Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 136

Wed, 15 Jul 2009

• 1. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 2. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Why is Shul Worship Inherently Attractive (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Why is Shul Worship Inherently Attractive (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Categorical imperative (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 6. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Categorical imperative (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. (no subject) (Joseph Kaplan)
• 10. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 11. Re: Bar Mitzvah on "Early Shabbos" (David Riceman)
• 12. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Meir Shinnar)
• 13. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Arie Folger)
• 14. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Re: Categorical imperative (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 16. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Yitzhak Grossman)
• 17. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

Dr. Shinar:
> The question, in stead, is finding the right model to accomodate reality
> - that an increasing part of many women's lives are not part of the home,
> and there should be some religious expression of that reality.

Agreed

> The easist (and most traditional and least revolutionary...) is that
> of copying men's roles -- not because of egalitarianism, but that is
> the model available. That isn't discarding what women do in the home as
> not valuable...

Two stories:

While in YU choir Prof. Perelshtayn had us singing a piece that sounded
lousy (he had conducted young boys choirs in Lithuania)

I told him:
"Look, the notes are within the range of our voices but the piece's
tessutura isn't. Plus it's a "feminine" piece and not fit for an
all-male choir".

The piece was dropped

Story #2
Background:
Looking for benchers for my daughter's BM
Scheduled for Labor Day weekend..

Me: Chana Yocheved, do you like this bencher with all the chaggim
of Tishrey?

CY: NO!!

Me: Why not?

It took a while but finally my sister told me the bencher *I* wanted was
too masculine for a girl! Hence my daughter's emphatic but inarticulate
rejection.

My opinion: women should not "ape" men but come up with feminine
alternatives for WTG's instead. This is not just about not being
egalitarian, it's about being an alternative and not an echo!
(Remember Barry Goldwater? :-)

Illustration:
Friday evening:
Have women sitting in a circle and alternating reciting p'suqqim in Shir
Hashirim - perhaps w/o a leader.

Then maybe Eishes Hayyil...

Morning do same for pesuqqei d'zimra.

Maybe skip Torah reading and go straight to haftara
- unless torah reading has a "shira" in it.

My 2 cents

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Joseph C. Kaplan:
> But that's just the point -- men do NOT violate tzni'ut as LITTLE
> as possible; they violate it as MUCH as possible if you accept RHS and
> RMB's definition of tzni'ut for men.

WADR this is a straw man

RHS, RMB gave an ideal view - not necessarily THE pragmatic one

I backed them up with a svara from a different context

J Kaplan's upshlug has naught to deal with the ideal but with the
realia...

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


And he even gave a disclaimer - this will kill the whole business!
:-). IOW he realized he was reading from a sefer and that this ideal
would conflict with the shul's ability to find its budget. So he gave
a wink and nod but explained the mussar of not chasing kavod.

He certainly had little or no expectation of being mevatel the shul's
own successful auctions for kibbudim!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

In a running thread entitled "Tzeni'us and gender roles," RMB wrote:

> I don't know if I'm succeeding, but I'm trying to illustrate an attitude
> rather than a logical flow of argument. An attitude that emphasizes
> shul worship because it's public thoroughfare worship. That some of the
> spiritual dissatisfaction a woman has being on the distaff side of the
> mechitzah is very much about it not having any possibilities of worship
> other than besoch ami.

Thus, according to RMB, the reason many consider shul centered worship
more fulfilling than home based worship, is that shul centered worship
is showoff worship.

I have not chimed in on the other thread, and probably won't. However,
while I do believe that Rav Hirsch is right that ideal worship is
personal and decentralized (which, acc. to RSRH is what service of G"d
was supposed to look like with the bekhorot being kohanim),
nonetheless, I am not convinced that the shul's attraction is that we
can show off there.

I have never been much of a spectator sports fan, having attended no
more games than I have fingers (on one hand IIRC), and having watched
similarly few, both counts since my birth. Nonetheless, I have
wondered what moves thousands upon thousands to cram into a stadium,
filled with seated "parentches," looking, as one rebbi in grade school
once put it, tzvaiundzvontzig naarunim loifen nukh a bal, und ven zie
hoben es, shiessen zie es aveg (roughly translates into: "soccer").

I believe that what attracts thousands of supporters to sports stadia,
is a tribal instinct, a sense of togetherness. And when a fan gets up
and starts cheering for his team and hundreds, and then thousands
follow after him, it isn't showing off that motivates him (those that
are so motivated are self conscious impostors who cannot arouse the
masses) or her, BTW, but a sense that one has backing from his
community of supporters.

