Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 8

Thu, 19 Jan 2012

• 1. Re: animals and bechira?? (Harvey Benton)
• 2. Re: animals and bechira?? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: animals and bechira?? (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: animals and bechira?? (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: animals and bechira?? (Micha Berger)
• 6. calculation of pi (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] netilat yadayim (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Kimchis (was Who avoids whom) (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: animals and bechira?? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: sarah/127/loshon rabim?? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: [Areivim] netilat yadayim (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: [Areivim] netilat yadayim (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: calculation of pi (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Forms of Bitul (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: calculation of pi (Simon Montagu)
• 16. Re: [Areivim] netilat yadayim (Simon Montagu)
• 17. Re: [Areivim] netilat yadayim (Ben Waxman)
• 18. Is it too late to bentsh? (T6...@aol.com)
• 19. Re: Is it too late to bentsh? (Harry Maryles)
• 20. Costa Concordia and halachah (Gary Schreiber)

common scientific thinking is that animals do not have either bechira??
or awareness of their own thoughts...  how do they know this??

hmz

________________________________
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2012 5:56 PM

...
I argued that bechirah chafshis and being aware of one's own thoughts
go hand in hand. Bechirah means being able to think about one's thinking

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 12:49:48PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: common scientific thinking is that animals do not have either bechira??
: or awareness of their own thoughts...  how do they know this??

Common scientific thinking is that they do not agree about people
having bechirah, never mind animals.

But I did note in the threads I pointed you to earlier that animals,
even chimps and other apes, lack the part of the brain that it seems
we use when considering our own thoughts.
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol27/v27n169.shtml#09

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On 1/15/2012 7:41 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
>
> I do concede that there are cases of angels disobeying their commands, and that does pose a problem in this regard.
>
>    
For example?

Lisa

RLL:

<<No, animals do not have bechira chofshit.>>

Is there any evidence for this? I would have thought that it's a 
machlokes Tannaim (BK 1:4) and Amoraim (Sanhedrin 15b).

David Riceman

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 11:52:01AM -0500, David Riceman wrote:
> Is there any evidence for this? I would have thought that it's a  
> machlokes Tannaim (BK 1:4) and Amoraim (Sanhedrin 15b).


The concept of shor hamu'ad (BQ) is whether this animal poses a perpetual
danger, or was dangerous once. This doesn't imply anything about free
will either way. I could even ask whether a computer program is likely
to often do something, or was handling what was coded as a special
(or rare) situation.

Why are you assuming that a machloqes about how beis din should decide
to kill an animal implies that the animal has free will? Respect for
life would require us to be careful about when to kill higher animals;
it needn't be about whether the animal is an agent that could be blamed.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

<< No rishon says that pi is 3.  No acharon says it's 3.  The mishna can
easily be read as simply giving a number rounded to the nearest integer;
as the Rambam says, since pi is irrational it *must* be rounded at some
point, so why not at the integer level?  The only problem is the gemara
which insists that pi is precisely 3, without the slightest deviation;
tosfos asks the question and offers no answer, but somehow managed to
keep his emunah anyway and move on to the next sugya. >>

The gemara on Baba Batra 14b calculates how much room was left in the ark
for the sefer torah.
The gemara end up that there was 2 tefachim left. The gemara then asks that
 if the space and diameter are both exactly 2 tefachim then it wont fit.
However if the diameter is 6/3.14 than the sefer torah is less than 2
tefachim and will fit.

What does this have to do with emunah?
R Avraham ben haRambam in other places claims that chazal based their
science on Greek science and it was wrong.
Didnt affect his emunah.

As to the math of rishonim the Rash on Keilim claims that the theorem of
pythagoras is wrong except if the two sides are equal.
While Rambam knew the latest math of his day not all rishonim knew it.
Raavad admits he doesnt know all the science of the path of the moon but
says it doesnt matter.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120116/e96c29fb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 02:25:14AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> What a wonderful story, but I wonder about the halacha here.  Isn't it
> an explicit halacha that soldiers in camp in wartime are exempt from
> netilat yadayim for meals? ...                Further, in such a situation,
> even if water is plentiful and one chooses to wash anyway, wouldn't the
> bracha be levatalah?

