Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 115

Tue, 11 May 2010

• 1. Re: Blind Obedience (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Chometz Whiskey Alert (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Gershon Seif)
• 5. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: NoSmokers for my Daughter (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: how women should dress (Chana Luntz)
• 12. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Michael Poppers)
• 13. Re: No Smokers for My Daughters (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 14. Re: Rav Shimon Schwab on how Jewish women should dress (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 15. Re: No Smokers for My Daughters (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: More on what constitutes chilul hashem (Arie Folger)
• 17. Kaddish Question (Rich, Joel)
• 18. Tefillas Mincha Voluntary? (Tal Moshe Zwecker)

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 11:48:18AM -0400, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
: On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
: > Over on Areivim, there is a discussion going on about what one would do
: > if HQBH, e.g. via nevu'ah, told you to do something that to human reason
: > appears cruel or violent. E.g. what would you do if you found and
: > identified an Amaleiqi newborn?

: *Radvaz(2:652): *Question: We have an established principle that if an
: established prophet should command us to transgress one of the mitzvos of
: the Torah except for idolatry we are to listen to him...

I didn't think the question was our chiyuv to follow the unthinkable if
HQBH would so command a navi to relay to us.

My assertion is that He wouldn't give that nevu'ah unless it were to
prevent greater human suffering. The question is a hypothetical that
can't happen, and thus like "If you had a brother, would he like
noodles?"

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

RMB:

<<Li nir'eh:
Kan bachutz, kan beinah uvein ishahh.>>

RPL:

<<This means that a woman should look her best when she is at home with 
her husband, not when she goes out in public.>>

In addition to the Mishnah cited by RET (Shabbos 6:1) see the story about
Mrs. Abba Hilkiyah in Ta'anis 23b "ki mata l'mata nafka d'vis'hu l'appei ki
m'kashta".

David Riceman

> AKO Executive Committee has reason to believe that there are large 
> liquor companies in the United States which may be owned in whole or 
> part by Jews. We are concerned that such companies may not have arranged 
> for the sale of their chametz (mechiras chametz) during Pesach.

So these companies *may* have some sort of Jewish ownership, and they
*may* not have sold the chametz.  Or perhaps they have no Jewish
owners, or they did sell their chametz.  We don't know and haven't
bothered to find out.


> Accordingly, we recommend that Kashrus Agencies and consumers change 
> their policies and only consume those alcoholic beverages which [are 
> free of standard kosher concerns and] are known to (a) be produced by a 
> non-Jewish company or a Jewish-owned company which arranged for the sale 
> of their chametz

I don't understand on what basis such a change should be made.  The
authors of this statement seem to have forgotten that the whole issur
on chametz she'avar alav hapesach is a knass.  The whole *point* of
the issur is to get the message through to the miscreant that he will
not profit by his transgression, so next year he may as well do the
right thing.  How is this purpose fulfilled by boycotting companies
about whom we know nothing, who may very well be owned entirely by
goyim, or who may actually have done the right thing all along?

In addition, the point of a boycott is to "name and shame"; the object
of the boycott must be specifically named, in sufficient detail that
he can know he is being boycotted and why.  If we switch to a system
where we boycott anyone who is *not* on an approved list, what lesson
can we possibly be teaching those who don't appear on the list, and
have no idea they're being boycotted, let alone why?  Even if they
notice that their sales have gone down, will they easily find out
why that happened, so that they may learn and change their ways?

It doesn't make sense.

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

<<Zev Sero: So who says that one may not accept a >50% risk of
losing a few months at the end of ones life in return for the presumed
pleasure of smoking now, decades earlier?   Surely a source is needed
for such a proposition.>>

But what about the fact that smokers cause harm to those around them? Is there a heter for that?

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 12:36:26PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: RMB:
:> Li nir'eh:
:> Kan bachutz, kan beinah uvein ishahh.

You might have noticed that I modified my position since. I made it
more subtle, reflecting the fact that Rachel's "ir shel zahav" tiara was
more about expressing her inner beauty than anything that should be kept
at home.

: RPL:
:> This means that a woman should look her best when she is at home with 
:> her husband, not when she goes out in public.