Likewise, we get together in shul because of the companionship, the
community, and that even in worship, we like to do it together. And
when we want to lead, it is because it is exhilarating to know that
you can inspire others. I happen to know a little about that last
point; I do it for a living. It isn't "look at me," but it is most
fulfilling to know that you move someone else, too.

Similarly, saying devarim shebiqdusha isn't only about reciting
formulaic statements. One could have said them privately. When Chazal
instituted saying them betzibbur, they harnessed the power of the
crowd and the feeling of togetherness of the crowd, for the purpose of
'avodat haShem. These pronouncements are precisely about arousing our
tribal instincts in service of G"d, and that by doing that, we rise
above the level of the angels.

So, yes, the private service is the main service, but no, the public
service is not a concession to human frailty, not a necessary evil,
but a harnessing of our particular power and attraction as a crowd,
something we rightly feel drawn to when it is used right.

Now this is not an argument for or against greater public religious
roles for women. This was just about rescuing the honor of the miqdash
me'at that was indirectly under attack.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:00:20PM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
: Thus, according to RMB, the reason many consider shul centered worship
: more fulfilling than home based worship, is that shul centered worship
: is showoff worship.

A bit more baldly put, but basically yes. One nuance I would add to that
is that I'm contrasting it to quiet-behind-the-mechitzah worship as well
as home worship, something you can't really address in the way you cut
this tangent.

In short, my reply will be off topic to your point, because I'm not
looking at shul as showoff, I'm looking at a particular attraction
people have toward shul because it allows a possibility of showing off
that davening at home doesn't have.



I'm making a point about shul-and-rite that isn't addressed by the very
real need to feel part of the crowd. Who was it who said that the todah
was so large with such a small time window so as to force the thankful
person to share his joy as part of a larger community? Not to mention
berov am hadras melekh.

To put it another way, the concept of besokh ami anokhi yosheves includes
besokh ami.

But the person pushing for a place at the bimah, amud or the rabbi's
shtender isn't seeing synagogue as quiet worship. They're defining an
important place in yahadus by it being a prominant place in rite. The
concept of religion=rite feeding into a confusion of important vs
attention-grabbing.

As I said, I'm trying to describe an attitude, not a line of reasoning.
The drive for women to play a greater part in shul (or my love of being
Chazan, back when it didn't hurt my throat, or my love of having a turn
giving the derashah over qiddush) is in contrast to davening at home or
behind the mechitzah for a reason.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:03:33 -0400
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

...

> Kant's logic is that the moral is that which is the right thing to do
> regardless of your desired goal. The hypothetical imperative is to match
> a hypothetical goal (if you want to be rested, get some sleep) and the
> categorical imperative is that which you would do regardless of your
> particular goal. Thus, you would want anyone to do it, regardless of
> what they're trying to accomplish.
> 
> I don't think that definition of morality is compatible with the Torah.
> We see rishonim expound Divine Command theory (whatever Hashem commands
> is by definition moral), we have Hillel proposing negative symmetry, the

Which Rishonim expound Divine command theory?

> Ramban discusses moral in terms of qedushah (even beyond Divine
> Command), etc... But as a moral theory, I don't think Kant's fits the
> mesorah.

It is apparently not entirely clear that Kant himself wasn't a Divine
command theorist:

"Nuyen, R. T. 1998. ?Is Kant a Divine Command Theorist?? History of
Philosophy Quarterly 15: 441-453."

http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/divine-c.htm

Incidentally, while googling for 'Rishonim "command theory"', I
encountered this interesting footnote in a Tamar Ross paper:

"The claim has already been made regarding Kant's categorical
imperative that this is simply a replica of divine command theory with
the name of God deleted. Indeed Kant's concept of "the holy will" comes
very close to Hasid me-uleh of Maimonides who still retains some
element of subservience to a higher force or to R. Kook's idealization
of the ratzon penimi elyon in which our natural desires and the sense
of command are one and the same. Although feminist ethics are more
typified by a consequentialist view of morality, Kantians are not
totally absent from their ranks."

http://www.lookstein.org/articles/response_to_frimer.pdf

[p. 4 fn. 7]

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

RMShinnar wrote:
> What has to be understood (and not yet addressed) is, that for good or for
> bad, the role of half the community has changed - and is no longer one that
> is primarily in the home.   but if a woman has the right and option to be a
> lawyer/doctor/teacher/..... - she will be in the public sphere and not in
> the home. (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in front of a class?
> In front of a court?

