Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 216

Sun, 01 Nov 2009

• 1. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish (Samuel Svarc)
• 2. Re: Attending religious services other than Jewish (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: dinosaurs (T6...@aol.com)
• 4. Re: children at a wedding (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: children at a wedding (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 6. Re: children at a wedding (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Re: mei marom (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 8. Re: children at a wedding (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: dinosaurs (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: me marom (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: mei marom (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: dinosaurs (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: mei marom (Zev Sero)

L'masse the Rema says to act in accordance with the shitas that hold that they do have 'tumah'.

KT and GV,
MSS
 
-----------------------
Sent from my Treo(r) smartphone

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Israel <d...@cornell.edu>
Date: Saturday, Oct 31, 2009 8:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Attending religious services other than Jewish
To: A High-Level Torah Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>,
Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>Reply-To: A High-Level Torah
Discussion Group <avo...@lists.aishdas.org>

Quoting Gershon Dubin <gershon.du...@juno.com>:
 (One person, a kohen, went early enough to "catch" the family at   
 home and express his condolences, thereby avoiding issues of tum'as   
 ohel).

I thought we paskened l'ma'aseh that there is no tumas meis by a  
non-Jew.  Was I incorrect?  Or were there (at least potentially)  
Jewish meisim at this funeral home?

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu


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

 
From: Claudia Gaspar _gaspar51@gmail.com_ (mailto:gaspa...@gmail.com) 

>>A friend  of mine who is x-tian lost his 20-year old son in a terrible
motorcycle  accident.

He invited me to attend a mass and I know it's very important  to him I can
be present in a so painful time.

I don't know what to to.  Is it an 'ethics' I can observe under such
conditions? <<

Shabat  Shalom

Claudia Gaspar

 
>>>>>
 
You can't go to church but you can send him a letter of condolence and ask  
if it would be OK for you to visit his home in a few days.  At his home you 
 would more or less conduct yourself as you would at a shiva -- talk about 
his  son and ask him to share memories with you.  The pain of your not being 
at  the mass is so tiny compared to the pain of losing his son that he will 
not  remember or care about it in the long run.   It's like a mosquito bite 
 compared to a massive stroke.
 

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



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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091101/470b6a5f/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:  Does one continue to follow a rav, say in our case the  
dinosaur-denying
mechaneikh's rabbeim and their rabbeim, when you find that  he labeled
you a kofeir for a belief you cannot (as well as don't want to)  shake?
 
TK:  What do you mean by "following" him?  If you do not share  his beliefs 
then you are /not/ following him.  I guess you can still follow  his psak 
in matters of kashrus and Shabbos, but if you fundamentally disagree  with 
his hashkafos then in what sense could you ever be said to be "following"  
that rav?  I don't even understand your question.
 


As it so happens, the rebbe in the BeyondBT story only said there are no  
dinosaurs.  He did not say that if you believe in dinosaurs you are an  
apikores.

 
 
 
RMB:  Eilu va'eilu works fine when it comes to yom tov sheini shel  galiyos.
It gets messier WRT gittin, since a qulah my poseiq doesn't  recognize
might mean children (from a second marriage) who my children may  not
marry.... 

EvE becomes a paradox altogether when dealing with someone  labeling
something kefirah. Because it applies to ideas, one can close  the
referential loop.


TK:   First of all, Eilu v'eilu does not mean that IN PRACTICE  you adopt 
two different psakim simultaneously -- keeping and not-keeping a  second day 
of yom tov, for example.  It only means that both views have  some validity, 
but you still have to choose one or the other for practical  purposes.
 
 
RMB: Shitah A: A and B are boh eilu va'eilu Shitah  B: Shitah A is  kefirah,
and thus outside eilu va'eilu

What does shitah A's acceptance  of shitah B imply about A's belief
in itself?  



TK:  I think it implies tremendous self-confidence!  "I know you  think I'm 
an apikores, I think you're wrong about dinosaurs and wrong about me,  but 
I respect you anyway."  That sounds like a very unflappable man to  me!  A 
can accept with total equanimity the fact that B considers him an  apikores, 
and it doesn't faze him a bit.  
 
There is something slippery about your logic here but I'm having trouble  
pinpointing what it is. In terms of EvE, Shita A does NOT accept Shitah B,  
it just accepts that there may be some validity or some precedent for Shitah  
B.  
 
