Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 306

Tue, 26 Aug 2008

• 1. Re: bracha on megilla (Micha Berger)
• 2. eved kenani (Eli Turkel)
• 3. Geirut (Chaim G Steinmetz)
• 4. Re: Geirut (Meir Shinnar)
• 5. Re: Birkas haChama (Zev Sero)
• 6. Mitzvah to accept gerim? (Michael Makovi)
• 7. Proto-Semitic? (R Davidovich)
• 8. Re: Birkas haChama (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: eved kenani (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: bracha on megilla (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Birkas haChama (kennethgmiller@juno.com)

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:13pm GMT, RAM kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: Some posters have responded to this by distinguishing between (A)
: making a Birkas Hamitzvah on something which the gemara does not label
: as being a mitzvah, such as Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, and (B) a minhag
: of saying a bracha which is not mentioned in the gemara, such as Yiru
: Eineinu in maariv.

: I don't see much of a difference. Either way, it is a bracha which we
: are not authorized by the gemara to say, and so I want to know why it
: is not a bracha levatala.

Along similar lines, on Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:42am EDT, R Moshe
Y. Gluck responded to my making that distinction:
:> That too is a minhag to make a berakhah, not a berakhah on a minhag.
:> Those berakhos are *on* yayin and qedushas Shabbos.

: It's a Minhag to have that Yayin.

So, we have 3 possibilities:
1- A minhag that necessitates a berakhah. E.g. RMYG's case: Once you have
that yayin, even if it weren't for the purpose of a minhag, you would
still have to make the berakhah. The minhag necessitates a pe'ulah,
but it's not the minhag that makes the berakhah necessary, it's the
metzi'us it creates that does.

I would also put in this category Mes Soferim on making a berakhah
before and after Rus, Shir haShirim and Eikhah. (Why not Koheles? I
don't know. Esther is medivrei soferim, so not in the discussion.)

I don't think this is category is a problem at all. To move on to the
two that I feel require more work:

2- A berakhah on a minhag, oveir la'asiyasah, just as one would for
a derabanan.

3- A minhag that the etzem includes making a berakhah.

Back to RAM:
: I've heard it said that since we've accepted the minhag of saying
: Hallel on RC, and that minhag is binding, and therefore the bracha
: "Vitzivanu" is not untrue; Hashem *does* require us to say Hallel on RC
: (although this requirement is in Hilchos Nedarim rather than Hilchos RC).

: However, that argument only shows the bracha to be true. But just
: because the words of a bracha are true is not enough to remove it
: from being levatala...

He feels the same rationale should apply. Below I hope to explain how I
feel they differ in sevara.

For category 2:

I see the exact same reasoning as for a deRabbanan, where "lo sasur"
is not taken as merely sufficient to make the berakhah a true statement,
but also grounds to establish a berakhah.

The machloqes Ashk/Seph then boils down to whether you need Chazal
to be qov'im a berakhah, or whether the same reasoning as lo sasur is
sufficient without their declaration.

Ashk does not require a takanah before making a berakhah, and are
therefore leshitasam WRT also allowing women to make a berakhah before
being einan metzuvos ve'osos.

The precedent we base ourselves on (see Tosafos Berakhos 14a "yamim
shehayachid) is YT sheini shel galiyos. Rashi, WRT hoshanos (Sukka 44b)
one of our oldest and most hallowed minhagim (we arrange the calendar
so as not to have Hoshanah Rabba on Shabbos!), says that we do not make
berakhos on minhagim.

The Ran answers what Rashi does with YT sheini by saying that it's
not really a minhag; YT sheini is a din derabbanan to keep minhag avos
alive. (This would explain why we don't take it for granted to assume
the same rules for minhag when flying to or from chu"l.)