Sorry to barge in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
immodest for a woman to stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
which is why she is represented by her parents).

-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer

Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> Which Rishonim expound Divine command theory?
Rashi Berachos 33b s.v. "Midosav".

David Riceman

R"n Chana Luntz had written:
> well I don't know if it is general Sephardi culture, or the
> Egyptian/Syrian Sephardi culture he comes from, or general
> Arab culture or what - but it is desperately impolite, if
> offered food (or maybe it is seconds of food, I am not quite
> sure) to accept first time, you have to say no, and the
> hostess has to insist, 

R' Meir Shinnar wrote:
> my father has a similar story.  When he was a (literally)
> starving student at the Technion, his one real meal during
> the week was if he was invited to a meal for shabbat. When
> the hostess offered seconds, there were, depending on
> where in Europe (in Haifa his hosts were all Ashkenazim)
> came from, two possible appropriate responses.

Anyone with additional info about the origins of this practice are urged to
contribute to this discussion. These stories could go either way: Either
the practices of the Gemara were continued by Jews both in Europe and the
Middle East, or perhaps they were long-standing universal practices which
were forgotten (or abandoned) relatively recently.

If it was standard only among the Jews, then it would appear to be a
continuation of a Minhag Yisrael which had been specified in Brachos 34a.
But if it was common among the non-Jews too, then it would not be Minhag
Yisrael, but rather merely Minhag Haolam, and I'm not aware that we need
any particular allegiance to it.

Even having been mentioned in the Gemara, the Gemara might have been merely
DEscriptive, *describing* what is expected and required in *that* place and
time, rather than being PREscriptive, *defining* what is expected and
required in *all* places and times.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Improve your driving ability with a stop at traffic school. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsKnbTSJXHSyOkLywZPxzgRzDrBjDsJNSuFv0UU3PyK8Mh7DKB755W/

Richard Wolpoe:

"J  Kaplan's upshlug has naught to deal with the ideal but with the  
realia."

When the supposed ideal and the realia are SO far removed from each  
other, with NO ONE even striving towards the ideal or talking about  
it in ANY practical way, it seems to me that the alleged ideal is  
merely a figment of someone's imagination. IMO, therefore, to use  
such a nonexistent ideal in an halachic argument impairs, rather than  
strengthens, the argument.

Joseph Kaplan

>
> And last, I still don't see how you provide any proof that the word
> "tzeni'us" means something other than "acting betzin'ah", that
> vehatznieah lekhes isn't dachui by the need to have leaders. You  
> aren't
> even arguing hutrah, you are telling me to follow a different and
> unprovided definition of the word without a source behind the claim
> that RHS -- or actually RYBS, since he discussed it in Nefesh haRav  
> (pg
> 281) -- got it wrong by translating the word literally. Tzin'ah is the
> antonym of parhesia, no?
I looked up in Nefesh Harav, and he actually says something quite  
different, and even a ra'aya lisgtor.  He argues that tzeniut means  
that it is incumbent upon everyone, including gdole yisrael and those  
involved in the public arena, to keep their private lives private -  
this was in the context of commenting on the appropriateness of  
biographies, and arguing that we learn from hashem about being hidden  
- and that his father, in spite of being involved publicly, remained a  
private person.  This is actually proof that RYBS did not hold that  
there was an issur of zniut of being involved in the public sphere,  
that somehow was being nidche - in talking about the issue of zniut,  
he does not at all say that there was any issue in being in the public  
sphere - rather, that while in the public sphere, keep your private  
side private - a very differen t issue.