When Hillel accepted some children as non-mamzerim while Shamai considered  
them mamzerim,  and Hillel still said "eilu ve'eilu," it only meant  that 
they accept Shamai as being within the pale and not outside the pale of  
normative Orthodoxy.  (Yes I know I am using the word "Orthodoxy"  
anachronistically)   It did not mean that they considered the children  in question to be 
both mamzerim and non-mamzerim simultaneously!  ("Schroedinger's mamzer"?)
 
 
 
RMB:  So I think this poses a real question for adherents of shitah A.  Can 
their
eilu va'eilu include shitah B and its exclusion of their own  opinion? Do
we say palginan divura -- it's only on the points about which  it's
kefirah that A-nikim reject B? 
 
TK:  I truly believe you are not thinking logically here at all.   Let's 
say I, an adherent of Shitah A, believe in dinosaurs -- not only that they  
lived, but that they lived millions of years ago.  Let's say Ploni, an  
adherent of Shitah B, believes that I am an apikores.  Let's say I also  believe 
in EvE.  Does that mean that I must now simultaneously believe that  there 
WERE dinosaurs and at the same time must believe that there WERE NO  
dinosaurs?!  And furthermore,  must I believe that there WERE  dinosaurs and at the 
same time, must I believe that I am an apikores?!
 
The problem is that you are defining EvE wrong.  
 
EvE only means that I, an adherent of Shitah A, accept that those who  
believe in Shitah B, yesh lahem al mi lismoch and they are still ehrlicher  
Yidden.  I do not have to accept that their shitah is CORRECT!  I  can believe 
in EvE while believing that the other side is INCORRECT.  EvE  simply does 
/not/ mean "Both sides are right"!
 
Your problem, it seems to me, is not really an intellectual problem, even  
though it is couched in intellectual terms.  I sense, rather, an emotional  
problem -- an inability to accept, emotionally, the lack of symmetry between 
two  shitos, one of which says, "You're wrong, but you have the right to 
think what  you think" while the other says, "You're wrong, and you're an 
apikores."  
 
 
You seem to think that A has only two choices:  accept B and therefore  
reject his own self -- stop believing in dinosaurs.  OR, accept his own  
beliefs -- keep believing in dinosaurs -- but then exclude B from the universe  of 
acceptable beliefs the same way B excluded A, keeping things  symmetrical.
 
But there is a third way, the way EvE really operates:  A continues to  
believe in dinosaurs, B believes they never existed.  A believes that B is  
wrong, but at the same time, he believes that B is an ehrlicher Jew and he  
continues to respect him.   He knows that B does not consider him an  ehrlicher 
Jew in return but he loves B anyway.
 
 
 
 
 
"Outwitted"
by Edwin Markham
He drew a circle that shut me out ?
Heretic, rebel, a thing to  flout.
But Love and I had the wit to win:
We drew a circle that took him  in!  





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


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091101/598936fb/attachment-0001.htm>

     I was taught that the reason for children not attending is not for
     their sake, but for the sake of the step-parent: not to be a reminder,
     at the chuppa, of the mate's previous zivug.
EMT
____________________________________________________________
Blue Cross Health Plans
Quote & compare top health plans like Blue Cross, Aetna, and more!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=YHKFidsewki6MH4lpRqD5AAAJ
1DzeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAANbo8j4AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOGiQAAAAA=

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091101/bba7d303/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Daniel Israel wrote:

> This is a minhag, not a halacha, so it doesn't necessarily have
> to be rigorously logical.

Agreed, but still, it does have to make sense to some degree. And I would
imagine that in most cases, even when the child doesn't like the idea of a
parent being replaced, he would *usually* not refuse to attend the wedding,
so I'm wondering how this minhag developed.

> However, I would assume that the distinction is that the
> tzar of a child whose parent is remarrying (for whatever  
> reason) is connected to the mitzvah of kibud to the
> other parent.

If the parents are divorced, this would apply only if the other parent
objects to the child attending. And if the parent getting married is
widowed, then there isn't any other parent to object.