: In addition to the Mishnah cited by RET (Shabbos 6:1) see the story about 
: Mrs. Abba Hilkiyah in Ta'anis 23b "ki mata l'mata nafka d'vis'hu l'appei ki 
: m'kashta".

What do we see from Shabbos 6:1? That if it weren't for hotza'ah,
women should go outside with jewelry, or that there is no real issur
even if it's suboptimal? I think there is room there on either side of
this debate.

Also, what do we see from Abba Chilkiyah's wife? That it's okay to dress
up for one's husband even when he brings home guests, or that she didn't
expect guests?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 38th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 3 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Tifferes sheb'Yesod: How does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507           promote harmony in life and relationships?

Gershon Seif wrote:
>> Zev Sero: So who says that one may not accept a >50% risk of
>> losing a few months at the end of ones life in return for the presumed
>> pleasure of smoking now, decades earlier?   Surely a source is needed
>> for such a proposition.

> But what about the fact that smokers cause harm to those around them?
> Is there a heter for that?

This claim is also far from proven, and hamotzi mechavero alav
hara'ayah. 


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

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:26:31PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: This claim is also far from proven, and hamotzi mechavero alav
: hara'ayah. 

In dinei mamunus, not safeiq piqu'ach nefesh!

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 01:26:31PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : This claim is also far from proven, and hamotzi mechavero alav
> : hara'ayah. 
> 
> In dinei mamunus, not safeiq piqu'ach nefesh!

Really?  Where do you get that?


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

On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:10:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
: >: This claim is also far from proven, and hamotzi mechavero alav
: >: hara'ayah. 

: >In dinei mamunus, not safeiq piqu'ach nefesh!

: Really?  Where do you get that?

Ein holchin bepiquach nefesh achar harov.
Never mind requiring a ra'ayah -- we are chosheshim for miutim!

In any case, "hamotzi meichaveiro" presumes CM, with someone "taking
from his peer".

:-)BBii!
-Micha

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 02:10:10PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : >: This claim is also far from proven, and hamotzi mechavero alav
> : >: hara'ayah. 
> 
> : >In dinei mamunus, not safeiq piqu'ach nefesh!
> 
> : Really?  Where do you get that?
> 
> Ein holchin bepiquach nefesh achar harov.
> Never mind requiring a ra'ayah -- we are chosheshim for miutim!

Again, what does that have to do with hamotzi mechavero?

 
> In any case, "hamotzi meichaveiro" presumes CM, with someone "taking
> from his peer".

Not true.  It's a basic rule of logic that applies to *all* disputes.
The burden of proof is always on the one who makes demands of others.
In criminal law we know it as the presumption of innocence; if you
claim that someone should be penalised, restrained, enjoined, condemned,
have property removed from his possession, or in any way do something
he doesn't want to or stop doing something he wants to, you have to
prove your case; he *never* has to prove the negative.

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

RMB writes:

> Who wants their 12 yr old daughter to look sexy?
> 
> In contemporary culture, from Madison Av to both men's and women's
> magazines to even evolutionary psychologiest the notions of looking
> aesthetically pleasing and looking sexually alluring have been deeply
> confused.

I absolutely agree.  And I am absolutely sure that nobody was ever
advocating looking sexually alluring.

But if we step back a generation or two, I think we have, within our own
culture, had conflicting views on the validity of looking (and smelling, is
that not what perfume is about) aesthetically pleasing.  The image that
springs to my mind, just at the moment, as one that no doubt pretty much
everybody on the list will know of, is that of Rebbetzin Jungreis - always
immaculately turned out, made up, the works.  And the interesting thing is
that I associate this as a very Hungarian thing - that is how a lot of the
women from the Hungarian communities I knew looked.  Hair meticulously
covered in beautiful sheitels, made up to the nines, clothing that came down
below the knee and covered the arms and yet looked a million dollars.  And
while I never belonged to the Hungarian community, from what all the poskim
say, under those beautiful sheitels one could have expected to see shaven
heads, something hardly regarded by anybody as the epitome of beauty.

And there was growing up in other communities a certain turning up the nose
at this particular mode of dress (especially as linked to the shaven heads)
- as formulated precisely thus, look at these women who make such an effort
to look good when they go outside and then are so unattractive at home.  And
R' Schwab's criticism reminded me very much of precisely that sort of
charge.