Meir Shiinar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090714/f12aa628/attachment-0001.htm>

RJR:
> : Wouldn't it be talui in the machloket as to whether accepting early
> : shabbos literally turns Friday night into shabbat or is it just accepting
> : some additional obligations/restrictions on Friday?
>   
RMB:
> I also thought of the oft-rehashed Brisker Torah on Sukkos and tosefes
> Shemini Atzeres, often the same discussion. As well as the role of tosefes
> YT on qiddush beleil seder. (You are yotzei qiddush, but not 4 kosos
> which requires zeman achilas haqorban, not just that it be Pesach.)
>
> The Taz is choleiq with the Maharshal. The Maharshal cites the practice
> of a R' Tevil who wouldn't eat on Shemini Atzeres so as to avoid
> making a berakhah leisheiv basukah before qiddush for SA. The Tax holds
> that tosefes qodesh is a de'Oraisa and makes it the neft day, "for him
> the previous day along with any of its halachic obligations has passed.
> And it is as if it is night and actually the next day."
>
> And as with 4 kosos, Shema and omer require night, not the next day, and
> therefore the Taz says are not impacted by tosefes.
>   
"Literally Shabbat" requires korban/misah as a penalty for violating 
it.  None of these opinions goes that far.  Does anyone? IIRC even 
violating tosefes Yom Kippur, which everyone agrees is d'oraysa, is 
merely an issur asei and not a hiyyuv kores.

David Riceman

On Jul 14, 2009, at 4:37 PM, Arie Folger wrote:

> RMShinnar wrote:
>> What has to be understood (and not yet addressed) is, that for good  
>> or for
>> bad, the role of half the community has changed - and is no longer  
>> one that
>> is primarily in the home.   but if a woman has the right and option  
>> to be a
>> lawyer/doctor/teacher/..... - she will be in the public sphere and  
>> not in
>> the home. (By your criteria, how tzanua is it to get up in front of  
>> a class?
>> In front of a court?
>
> Sorry to barge in, but IIRC, there is a chazal that considers it
> immodest for a woman to stand in front of a court. Cited even by Rashi
> Devarim 22:16 (melamed she-ein la-isha reshit ledabber bifnei ha-ish,
> which is why she is represented by her parents).
>
>
I am thankful for RAF for bolstering my point.
First, WADR, I think that he is misinterpreting rashi - it is ledabber  
lifne haish, not lifne habet din-  see,eg, the torah temima on the  
pasuk - who views it as an issur for the woman to speak in front of  
her husband - not a question of in front the bet din.  I think that is  
the general understanding - various areas of tanach become  
incomprehensible otherwise (bnot tzlophchad, devora) - nor do I think  
that, say, in case of a get, the woman does not speak to the bet din.


However, I think RAF is reflecting a certain understanding that there  
is an inappropriateness of the woman being summoned in front of the  
bet din - and there are other ma'amre chazal that, IIRC, do support  
such a more general issue that limit the appearances of women before  
bate din.

This could be understood as reflecting either a general, eternal  
hazaka about the nature and appropriate status of women - as some  
other hazakot are understood - or reflecting more specific social  
situation, rather than a more general din.
In the haredi community, there is a strain that does limit strongly  
the ability of women to speak in public (eg, Rav Svei gave a speech to  
an Aguda convention, reproduced in the Jewish Observer, banning women  
from giving divre torah in public, and that many of the ills of the  
haredi community were due to this violation of tzniut)


What is clear is that the MO and YU community do not view it this way,  
and understand this as reflecting a social reality, rather than a  
statement of hazaka.  For example. the institution of toa'not, whose  
primary purpose is to argue before a bet din of men, is inconceivable  
if this is viewed as reflecting an eternal hazaka and notion of zniut.

Toanot are not universally accepted in the YU community.  However, WRT  
to secular court, and it seems quite clear that this hazaka should  
also apply to secular court, it is quite common in the YU/MO community  
for women to be lawyers- (and that was my original reference) -  
without a peep (and some  of the women I know ask frequent shailot to  
the YU Rashe yeshivot..)  (I don't now how common it is in American  
haredi society, but I know of cases, and again, I have not heard much  
mainstream American haredim argue  for the inappropriateness of such a  
profession - but here I could be corrected).  Therefore, any such  
limitation is clearly viewed, rather than reflecting the appropriate  
halachic nature of women, with requirement of tzniut, as reflecting a  
different social condition - and not applicable in today's word.

Meir Shinnar

On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Meir Shinnar<chide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> First, WADR, I think that he is misinterpreting rashi - it is ledabber lifne
> haish, not lifne habet din- ?see,eg, the torah temima on the pasuk - who
> views it as an issur for the woman to speak in front of her husband - not a
> question of in front the bet din. ?I think that is the general understanding
> - various areas of tanach become incomprehensible otherwise (bnot
> tzlophchad, devora) - nor do I think that, say, in case of a get, the woman
> does not speak to the bet din.