Akiva miller

____________________________________________________________
Find Top-Rated Home Pros
Local home improvement pros for any project. Free bids, no obligation!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=XQEepif9b05cD3Kp7XtTewAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAEJgCT8AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIYKAAAAAA=

> Children "fashter" the simcha because in their hearts they  are
> never wholeheartedly besimcha to see one parent marrying
>  another partner, whether the other parent died or was "lost"
> because of  divorce.  [--TK]
 
 

>>On the one hand, despite many posts in this thread, and the  several 
sources offered for this practice, this is the first and (so far) only  attempt 
at explaining the *reasons* behind this practice. And for that I offer  my 
thanks to RTK.

But I still don't understand it.

Are you  suggesting that a person should not attend a wedding unless he 
will be there  "wholeheartedly besimcha"?

Would that logic forbid a parent to attend a  child's wedding, if the 
parent is opposed to this shidduch? ...<<
 
 
Akiva Miller
 


>>>>>  
I don't think what I wrote about children not being wholeheartedly besimcha 
 is the whole, or only, reason.  I didn't mean it to be exhaustive.
 
A factor related to what I wrote, about children putting a chill on their  
parents' wedding, is that the children are tangible reminders for everyone  
to see -- the chasan and kallah and all the guests -- that there was a 
previous  marriage that ended tragically, whether it ended in death or divorce.   
This casts a pall on everyone present.  The wedding is supposed to be a new 
 beginning, not a longing glance back.
 
I would also say, regarding parents who are not totally happy with their  
children's choice of mate, that that is still not the same as a child who in 
his  heart carries a loyalty to the missing parent and a grievance against 
the other  parent for his "disloyalty" (whether remarrying after being 
widowed or after a  divorce).  The child at a wedding is, literally, torn.  He 
wants to be  happy for his father but cannot forget his mother.  The 
disgruntled  parents at their child's wedding have no such divided loyalties.  
 
Another factor has to do with tznius, that is, a child should not think of  
his parents as romantic, sexual beings.  Every child knows that he was born 
 through immaculate conception and that his own parents never, ever had sex 
(no  matter what anyone /else's/ parents may have done).  Seeing a parent 
marry  a new person makes it very hard /not/ to think of the parent 
consummating the  relationship with a new person -- it almost forces the child to see 
his parents  as sexually active people, which really one never wants to 
think about.  Of  course, after the wedding the new couple are going to share a 
bedroom, but  that's not the same as being at the actual wedding where 
"everybody knows why  they go to the chupa" is operative.  I am not expressing 
this as well as I  would like to, but people play different roles when they 
are courting, falling  in love and marrying than they play when they are 
parenting.  I also feel  strongly that parents should not involve their children 
at all in their dating  and courting lives, and should not introduce their 
children to potential  suitors, until the relationship is very serious and a 
marriage is very  likely.  Whatever cuteness, flirtatiousness, girlishness 
(or boyishness),  go on between two who are courting -- should not be 
witnessed by their  children.
 
 

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




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






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091101/cea0ee29/attachment-0001.htm>

REli Turkel quoted a "vort" on the g'mara about R. Chanina b. Tradyon's
execution and his executioner's getting olam haba for easing the suffering
by hastening the death. What he quoted asked, "Why did Rabbi Chanina cry?"

To this, RZev Sero responded, "*He didn't*. RChbT was already dead
and unable to cry, even had he been so inclined. This entire 'torah'
is based on the author misremembering the gemara, and thus fails."

RET pointed out that the author was Rav Shach, to which RZS in a manner
most disrespectful to Rav Shach, reiterated that he had misremembered
the g'mara and thus gave it an impossible interpretation.

The quote was mipi hash'mua. I think it is obvious that the shomeia was
the one who misremembered that is was Rebbi who cried, and of Rebbi's
crying that Rav Shach gave the explanation. The vort stays the same,
and no gratuitous insult to its author is necessary.

EMT

> I was taught that the reason for children not attending is not for their
> sake, but for the sake of the step-parent: not to be a reminder, at the
> chuppa, of the mate's previous zivug.
> REMT

FWIW
IIRC there similar halachos or minhaggim re: observing yahrzeit's of
previous spouses which support REMT's thesis above.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

T6...@aol.com wrote:

> When Hillel accepted some children as non-mamzerim while Shamai 
> considered them mamzerim,  and Hillel still said "eilu ve'eilu," it only 
> meant that they accept Shamai as being within the pale and not outside 
> the pale of normative Orthodoxy.