This doesn't work for the Rambam, who explicitly says that YT sheini
is a minhag (that obviously we do make berakhos on the mitzvos for)
and yet in Berakhos 11:16 he is clear that hoshanos and chatzi hallal
do not require a berakhah. The Rambam is altogether a different shitah,
because in our oft-discussed section in Mamrim on the authority of
beis din he includes minhag in "lo sasur". So why no berakhah in any
situation, shouldn't it be the same as a din derabbanan? I don't know.

Maybe a good brisker could make two types of minhagim.

The SA is altogether confusing, because he sets out the kelal that we
don't make berakhos on minhagim, but in neir Chanukah says a berakhah is
made in shul. Acharonim address this but the question is IMHO better
than any of the suggestions.

Just thinking out loud:
Also, one might argue that the minhag on YT sheini is to treat it like
YT rishon, and thus the minhag isn't only to eat matzah but also the "al
akhilas matzah" itself is part of the minhag. Not that we're making a
berakhah on matzas YT sheini, but we're making a berakhah as part of
imitating yesterday than eating matzah as part of imitating yesterday.

Which would bring us to category 3, the possibility of making a berakhah
as part of the minhag itself.

Here, none of the above sevarah works. Which, as I said, is why I
believe the categories are altogether different. The whole machloqes
Rashi/Tosafos/Rambam/SA is based on defining whether a minhag is a
tzivui.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

<<If one captures a slave, is he not automatically given the status of a
woman vis-a-vis Mitzvah obligation? This is what I aways assumed when
learning those sugyos in the Gemarah dealing with Avodim.

I can't imagine first asking a slave if he will be Mekabel the Ol Mitzvos
 just before we capture him. I thought capturing him made him
automatically obligated -  whether he or she likes it or not.>>

We all know the various questions that arise with a person who is half an
eved kenani and half a Jew because one of two owners freed the slave.
I recently saw a question concerning someone who is half Jewish and half
non-Jewish. How is that possible?
The case is again an eved kenani with 2 owners. However, now the eved kenani
refuses to keep mitzvot. Thus he has a din of a nonJew not an eved kenani.
When one owner frees him he is half Jewish and half nonJewish.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote
> 
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 5:40pm EDT, R Chaim G Steinmetz gave sources 
> for
> KOM for an eved:
> : See Rambam Hil. Shabbos 20:14. Issurei Biah 14:9.
> 
> I don't think hil' Shabbos is relevent, since that's about shevisah 
> in the
> same sense as my animals (kesheim she'adam metzuveh al shevisas 
> behemto...
> kakh ...) -- my chiyuv that he rest, not him accepting a chivuv to 
> rest.
> 
Look again further. he says an eved is one who did milah, tvillah and KOM
of an eved, ayin shom. As a definiton of eved, it is very relevant.
CGS
____________________________________________________________
Click here to grab coupons and discounts.  Many stores, many deals.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3oKYFGyXS7qQbdb8uUd9PRs7G8uiFJeOmA1tKVer1kFzU1yq/