Perhaps this is part of the general Ashk/Seph debate about birkhas
hamitzvah. Ashkenazim, with the exception of some chassidic groups,
do make a birkhas hamitzvah when performing one as an einu metzuveh
be'oseh. Examples are a woman performing a MASZG or minhagim (lighting
a Chanukah menorah in shul or half-Hallel).

Here too, the chayil is an eino metzuveh ve'oseh. Judging from who he's
asking, the sho'el is likely Ashkenazi. So, I would think he does make
a berakhah anyway.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 02:17:46PM +0000, Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
:> why was Kimchis rewarded by having all 7 sons merit becoming
:> kohanim gedolim for ensuring that "the rafters of my home have never 'seen'
:> the plaits of my hair" (Yuma 47a)?

: Who, other than Kimchis herself, said that was the reason for her
: reward? It was the response she gave when asked to what she attributed
: it -- but the chachhamim did not accept her answer (harbei asu kein v'lo
: ho'ilu), nor did they offer an alternate explanation.

OTOH, the redactors of both shasin thought it was worthy of inclusion.

The question is really whether "velo ho'ilu" is rejecting her hava amina,
which was worth inclusion only as a hava amina, or whether it's saying
that while her answer makes sense, it doesn't work experimentally. Kind of
like R' Shimon's lifestyle; it's not that he was wrong to simply learn,
daven and rely on hashgachah peratis for his parnasah. It's just that
it only works for a Rashbi. There is a parallel in language between
"velo ho'ilu" here and "velo also beayadam" WRT not getting a job.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 11:13:40PM +0200, harchinam wrote:
: > 2- The neis was not considered to be in the ason seeing the angel, but
: > in the ason's response to the angel. Implying that animals generally
: > can see mal'akhim.

: How do you come to this? The ason's reaction seems to me to be less than
: miraculous; any animal might normally stop or walk in a different direction
: if it saw a person that it perceived as a threat -- and it is common that
: animals perceive humans as a threat at times, especially one holding a
: weapon [if animals do indeed see malachim]...

"This" was the second implication I drew from Avos listing "pi ha'ason". It
would seem that the mishnah is singling out the speaking, implying that the
rest of the donkey's responses were normal.

: turned away from the path, smooshed his rider up against something to avoid
: danger, and then stopped completely. It just doesn't seem like unusual
: behavior for an animal at all.

Nor did I mean it was. I meant "response" in dialog, not its reaction in
general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 02:42:26PM -0800, Harvey Benton wrote:
: sarah lived one hundred and twenty seven years, but in the chumash, imo, 
: the loshon rabim/is not accurate, eg, sheva shanim is correct, but is one-
: hundred and twenty also not loshon rabim??

I think that in the leshon Tanakh, lashon rabim was limited in use to
smaller numbers. Once the eye saw the quantity as "a lot", it was no
longer rabim.

E.g.
"Vayechi Yaaqov be'eretz Mitzrayim sheva esrei shanah".

In parashas Pinechas:
    Elieh mishpechos haRe'uveini, vayihyu pequdehem: seloshah ve'arba'im elef
    usheva mei'os, usheloshim.
Note how 43 elef is "elef", but 700 is "mei'os".

"Shelosh mei'os ish" (Shofetim 7:6) vs "vehinei sheloshah anashim" (beg
of Vayeira).

(And even within the pasuq in Shofetim, 300 is "mei'os", because 3 of
something is a number you see immediately, but 300 itself is a "many",
so the "ish" isn't belashon rabbim.)

And so when you don't divide up the 127, as in the beginning of Esther, it
is "sheva ve'esrim umei'ah medinah", but when splitting off just 7 years
from Chayei Sarah, it becomes "sheva shanim".

KNLAD, I never heard someone actually teach this as a kelal.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 17/01/2012 1:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>   Judging from who he's asking, the sho'el is likely Ashkenazi.

R Mordechai Eliyahu?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 1:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>   Judging from who he's asking, the sho'el is likely Ashkenazi.