Other way around; and it was Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai, not Hillel
and Shammai.

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

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:58:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: I've already suggested an explanation for all three stories several
: posts ago.  They represent three *different* ways to get instant OHB,
: and teshuvah is only one of those ways.

Leis din veleis Dayan?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> REli Turkel quoted a "vort" on the g'mara about R. Chanina b. Tradyon's
> execution and his executioner's getting olam haba for easing the suffering
> by hastening the death. What he quoted asked, "Why did Rabbi Chanina cry?"
> 
> To this, RZev Sero responded, "*He didn't*. RChbT was already dead
> and unable to cry, even had he been so inclined. This entire 'torah'
> is based on the author misremembering the gemara, and thus fails."

> The quote was mipi hash'mua. I think it is obvious that the shomeia was
> the one who misremembered that is was Rebbi who cried, and of Rebbi's
> crying that Rav Shach gave the explanation. The vort stays the same

On the contrary, the entire pshetel *depends* on the identity of the
crier, and it makes no sense with Rebbi as the crier.

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:58:54PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : I've already suggested an explanation for all three stories several
> : posts ago.  They represent three *different* ways to get instant OHB,
> : and teshuvah is only one of those ways.
> 
> Leis din veleis Dayan?

Of course there is a din and a dayan.  What has that got to do with it?
Yesh koneh olamo beshanim harbei.  But there are ways to get on the fast
track.  Teshuvah is one of them; why does that bother you less than the
other two? (Or more; we have no guarantee that there are only three.)

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

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:57:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
: On the contrary, the entire pshetel *depends* on the identity of the
: crier, and it makes no sense with Rebbi as the crier.

I have no idea why you say that. The peshetl simply requires someone to
note "qoneh olamo besha'ah achas".

:>Leis din veleis Dayan?

: Of course there is a din and a dayan.  What has that got to do with it?
: Yesh koneh olamo beshanim harbei.  But there are ways to get on the fast
: track.  Teshuvah is one of them; why does that bother you less than the
: other two? (Or more; we have no guarantee that there are only three.)

Teshuvah is a means of earning olam haba. Qoneh olamo. He got what he
deserved, even if it only took him sha'ah achas to deserve it.

Your statement about tzadiq gozeir explicitly relies on the centurion
NOT deserving it. He wasn't qoneh olamo -- RCbD so-to-speak forced the
issue despite that. Thus, a lack of justice.

You also have yet to explain how a centurion deciding not to go on
executing Jews but instead to throw in his lot with RCbD doesn't quality
as teshuvah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 02:52:58AM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: TK:  What do you mean by "following" him?  If you do not share  his beliefs 
: then you are /not/ following him.  I guess you can still follow  his psak 
: in matters of kashrus and Shabbos, but if you fundamentally disagree  with 
: his hashkafos then in what sense could you ever be said to be "following"  
: that rav?  I don't even understand your question.

Well, only if you think there is a difference in methodology in reaching
one conclusion and not the other. More in a moment...

...
: I think it implies tremendous self-confidence!  "I know you  think I'm 
: an apikores, I think you're wrong about dinosaurs and wrong about me,  but 
: I respect you anyway."  That sounds like a very unflappable man to  me!  A 
: can accept with total equanimity the fact that B considers him an  apikores, 
: and it doesn't faze him a bit.  

And yet, as you continue...

:> So I think this poses a real question for adherents of shitah A.  Can their
:> eilu va'eilu include shitah B and its exclusion of their own  opinion? Do
:> we say palginan divura -- it's only on the points about which  it's
:> kefirah that A-nikim reject B? 

: I truly believe you are not thinking logically here at all. Let's 
: say I, an adherent of Shitah A, believe in dinosaurs -- not only that they 
: lived, but that they lived millions of years ago. Let's say Ploni, an 
: adherent of Shitah B, believes that I am an apikores. Let's say I also believe
: in EvE. Does that mean that I must now simultaneously believe that there 
: WERE dinosaurs and at the same time must believe that there WERE NO 
: dinosaurs?! ...

That exaxctly what I'mn saying! The resulting paradox means that when B
says that A's position is outside eilu va'eilu, A is compelled to say
that it's B's position that is outside. Because to accept that both are
true would be "not thinking logically here at all."