Me
> : WRT RMB's bringing in the name of RYBS about understanding the rambam
> : on geirut.
>
> : It is difficult for me to be holek on RYBS, but, BMKVT...
RMB
> So, why assume you're choleiq rather than leaving it as a lo zakhisi
> lehavin? I would agree with RMS that RYBS's statement requires more
> explanation, as the whole wording of the Rambam is about cheshash, not
> about two elements of Jewish identity. So we need to find someone who
> was there, no?
To revise some of my original points:
WRT to avdut, the rambam (Issure biah 13:9), has a specific category -
yatzu miklal hagoyim, uliklal yisrael lo higiu.  This would seem the
category that you suggested (according to RYBS)_ means vechosheshin lo
- an intermediate category - but while the rambam is willing to define
and use that category for avadim - where the second transition to full
yisrael is quite clear and specific - he does not use such language
for the case of a ger whose motives are unknown - so the rambam can
define an intermediate category, but does not use it here.
> Explaining the Rambam IB 13:16-17 (13-15 in Teimani), RMS writes:
> ...
> : 3) Because it was clear that their conversion was insincere, the katuv
> : considers them as goyot, and that they are still forbidden.
> : This may suggest that the rambam considered them as goyot - with an
> : invalid conversion.
> ...
> : The rambam then specifically rejects the notion that these women were
> : halachically goyot - in hal 14.
>
> : he says about people who converted for secondary reasons  hare ze ger.
RMB
> The Rambam says that people who converted for no known reason or wasn't
> taught anything about Judaism first, harei zeh geir (bedi'eved). The
> phrase is not used in the second case of "noda shebishvil davar hu
> misgayeir". I think this is significant, as I'll explain below.
me
> :  veafilu noda shebishvil davar hu mitgayer - ho'il umal vetaval, yatza
> : miklal hagoyim  - an explicit statement that the previous statement
> : about the katuv considering neshe shlolmo as goyot is not a a halachic
> : determination - they are not goyot .
> : He then says, vehosheshim lo -, ad sheyitbaer tzidkuto.
> ...
> :  (BTW, The simple pshat (and apparently the one that was accepted by
> : most poskim until recently ) seems to be that even though the gerut is
> : chal, in such a gerut, he does not have the hezkat kashrut of a
> : regular Jew - and hosheshin lo - and presumably, one wouldn't want to
> : get married to such a person unitl one is sure ....
RMB
> I wouldn't phrase it that way. If the geirus is chal, why wouldn't you
> want to marry into the family? His son is a mumar just because he is?
me
Why do you think the chashash is about the family? the question is
about the individual - the rambam is not talking about marrying into
the family - but about marrying the individual...

RMB
> My own read of the Rambam is somewhat similar to yours, but I instead read
> him as saying that we have a chazaqah that allows us to assume he's a
> geir -- although we don't really know.
>
> IOW, I"m not reading "chosheshin lo" as we are chosheish he is a Yisrael
> mumar, but in contrast to "yatza miKELAL hagoyim" -- not the clear
> "harei zeh geir" that the Rambam says where we have no particular reason
> to suspect his motives. We are chosheshim for the validity of his geirus.
>
> And therefore if another birur comes along, the chazaqah wouldn't
> stand. (The chazaqah is already ika rei'usah, our case is "noda shebishvil
> davar hu misgayeir.)

The problem with your pshat is the end of the rambam - and the problem
he is dealing with:
he concludes that at the end; it was clear to everyone that the
conversions of neshe shlomo and shimshon were insincere -they were
only megayer to get married and they never had any intention of
keeping the mitzvot, and they  didn't keep the mitzvot  as he says, -
af al pi shenigla sodan.

If the gerut was therefore not chal because we now know that the gerut
was insincere, at that point shlomo and shimshon could no longer keep
their wives - even if the marriage from safek was originally
acceptable - there was no longer a safek.

Why could they keep them? because once converted, even though
dishonestly (nigla sodan), - meachar shetaval hare ze yisrael  - and
therefore kiyem shimshon ushlomo neshehen - not nas'u neshem -  but
kiyem - not merely that the original marriage was not a problem, but
they could stay married - and if finding out that a conversion was
insincere without KOM would invalidate the marriage
> This is based on the same issue RCOG and RMF raise, that the only reason
> why KOM isn't dismissed as devarim shebeleiv is because we have an anan
> sahadi. But the ultimate qiyum is still beleiv.
But in the case the rambam deals with, we have an anan sahadi - and
the gerut was still chal....
RMF and RCOG can pasken against the rambam - but he is quite clear...

Meir Shinnar

Efraim Yawitz wrote:
> Since the Birkas ha-Chama is coming up next year, I'm wondering if
> anyone has thought about the factual aspects of the subject.  As far
> as I am aware, this 28-year cycle means absolutely nothing according
> to modern astronomy (or even according to Ptolemaic astronomy).

I have wondered about that.  The best I could come up with is that
it's significant to "us", who use a 7-day week and the Julian calendar;
the sun was created on Wed 26-Mar, in the year after a leap year, so
every time that date comes around again it reminds us of the creation
and we say a bracha.

