he would have
>
> 1 been beholding to him
> 2 been less beholding to Hashem

When I read that QL I had a bit of a problem with it. When is trying the 
same as relying? How far does the QL go when he says "he should desist from 
any physical reaction and rather he should simply trust and have faith in 
Hashem, and surely it will be transformed into something good and 
positive."? If he is talking only about great tzaddiqim then what meaning 
does it have for the rest of the world? I am not talking about something bad 
happens (e.g. someone dies) and a person accepts it with emunah. I am 
talking about something bad happens and the person can work to change it. 
What does the QL mean for us to do?

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>
>
> In terms of the message, both agree in recommanding avoiding hishtadlus.
> Problematic either way.
>
> In terms of substance, the medrash (and Rashi, who quotes it) is saying
> that Yoseif failed to live up to this notion, which is why he was there
> for two years -- one for each word of request. The Qedushas Levi says
> that he remained there because he had faith -- as he was supposed to --
> rather than try. Implied is that had Yoseif tried to get out of jail,
> he would have gotten out.



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 2
*************************************

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..."