> R Mordechai Eliyahu?

Well, so much for that one. For some reason, I had thought the protagonist
was RYSElyashiv (may he have a refu'ah sheleimah beqarov).

Yes, if the teshuvah was Sepharadi, your question about whether washing when
one isn't mechuyav to is a berakhah levatalah makes a lot of sense.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 07:17:10PM -0500, Yitzchok Zirkind wrote:
: 2012/1/15 Harvey Benton <harvw...@yahoo.com>
: > some have complained that the rishonim were not accurate enought  when
: > it came to their description of pi eg, they named it as being3 instead
: > of 3.14 etc.
...
: See Magid Mishna on Ramba"m Hil Shabbos 28:18 D"H Lfichuch im Riboh,
: brought in S"A Horav O"C 399:13. (There are other Nafka Mina's as well)

Yes, one can take the statement to mean that the halachically required
precision for circles is an error of +/- (pi-3)/pi. IOW, 3 is close
enough to be yotzei. And similarly, your tefillin are "square enough"
for halakhah if the diagonal is no more off from sqrt(2) * the sides
than 1.4 is.

RETurkel has posted here similarly a number of times over the years. Here,
though, he argues that Chazal clearly didn't realize just how far off pi
was from 3 because of statements made in a historical context.

To wit, on Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 07:50:40PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: The gemara on Baba Batra 14b calculates how much room was left in the ark
: for the sefer torah.
: The gemara end up that there was 2 tefachim left. The gemara then asks that
:  if the space and diameter are both exactly 2 tefachim then it wont fit.
: However if the diameter is 6/3.14 than the sefer torah is less than 2
: tefachim and will fit.

This isn't a question of required precision, but one where they clearly
thought pi was close enough to 3 that the sefer Torah wouldn't fit.

: What does this have to do with emunah?
: R Avraham ben haRambam in other places claims that chazal based their
: science on Greek science and it was wrong.
: Didnt affect his emunah.

Well, there are the usual science and Torah resolutions, of which this
is but one. I must say, though, that nishtanah hateva probably must be
dropped from the list, this time. (Geometry changed?)

While we can argue that agaditos are bederekh mashal, here is doesn't
help. Whatever this is supposed to be a mashal for, the nimshal relies
on the math.

The gemara complains that the Torah is rolled from both ends and therefore
wouldn't fit. And the first answer is that it was rolled from one end
(like a megillah).

The Rashash understands the initial problem being that in order to get
the same volume as a megillah of 2 tefach diameter, you would need nearly
3 tefachim in two circles. Which is true with the correct pi.

But look at the next question and R' Ashi's answer. The gemara knows
that things that measure exactly often don't fit. Perhaps the friction
of parchment compared to its flexibility means that it's difficult to
place a Torah between the badim even with the proper value of pi. One
needs a larger gap just for the logistics of the real world.

The Chasam Sofer asks our question and tells you to add the circumferance
of the eitz chayim. (Or did this Torah have 2 atzei chayim, even though
it was otherwise wound like a megillah?)

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

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 02:34:45PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: And Socrates is a horse.

: There are enough differences between d'iqah lequaman and deleisa leqaman (as
: between men and horses) to make the fact that a statement might apply to
: both cases not enough to make them the same.  

I'm trying to study mammals. Noting how much human and horse skeletons resemble
eachother, and arguing for common ancestry. I'm not claiming identity.

:> The way I see it, all agree that in a case of rov, it would be assur
:> de'oraisa, and in a case of mi'ut, it would not.

: As mentioned above, this is not true of min shebeano mino.  It is true of
: min shebemino (well not all, Rashi, for example, disagrees, but this is the
: position of the majority).

Yeah, but that then involves taam, which means the second ingredient can be
tasted. Which complicates discussing confusion of identity.

:> The question becomes whether the kellal is "assur if rov" or "mutar if
:> mi'ut", with a nafqa mina when the safeiq is kemechtza al mechtza.