Now the irony of it all is that I am not really a make-up and perfume
person, my instinctive origins are very much from the intellectual litvishe
milieu in which brains were prized and along with that went a certain
attitude that it is shallow to pay any attention to how one looks, and it
was especially shallow to spend significant portions on one's day, when one
could have one's head in a book, busy making up.  And of course sod's law,
or perhaps it is the logical consequence of broadening one's horizons, but I
have a husband who likes these things very much.  But I struggle to wear
them, because, you see, they are really not me, and never have been, and
hence putting them on for my husband is like dressing up as somebody else.
And the last thing I really want in our relationship is for my husband to
have a relationship with a fictional character played by me, and with whom I
cannot identify.

And that, you see, is why I think that this idea of only in the context of
marriage is actually an impossibility.  For many women, these ornaments and
make up and the like characterise part of their self identity.  It is
something that developed through teenagehood and marriageability, as they
lived out there in the world (yes it would no doubt be different if they
followed the Rambam's position and only went out every month or so and had
arranged marriages), and they then carry that into marriage.  And for others
it does not.   Those, it seems to me, are the only two real choices.  You
can frown on ornaments and cosmetics as shallow, and that natural beauty
should shine through, without adornment, or you can take a view that it is
proper and acceptable to use hishtadlus, if you like, to enhance, and to
make that part of who you are.

And thus of those two choices, it seems to me that Chazal were firmly on the
side of the second, or at least regarded the second as acceptable and normal
and to be supported and hence did not read Yesheyahu's rebuke in the way
that R' Schwab does.

> :-)BBii!
> -Micha

Shabbat Shalom

Chana

In Avodah V27#114, RnCL clarified her point:
> But even more telling is the bit I quoted (albeit in the middle of my
piece, so you may have missed it) namely:
<<< And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is
empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property in
order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include a
required provision for adornments  (tachshitim - again Rashi, besamim)
because it can be assumed that he would not be happy to have his wife
become repulsive. >>>
> Now this is a case where the husband is off in midinas hayam [ie
overseas], and due to his absence, beis din is having to take on the role
of making
sure she has her basic essentials (by selling off his property to provide
them).  So there is absolutely no husband around to see and appreciate
these
ornaments.  And yet, it is so essential that a woman adorn herself with
perfumes and the like, that in the absence of her husband, that beis din
can
go down onto his property and sell parts of it off to buy them.
> This hardly sounds like a finery should be reserved for the husband, does
it? <

(RZS noted that the inclusion of tachshitin is apparently not l'halachah,
but I'm sure RnCL knew that :).  Let's work w/ the assumptions used by
RnC....)

Ensuring that the husband's k'suvah obligations (including "k'susah," that
her overall appearance [including body odor!] is proper/representative of
her status [per se and/or as his wife & as a member of their community and
K'lal, whichever fulfills "oleh imo v'einah yoredes imo"]) are fulfilled is
quite different than a wife dressing up (or perfuming herself) for the eyes
(or noses) of others, don't you think?  Thanks.

All the best from
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100507/dbead315/attachment-0001.htm>

RZev Sero writes:
<It's generally accepted that one may refuse chemotherapy even if has a >50% chance of extending ones life
for a few months; one is entitled to decide that those few months aren't
worth the pain.  So who says that one may not accept a >50% risk of
losing a few months at the end of ones life in return for the presumed
pleasure of smoking now, decades earlier?>
     Ein hanidon domeh larai'ah.  That one need not take action to extend life doesn't necessarily mean that one may take action to shorten it. 
EMT 

 
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4be48b799a87a319294st03vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100507/20f3652f/attachment-0001.htm>

RYL citing RSS: In general, from Yeshayahu's rebuke of Jewish women's
flaunting of their clothing, jewelry, and beauty enhancements, it is quite
clear that such mode of behavior is highly unbecoming a Jewish woman...

Yishayahu also criticized korbanot - lamah li rov zivcheichem...mi bikeish
zot miyedchem r'mos chatzerai (1:11-12). He wasn't ch"v advocating that we
abolish korbanot, or claiming that avodat beit hamikdash is fundamentally
non-Jewish. He was saying that our distance from ratzon H' in other areas
was so great that it removed any value from the avodah, so that it became
repulsive. However, when we are keeping the rest of the Torah properly,
korbanot are certainly beloved by H'.