But this is less than satisfactory for a number of reasons, including
the big one - *we* *don't* use the Julian calendar any more.  99% of
people in the street, and even probably 90% of frum Jews, have never
heard of it.  We start tal umatar on 4-Dec, and nobody even remembers
that it's "really" meant to be on 21-Nov.  And if we project the
Gregorian calendar backwards, we will *not* find that the fourth day
of creation was on 8-Apr!  So what are *we* commemorating with this
bracha?


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

We've had some discussion, a few months ago AFAIK, about whether there
is a mitzvah to accept someone who wants to convert (but has not yet),
or whether perhaps our obligation (to love the ger) only begin after
the conversion has been completed.

I just saw in the Shiur Times (a local parsha-sheet-like magazine for
the dati-tzioni community) for June 2008, in "Declaring Faith" by
Rebbetzin Chana Bracha Siegelbaum (of Midreshet B'erot Bat Ayin), page
10, the following sources. The overall thrust of the article is that
indeed, we must welcome those who are desirous of converting. He
primary sources are:

Rabbi Abahu said, "Come and see how precious are proselytes to the
Holy One, blessed be He. Once she [Ruth] had SET HER HEART ON
CONVERTING*, Scripture placed her in the same rank as Naomi, as it is
said: "And they both walked till they came to Bethlehem" (Ruth 1:19)
(Yalkut Shimoni, Ruth Chapter 1, 601).
* - emphasis in original article

"Go Return" - Rabbi Shmuel Bar Chiya said in the name of Rabbi
Chanina, "return" is written three times here, corresponding to the
three times one must push away a convert. If he persists we accept
him. Rabbi Yitzchak says: "But the stranger shall not lodge in the
street; I will open my doors to the traveler" (Iyov 31:32). One must
always push away with the left [hand] and bring close with the right
[hand] (Yalkut Shimoni, ibid.)

Do these sources bear her (the article's author) claims out? I'm not
in Avodah anymore, but I thought I'd bring this for everyone else's
benefit.

Mikha'el Makovi

Moderator's preface:

The discussion on Mesorah drifted from the question of what was the
shoresh of the word "atah" or "at" to the legitimacy of saying the
shoresh is really the proto-Semitic "ant" (as in Aramic).

We've discussed the topic of the evolution of languages and Chazal, but
it's been a while so I think we're overdue for a repeat. We definitely
have a measurably different population now.

The subject line is mine, don't blame RRD for it.

-micha




On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 12:12 PM, Michael Hamm <msh210@math.wustl.edu> wrote:
> On Monday, 25 Aug 2008, R' Raphael Davidovich wrote, in part,
> about Rashi to B'reshis 2:23:
>> I thought the Chazal was about Adam Harishon, which could
>> conceivably lead a person to conclude that Hebrew is the
>> literal first language, which led to my counter-argument
>> that this is no reason to think that it must also be the
>> origin of all post-Mabul languages.

>> However, Chazal say even less than that.  The claim, which
>> is pure Medrash that has no practical human language
>> conclusion, is that Hashem created the world with Hebrew.
>> That has NOTHING to do with the development of languages in
>> the history of Olam Hazeh.  It is entirely plausible to
>> suggest that while from a aggedeta point of view, Hebrew was
>> the "language" that made Creation, Hebrew as a human language
>> evolved and developed in a manner similar to all other
>> languages.