I did not make any inferences as to whether such a prohibition is
eternally applicable, whether it is a true derasha or an asmakhta or
even less, whether it is about the essential nature of tzni'ut or
societal, and your analysis is very interesting. However, You had
rethorically implied categorically that there is no reason to see any
tzni'ut impediment for a woman to argue before beit din.

Despite your reference to the Torah Temimah, who is entitled to his
own way to see things, the context here is parents representing their
daughter in beit din against defamation by her just married to groom.
In that context, Rashi quotes the Sifrei (IIRC ?236) that "from here
[we learn] that the woman has no permission to talk before the man."
Which man? You mean the order in which they speak? In that case, why
would the parents represent her? And why would Rashi particularly hang
this maamar onto the dibbur hamatchil veamar avi hana'ara, which
implies that the mother doesn't speak either?

Does that mean that we should prohibit all public actions and speeches
by women? You make cogent arguments to come to different conclusions,
or at least to show that the current practice is at odds with such
values in most of the Orthodox world, though regarding religious roles
there is greater reticence. However, I did not enter that discussion.
I just pointed out that there are maamarei Chazal that say exactly
what you implied is inconceivable, and indeed, in your response, you
write:

> However, I think RAF is reflecting a certain understanding that there is an
> inappropriateness of the woman being summoned in front of the bet din - and
> there are other ma'amre chazal that, IIRC, do support such a more general
> issue that limit the appearances of women before bate din.

Back to lurking...
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Barukh She-Amar Elucidated
* The Anatomy of a Beracha
* Basic Building Blocks of Jewish Prayer

FWIW When I attended Ner Israel - The principle of tz'nius for a woman
in the public arena was capsulized by the passuk:
"Kol k'vudah bas melech p'nimah"

I cannot say for certain whether this was construed as a Halachic
Imperative or (merely?) an Aggadic ideal.

A Bar-Ilan CD-Rom search on that phrase might be quite enlightening.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:53:46 -0400
David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

> Yitzhak Grossman wrote:
> > Which Rishonim expound Divine command theory?
> Rashi Berachos 33b s.v. "Midosav".

http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=1&;daf=33b&format=pdf

Rashi says there that the purpose of the commandments is "to impose on
Yisrael the decrees of His edicts ("huke gezerosav") to publicize
("le'hodia") that they are His servants and the keepers of His
commandments and the edicts of his decrees ("gezeros hukosav")".

I don't see much evidence in this for a strong version of DCT:

"A strong version of Divine Command Theory includes the claim that
moral statements (x is obligatory) are defined in terms of theological
statements (x is commanded by God)."

As to the weakest version of DCT:

"At the other end of the spectrum is the view that the commands of God
are coextensive with the demands of morality. God?s commands do not
determine morality, but rather inform us about its content."

it is trivial, and surely incontestable, that Judaism goes at least
this far.

[Citations from http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/divine-c.htm ]

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:30:43 -0400
Meir Shinnar <chide...@gmail.com> wrote:

...

> Does it mean that some people lack tzniut in their fulfillment of public
> roles? No question  (my favorite example was from a chazzan in my youth,
> who, for Hineni he'ani mimaas, would stride down in his hazzan's hat, saying
> loudly three times   HINENI HINENI HINENI then softly he'ani mi'ma'as ..),

:)  A telling anecdote, to be sure, but it should be noted that there
seems to be a custom, at least in the various minyanim with which I have
prayed, for the Hazzan to silently utter the phrase "ve'af al pi
she'aini kedai ve'hagun le'kach", as well as the subsequent
self-critical phrases beginning with "ve'na al taf'shi'em be'hatosai":

http://www.piyut.org.il/textual/549.html

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters

Is there any tzeni"us problem with this?

"Beth Aaron is hosting a kinnot program for women, by women from 10AM to
1PM on Tisha Ba'av."

 ----

FWIW Yekke shatz's say hinneni privately and silently. The minhag is for
the shatz to wrap himself in his Tallis and to meditate quietly while
at the amud. This takes place before baruch she'amar before shacharis
as well as before Mussaf. On RH

On YK it takes place prior to Kol Nidre, mincha and Nek-lah as well. 

I suspect that saying it silently used to be the minhag for all
Ashkenazim until some cantors started "putting on a show".

Also note that the posqim have condemned shluchei tzibbur who sing to
"show off their voices" - and so those tzibburs that go out of their
way to hire such haazanim may be "mainstream" but certainly fall short
in their Avodas Hashem quotient.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 136
***************************************

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..."