: But the classic form of safek that you use to illustrate the case is that of
: bein hashmashos.  This has nothing to do with rov.  Thus there is yet
: another jump from discussions of rov to discussions of classic safek.

But rov too has to fall from the same underlying principle behind birur, if
there is one.

In any case, I'm viewing safeiq as a spectrum including rov, mechtza al
mechtza and mi'ut. In this sense, of course the concept of safeiq exists
deOraisa, because rov does.

The question is then

I tried to say this already once:
:> From this way of looking at the world, saying safeiq deOraisa lechumera
:> doesn't eliminate the notion of safeiq from the deOraisa lexicon. Because
:> that would deny the whole spectrum, and thus also eliminate rov.

But I don't understand this reply:
: Yes, that is my point.  Your thesis (leaving aside all the other problematic
: aspects of it) insists on a position that safek d'orisa l'chumra is a
: d'orisa principle, whereas the majority, at least according to ROY, who
: poskens accordingly, is like the Rambam that safek d'orisa l'chumra is a
: rabbinic principle....

No, it insists that safeiq in general exists deOraisa. Even if deOraisa
mechtza al mechtza is like mi'ut and we're meiqil.

: and rov are entirely different principles, with rov applying in various
: limited circumstances, such as min b'mino, as a d'orisa principle.  

Or in rov be'ilos achar habaal. Which is a case of safeiq rather than taaroves.

...
: But while you keep asserting that this is the way that Chazal treat
: unknowns, I just don't think it is true.

: That is why I pointed you in the direction of the discussion regarding
: timtum and koi.  Have a look, for example, at Bechoros 41b.

: Ta Shma the Torah states "zachar" (to be used as an olah) to exclude a
: female, but when it says "zachar" below, what is it coming to exclude? - a
: timtum and an androgonous.  Now who is the author of this braisa.  If you
: want to say the tanna kama - [that cannot be because] sfeka hu. ... and
: similarly further on when it analyses the position of Rabbi Yishmael.

: That is, if you understand a timtum and androgonos to be a safek, then, as
: Rashi puts it "leka safek kamei shamaya ele vadai beriya bifnei atzmo" - ie
: there is no concept of safek to HaShem or the Torah, and thus if the *Torah*
: is coming to exclude a timtum or androgonos, then these individuals *must
: be* an independent form of creation, a separate gender, and not just a safek
: male or female.

...
: But if you look at the literature on safek d'orisa l'chumra and safek
: d'rabbanan l'kula - there are many many examples in which the safek is one
: of what is the metzius.  If the governing rule was kol deparish, then
: regardless of whether the halachic question that arose due to the safek in
: metzius was due to a din that is d'orisa or d'rabbanan, the halacha should
: be the same, but of course it is not....

If the governing rule were kol deparish, we would have a rov for merubah
parish, and safeiq deOraisa lekhumera isn't an issue. SDL is only where
the safeiq is mechtza al mechtza. (Or its qavua.) I don't mean the rule
of kol deparish, which doesn't apply, but the kind of birur required to
determing the din of a parish.

: Aruch HaShulchan and in the Yalkut Yosef in the simanim I referred to at the
: beginning of this posting.  If something, such as a drop of milk, fell into
: a meat stew, and it was not known whether or not there was sixty against
: that drop of milk, and then, before there was a chance to measure, the whole
: tavshil upended, and measurement became impossible, then the tavshil is
: assur, even though it is known than there was definitely rov meat to the
: milk, because of safek d'orisa l'chumra.  Here is a case of a safek of what
: is the metzius - we do not know whether or not there was sixty of meat
: against the milk drop (although we do know that there was rov)....

I suggest seeing shu"t R' Aqiva Eiger mahadura qama #136-137, tinyana #100
and the distinction between safeiq in din and safeiq in metzi'us rather
than relying on my take. The question isn't whether one has an unknown
metzi'us, but whether the metzi'us was once known, and therefore a
din was niqva. A safeiq where a din was once established -- eg eidus
or qavua -- is different than a safeiq where the metzi'us was /never/
known and thus never established.