Similarly - because the behaviour of b'not Yisrael is so inappropriate, they
will be stripped of their adornments - adornments which would be perfectly
appropriate were they to behave in accordance with the Torah.

I will also note that women and girls often dress attractively in public
with a female audience in mind. There are certain elements of women's attire
that are conceived mainly to be attractive to men, and we know that a woman
should be pleasing to her husband, and to potential husbands if she is
single. However, many elements of women's clothes are totally lost on men -
other women will admire an interesting colour combination or detail of
styling to which men outside the fashion business would be oblivious. My
daughters spend plenty of time and effort choosing clothing and jewelry and
doing their hair in preparation for events at which no males will be
present.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100509/54017d22/attachment-0001.htm>

Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> RZev Sero writes:

>> It's generally accepted that one may refuse chemotherapy even if has a 
>> 50% chance of extending ones life for a few months; one is entitled to
>> decide that those few months aren't worth the pain.  So who says that
>> one may not accept a >50% risk of losing a few months at the end of ones
>> life in return for the presumed pleasure of smoking now, decades earlier?

>      Ein hanidon domeh larai'ah.  That one need not take action to 
> extend life doesn't necessarily mean that one may take action to shorten 
> it. 

Sure, one *can* distinguish the two cases that way.  But must one?  Having
established that passively taking such a risk is permitted, where's the
proof that actively doing so is not?  Would one not be required to take
any action that avoids an unacceptable risk of immediate death?


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

There is a simple resolution to your problem abot whether or not the
violation of a local secular law engenders a 'hillul haShem. I think
that we can pretty much all agree that not putting a coin in the meter
while parking for 10 minutes is generally not a chillul haShem, nor
double parking for thirty seconds while offloading passengers in a
quite street. It should also not be difficult to accept that to
offload passengers on a busy street where such stopping is disallowed,
and for which legions of people idling behind your car suffer, is a
'hillul haShem.

Perhaps, by using the yardstick of law as a single, unified yardstick,
we make it impossible to make reasonable statements, since, in a
manner analogous to halakhah with the differences between minhag and
halakhah, derabbanan, deoraita, lav sheyesh bo karet, etc., likewise,
secular law recognizes different types of laws and different types of
infractions. In addition, secular law is not a matter of bein adam
lamaqom, and hence, there is some freedom in guessing the intent of
the legislator and the reasonableness thereof.

I suggest a possibly more reasonable standard: Secular law exists to
regulate society fairly aand productively. At any given time, an
actual law may deviate from these ideals, and society does discuss
such matters. Let's ignore such kinds of deviations for now.

So, an action which is either inherently unequitable or which, on
account of having become law reflects a widely held standard of
appropriate behavior in a society, does, when violated, engender a
'hillul haShem. However, minor infractions, which the legislator
intends to overlook, which is generally not enforced, or otherwise not
even considered a real nuissance, do not engender any 'hillul haShem.
There are many borderline cases, and I don't think that incurring a
parking violation for which you may sometimes be fined, since traffic
wardens may fine people indiscriminately - lo plug ;-) -I don't think
such infractions would engender a 'hillull haShem insofar as they do
not contribute to a deterioration of societal standards.

In short, in the US, where people jay walk all the time, doing so is
not a 'hillul haShem, despite NYPD's occasional ticketing blitz.
However, jay walking in Zurich, where such behavior is just not
tolerated, does create a 'hillul haShem. And money laundering for the
mafia, or protecting and enabling child abusers, engenders a 'hillul
haShem regardless of whether or not there is a legal loophole that
might allow one to claim not to have violated any laws. Speeding a
little bit is no 'hillul haShem, as practicallly everybody does it and
the police tolerate it, up to a point. Driving at 30 miles an hour
above the speed limit, OTOH, is wrong and you doon't need any detailed
halakhic analysis to realize that.