Agreeing that B is true, albeit not halakhah, would be agreeing that A
is false (beyond just not being kehalakhah).

So, now a A-nik has to conclude that a major poseiq who holds B made a
huge blunder. Doesn't that mean the A-nik must believe that there is a
flaw somewhere in B's methodology of pesaq? How can the A-nik still trust
other conclusions produced by that poseiq using the same shiqul hadaas?

: EvE only means that I, an adherent of Shitah A, accept that those who  
: believe in Shitah B, yesh lahem al mi lismoch and they are still ehrlicher  
: Yidden. I do not have to accept that their shitah is CORRECT! ..

THat is one possible shitah, but not a literal read of EvE. EvE says that
both are divrei E-lokim Chaim. Both are true. It's a pragmatic question
that only one can be din. This is the position of Rashi, the Ramban,
the Riva, the Ran, the Rama, the Maharshal, the Maharal, R' Tzadoq and
the AhS.

See http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-ii.shtml
and http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2005/03/eilu-vaeilu-part-i.shtml

RMF in Igros Moshe says otherwise in the haqdamah, that "divrei E-lokim
Chaim" refers to an honest quest for truth, not accuracy. However within
one of the teshuvos, he writes about true plurality as well.

This is onloy an issue here because the substance of one position is
that the other isn't true.

BTW, RRW pointed out to me off-list another example -- saying Machnisei
Rachamim. It's not just a machloqes issur veheter because the oserim are
talking about kefirah -- calling the other shitah outside the spectrum.

Claims of kefirah go beyond EvE because it denies the other shitah even
as a rejected "eilu".

: Your problem, it seems to me, is not really an intellectual problem, even  
: though it is couched in intellectual terms.  I sense, rather, an emotional  
: problem -- an inability to accept, emotionally, the lack of symmetry between 
: two  shitos, one of which says, "You're wrong, but you have the right to 
: think what  you think" while the other says, "You're wrong, and you're an 
: apikores."  

The problem is logical. The first position is saying "You are correct in
saying I'm wrong". 

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 10:57:19AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> : On the contrary, the entire pshetel *depends* on the identity of the
> : crier, and it makes no sense with Rebbi as the crier.
> 
> I have no idea why you say that. The peshetl simply requires someone to
> note "qoneh olamo besha'ah achas".

No.  If you think that's all it requires, read it again.  The whole
point is not that he noted it but that he cried, and specifically that
it was RChbT who cried.  And he didn't.

 
> :>Leis din veleis Dayan?
> 
> : Of course there is a din and a dayan.  What has that got to do with it?
> : Yesh koneh olamo beshanim harbei.  But there are ways to get on the fast
> : track.  Teshuvah is one of them; why does that bother you less than the
> : other two? (Or more; we have no guarantee that there are only three.)
> 
> Teshuvah is a means of earning olam haba. Qoneh olamo. He got what he
> deserved, even if it only took him sha'ah achas to deserve it.

How does teshuvah earn OHB?  What did he *do* to earn it?  Where is
his life of torah and mitzvos?  Teshuva to get out of gehenom I
understand, but how does it earn OHB?  And yet for Rabbi Eliezer ben
Durdaia it worked, so much that he gets the title "Rabbi".


> Your statement about tzadiq gozeir explicitly relies on the centurion
> NOT deserving it. He wasn't qoneh olamo -- RCbD so-to-speak forced the
> issue despite that. Thus, a lack of justice.

He literally *bought* it.  As for justice, he got in on RChbT's zechus,
not his own.  It's no more unjust than someone inheriting a fortune
from his father.  Or imagine a two-hour line to get into a club, and
yet the performer's groupies are "on the list" and can saunter in
ahead of everyone.  RChbT had enough credit Above to get two people
(and many more) into OHB, and if he chose to spend some of that credit
to get this Roman in, that's his business.  The Roman had something he
needed, so he paid the price demanded.


> You also have yet to explain how a centurion deciding not to go on
> executing Jews but instead to throw in his lot with RCbD doesn't
> quality as teshuvah.

There is literally *nothing* in the gemara to suggest that he decided
any such thing.  He saw his opportunity and offered RChbT a deal. Had
RChbT turned down the deal, there's no reason to suppose he would have
helped him, or changed his behaviour in any way.

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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 216
***************************************

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..."