> The context of the Rashi (the pasuk) implies that Adam spoke the language
> in question.  Even if we ignore Rashi, each of the following statements
> seems either reasonable or Jewish to me:
>  1.  One person was created first, and was able to speak
>      intelligently as soon as he was created, or soon after.
>  2.  That person spoke only one language on a regular basis
>      at the time he was first able to speak.
>  3.  That language thus did not descend from any other.
> Am I to understand that you, R'RD, wish to argue that that language was
> something other than Hebrew (l'shon kodesh), despite the Rashi alluded to
> above, and that Rashi was referring only to the creation of the world and
> not the language Adam spoke, despite the context of the Rashi?  Or that that
> language Adam spoke was other than Hebrew, despite the context of the Rashi,
> and that Rashi, and the midrash he's quoting, decided to lie, and say it was
> Hebrew even though it was actually Proto-Whatever, just for the sake of
> d'rash?  Either one seems to me, if you'll excuse me, far-fetched. And if
> Adam spoke a different language, what sort of language was it, and why did
> he speak it?  I mean this from a Jewish point of view.  That is, if the
> world was created with Hebrew, or, at least, if the Torah is in it, then why
> would Hashem create the first person speaking Proto-Whatever, or how did he
> develop it?  It all seems to me so unreasonable.  
> R'RD also refers to Hebrew's not being the "origin of all post-Mabul
> languages".  I agree.  But it did predate them, as far as I can currently
> understand, which is a separate issue.

> I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'll grant that "Loshon Kodesh" is
Hebrew. But there is today's Hebrew and there is the Hebrew of thousands
of years ago. They are not the same. I think that as nations were being
created, there were probably faster mutations in languages than what
we see today. Whatever one's view of Slifkin, Darwin etc. it is clear
and provable and documented that languages do evolve and have evolved.
Even Hebrew lettering has evolved. There is even a gemara in Sanhedrin -
Perek Cheilek, that makes this point explicitly. True, rishonim cited
in the Artscroll footnotes try to squeeze their way out, but history is
pretty clear on that point, and in full agreement with that gemara: There
was a Ksav Ivri and Ksav Ashuri etc. Despite the attempts at Esperanto,
nobody "makes" a language.

Then there is the Loshon Kodesh of Brias Haolam and even Adam Harishon.
That is pre-historical in the literal sense: It predates History.
You contend that Hebrew is the exception to the rule of because Chazal
state that Adam spoke it. Any statement about Loshon Kodesh at that
pre-real time time follows a rule similar to the rule that we don't learn
Halacha from Aggadeta. Adam spoke something we will call Loshon Kodesh.
The degree to which his language resembled the language Moshe Rabbeinu
spoke is unclear and halachically irrelevant.

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 04:38:18PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: I have wondered about that.  The best I could come up with is that
: it's significant to "us", who use a 7-day week and the Julian calendar;
: the sun was created on Wed 26-Mar, in the year after a leap year, so
: every time that date comes around again it reminds us of the creation
: and we say a bracha.
: 
: But this is less than satisfactory for a number of reasons, including
: the big one - *we* *don't* use the Julian calendar any more...

IMHO, the question isn't the Julian calendar but tequfas Shemuel. IOW,
I don't think the fact that nachriim happened to use the same 365-1/4
days per year approximation as Shemuel did is relevent.

Shemu'el's tequfah gets that 1/4 of a day to drift through an even number
of weeks to get back to Wed in 28 years (4 * 7).

R' Ada'a tequfah would mean having another 19 yr cycle to multiple they
28 yr cycle by in order to have tequfos Nissan that are a whole number
of weeks apart.

Any tequfah would be only an estimate; the actual number of days per year
is an irrational number. (Like getting pi down exactly.) So, why not
pick an estimate that both makes the mitzvah rare enough to be special
without so rare people couldn't remember having done it before and the
mesorah would be lost?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Mussar is like oil put in water,
micha@aishdas.org        eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org                    - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<If one captures a slave, is he not automatically given the status of a
> woman vis-a-vis Mitzvah obligation? This is what I aways assumed when
> learning those sugyos in the Gemarah dealing with Avodim.

No.  He must be mekabel ol mitzvot.


> I can't imagine first asking a slave if he will be Mekabel the Ol Mitzvos
>  just before we capture him. I thought capturing him made him
> automatically obligated -  whether he or she likes it or not.

No.