In short, I think that we can intuitively grasp the notion that (a)
unequitable behavior and behavior that violates societal standards of
decency, do give rise to a 'hillul haShem, and (2) laws do indicate
what may be considered equitable and decent in a particular society,
and that a society may indeed desire and enact higher standards of
civility, which such laws may manifest. I don't think that the
application of common sense, once we grasp the earlier statements, is
so difficult. I do believe that using such a common sense definition
of 'hillul haShem will deal with the objections both RZS and
RProfLevine raised.

If the idea of a common sense definition of a matter of halakhic
import ofends your sensibilities, I apologize.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Recent blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* Helping Patients Face Death, She Fought to Live
* Neuer Audio-Schi'ur, zum 91. Psalm
* Significant Recent Manuscript Finds
* Ansprache anl?sslich des G?ttesdienst in der historischen Synagoge
von Endingen
* Burgeoning Jewish Life in Central Europe
* Raising Consciousness by Dressing Babies Outrageously

The Chavos Yair wrote that seems to be the first sh"ut on women saying
kaddish.  He lived in the 1600's. IIUC it's generally assumed that the
saying of kaddish by yatom was in response to the crusades (100's of years
earlier)
Any insights on the reason it took so long for the question to come up?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100510/8a273468/attachment-0001.htm>

Shalom uBracha All,

I am looking for a source that Mincha (the Tefillah not the offering) is 
voluntary and not a chiyuv. I know we say this regarding Maariv that it is 
reshus. I am asking because of the following Kedushas Levi:


Kedushas Levi to (Bereishis 24:63)

"Our Sages say (Berachos 26b): ?Avraham established shacharis, the morning 
prayer, as it says, ?Avraham awoke early in the morning...and he went and 
stood [in prayer] in the place of which G-d had spoken to him? (Bereishis 
19:27). Yitzchak established minchah, the afternoon prayer, as it says, 
?Yitzchak went out to pray [????] in the field,? and sichah is used here to 
connote prayer, as in the verse ?A prayer for the poor afflicted man when he 
faints and pours forth his supplications [????] before Hashem? (Tehillim 
102:1). And Yaakov established arvis, the evening prayer, as it says, ?And 
he prayed, beseeching Hashem? (Bereishis 28:11). [The literal meaning of the 
verse is ?He encountered the place?; however, vayifga, ?he encountered,? 
also connotes prayer, and hamakom, ?the place,? is also a Name of Hashem?].?
But why is [the afternoon prayer] called ?minchah?? We pray shacharis at 
dawn ? which in Hebrew is shachar. And the evening prayer, arvis, is prayed 
in the evening ? erev. But why is minchah called by this name?

The Tosafos Yom Tov (in his commentary to Mishnah, Berachos 4:1) also asks 
this question, and he answers that it is called minchah because it is the 
time when the sun retires ? when there is menuchas hashemesh.

It seems to me that we can explain the reason for the name minchah with the 
following idea:

We are obligated to pray the shacharis prayer because Hashem returns our 
souls to us [in the morning], and in these prayers we say [before the 
Shemoneh Esrei] the prayer of Emes V?Yatziv (Hashem is true and steadfast), 
and we thank Hashem for all His many favors, such as the shining sun.

We are obligated to pray the evening prayer because we are now giving over 
our soul to Hashem for safekeeping as a trust [when we sleep], and we 
believe that the Blessed Creator is faithful and trustworthy to return this 
soul with which He was entrusted, and therefore we say Emes VeEmunah (Hashem 
is true and faithful).

However we are not obligated to pray minchah. It is voluntary, and therefore 
it is called ?minchah,? which means ?gift? or nedavah."

Any ideas? (I thought perhaps he means relative to the way he is explaining 
Shacharis and Maariv then Mincha is a voluntary tefillah.)

Kol Tuv,
R' Tal Moshe Zwecker
Director Machon Be'er Mayim Chaim
Chassidic Classics in the English Language
www.chassidusonline.com
chassidusonl...@gmail.com
Phone: 972-2-992-1218 / Cell: 972-54-842-4725
VoIP: 516-320-6022
eFax: 1-832-213-3135
join the mailing list to keep updated about new projects here:
http://groups.google.com/group/beermayimchaim
Noam Elimelech, Kedushas Levi, Pirkei Avos more!
Discuss Chassidus
http://groups.google.com/group/torahchassidusdiscussion 



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 115
***************************************

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..."