He discusses safeiq deOraisa lechumerah as a "sibling" (my term) to
terei kemei'ah and other things that probably would not appeal to you
given your response on my own theories.

And qavuah using the rules of bitul.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you're going through hell
mi...@aishdas.org        keep going.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Winston Churchill
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Well, there are the usual science and Torah resolutions, of which this
> is but one. I must say, though, that nishtanah hateva probably must be
> dropped from the list, this time. (Geometry changed?)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rViMCzdcnuE/R
cmccI8yDdI/AAAAAAAAABg/62v47zhBhlU/s1600-h/pashkevil-science.JPG

On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 9:07 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 01:30:36PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 17/01/2012 1:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> ? Judging from who he's asking, the sho'el is likely Ashkenazi.
>
>> R Mordechai Eliyahu?
>
> Well, so much for that one. For some reason, I had thought the protagonist
> was RYSElyashiv (may he have a refu'ah sheleimah beqarov).
>
> Yes, if the teshuvah was Sepharadi, your question about whether washing when
> one isn't mechuyav to is a berakhah levatalah makes a lot of sense.

I'm not sure what RME held here -- it's not a simple A/S divide
although these days we tend to think it is, chiefly because of ROY's
repeated emphatic psakim against women saying berachot on mitzvot when
not metzuvvot. OTC, it is fairly clear from the language especially in
ROY's earlier teshuvot that the minhag of neshei Sefarad was davka to
make these berachot, and there are Sephardic teshuvot that also say
that they should, beshem Tosafot.

Rav ME received questions from everywhere.

Ben

On 1/17/2012 8:30 PM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 17/01/2012 1:27 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>   Judging from who he's asking, the sho'el is likely Ashkenazi.
>
> R Mordechai Eliyahu?
>

Someone asked me this question:  If you wash for a motzi and  eat lunch but 
you don't bentsh and then you chew gum for two and a half  hours, can you 
still bentsh?
 
--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good values, good  family, good  hair


-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120117/b395c5fc/attachment-0001.htm>

--- On Tue, 1/17/12, T6...@aol.com <T6...@aol.com> wrote:





Someone asked me this question:? If you wash for a motzi and eat?lunch but
you don't bentsh and then you chew gum for two and a half hours, can you
still bentsh?
------------------------------------------
?
It has to do with a Shiur Ikul... the amount of time it takes for the food
you ate to be digested to the point where you no longer feel full from
eating. (V'Achalta V'Savata). That times is usually considered to be about
72 minutes IIRC. But the truth is that if you still feel full from the
meal?even later than that, you should Bentch.?
?
Chewing gum does not qualify as food except for the sugar. Once that
disappears you are not technically eating. You are chewing. Eating must
have as a component something called Hano'as Grono... the 'pleasure of the
throat' or swallowing. If you don't swallow the?'food' you are chewing...
you don't have that.? So once the sugar is gone, you are no longer eating
Halchicly.
?
In your case what you really want to know then is... may one betnch?2 and
1/2 hours after you've eaten the meal. Most likely not, because the Shiur
Ikul has passed.
?
HM
?
?

Want Emes and Emunah in your life? 

Try this: http://haemtza.blogspot.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120118/7d01989b/attachment-0001.htm>

Although the captain of the ship is reviled for abandoning ship, had he
been Jewish would he have  been acting properly? Women and children first 
seems to be  contradicted by  the din that if a man or a woman are
drowning, we save the male because he is chayav in more mitzvos. The same 
hierachy would seem to apply  for an adult female vs child  analysis.
Unless there is a halachik basis for the captain going down with the ship
one could argue that the din of "v"chai bahem - chayechah kodmin" would
imply that if there are insufficient resources (eg lifeboats) its each man
for himself and that would apply to the captain and crew as well. Once	he
abandoned ship is there a halachik rationale for ordering the captain to
return to ship?

Gary J Schreiber MD
Associates in Radiation Oncology SC

*** Confidentiality Statement ***
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and
confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then
delete it from your system. Any review, dissemination, distribution, or
reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is strictly
prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction. Do not forward without
consent.




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 8
*************************************

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..."