> We all know the various questions that arise with a person who is half an
> eved kenani and half a Jew because one of two owners freed the slave.
> I recently saw a question concerning someone who is half Jewish and half
> non-Jewish. How is that possible?
> The case is again an eved kenani with 2 owners. However, now the eved kenani
> refuses to keep mitzvot. Thus he has a din of a nonJew not an eved kenani.
> When one owner frees him he is half Jewish and half nonJewish.

How is he half Jewish? If he was never mekabel ol mitzvot then he's
not at all Jewish, and if he was then he's half-eved-half-ben-chorin
no matter what he currently says.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Something that seems pashut to me, but I haven't seen anyone suggest
yet:

Let's get back to Rashi's svara, that we don't make a bracha on chibut
arava because we can't say "vetzivanu" -- He didn't command us to do it,
either directly or through the rabbanan.

The distinction between this and the cases where we do say a bracha
seems obvious to me: when we say Hallel on Rosh Chodesh, we can say
"vetzivanu" because He *did* command us (via lo tasur) to say Hallel;
just not today.  Similarly, when we light a menorah in shul we can say
"vetzivanu" because He did command us to light it, just not here.  And
when a woman does a mitzvah she can say "vetzivanu" because she's part
of klal yisrael which was commanded, even though she specifically wasn't.
But when it comes to chibut arava, we were *never* commanded to do it,
anywhere, ever, so we can't say "vetzivanu".

Now we come to the 4 non-Esther megilot.  We were commanded to read
Megilat Esther on Purim; if there arose a minhag to read it also on
the second day of Pesach, to commemorate the day when the nes happened,
then I suggest that Ashkenazim would say a bracha on it.  But we have
never been commanded to read Eicha, let alone the other three megilot.
So how can we say "vetzivanu" when we decide to read them?

OTOH those who do say a bracha might argue that this svara would be all
very well if the bracha specified "vetzivanu al mikra megilat ester".
But the bracha just says "al mikra megila", and we were indeed commanded
to read *a* megilah, just not this one, and not today, so we can say
a bracha.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

R' Efraim Yawitz asked:
> Since the Birkas ha-Chama is coming up next year, I'm wondering
> if anyone has thought about the factual aspects of the subject.
> As far as I am aware, this 28-year cycle means absolutely
> nothing according to modern astronomy (or even according to
> Ptolemaic astronomy).  Has this been discussed before?

The Artscroll "Bircas Hachama" goes into it. As I recall, there were two
views in the gemara on how to calculate these cycles, one being more
accurate mathematically, and the other being the one we use. It seems that
Chazal deliberately opted for a less-accurate calculation, because it has
the advantage of being more useful to the average person, who would be
unable to calculate the other one.

Tal Umatar (in chu"l) is another application of this exact same machlokes:
Pretending that the solar year is *exactly* 365.25 days long enables the
halacha to be kept more uniformly, and by more laymen.

I have seen other halachos which seem to use similar reasoning. For
example, chanuka lights and sukka sechach must both be no higher than 20
amos, and for the exact same reason: to insure that they areseen by people
on the ground. But it seems ludicrous (to me) that height alone would be
the only factor - surely the horizontal distance is also very important! If
one is some distance away (where the street is wide or sukkah is wide) the
angle from the eye to the mitzvah will be shallow, and one can see the
mitzvah even if very high. But if the street or sukkah is narrow, then the
mitzvah will go unnoticed even at a comparatively low position. Yet the
halacha in all (most?) cases is that we go strictly by the height, because
that is a lot simpler for the average person.

Other examples include:
- Urine is diluted with a reviis, regardless of how much urine it is.
- Halachos about eating in the afternoon on Erev Shabbos and Erev YT
totally ignore how much one ate in the morning, or what time one expects to
finally eat at night (at the seder, for example).

Chazal made no effort to keep halacha easy, but they did try to keep it simple.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Free information - Learn about Security Cameras. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc
/Ioyw6i3mYHplDYpIOmfWd11nl2AuKDSdmiJPQMuXUKtT4fU6Ax3w1c/


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 306
***************************************

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..."