Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 30

Tue, 01 Mar 2011

• 1. Re: [Areivim] Oranges from Israel (Liron Kopinsky)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Oranges from Israel (Micha Berger)
• 3. Dixie Yid: The Warden, the Jester, and the Lawyer (Prof. Levine)
• 4. Re: Davening on plane (Daas Books)
• 5. techelet (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: techelet (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: kal vechomer (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Odd bar-mitzvah custom in Selish ca. 1923 (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Dixie Yid: The Warden, the Jester, and the Lawyer (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Davening on plane (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 16. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM, SBA <s...@sba2.com> wrote:

> From: "Prof. Levine"
>  From http://www.kashrut.com/Alerts/
> The following teruma and maaser alert concerning Israeli produce is
> from the Atlanta Kashruth Commission on February 24, 2011.
>
> Oranges from Israel have been seen in Costco. One is required to
> separate Trumah and Ma'aser from these fruits. Ed. note: See
> <http://www.kashrut.com/consumer/vegetables/#TITHING>
> www.kashrut.com/consume
> r/vegetables/#TITHING for information on tithing.
> >>
> What about Orloh issues?
>
> SBA


Would Orlah actually be an issue, or could we just say hakol d'parish merubo
parish and assume that most of the fruit is coming from more established
trees?

Teruma and maaser I assume would be done more uniformly throughout the
entire batch of oranges.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110301/0c6074ca/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:24:05AM -0800, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM, SBA <s...@sba2.com> wrote:
: Would Orlah actually be an issue, or could we just say hakol d'parish merubo
: parish and assume that most of the fruit is coming from more established
: trees?

In EY, and if the field is owned by a Jew, you have to worry about orlah
because they're qavu'ah, not parish. If the field is owned by a non-Jew,
the safeiq becomes real after it was already away from the tree and in
a pile with the rest of them -- so you can rely on rov.

In chu"l there is a special halakhah leMosheh miSinai that limits the
issur to vadai orlah. So even kol qavuah kemechtzah al mechtzah dami is
enough to matir fruit grown by a Jew in chu"l.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

At 09:52 AM 3/1/2011, R. Micha [quoted]:
>         When [they were conversing] two [men] passed by and [Elijah]
>         remarked, These two are also "binai olam haba.". R. Beroka then
>         approached and asked them, What is your occupation? They replied,
>         We are jesters, when we see men depressed we cheer them up;
>         furthermore when we see two people quarrelling we strive to make
>         peace between them.

The following is from page 15 of A Fire In His Soul, Amos Bunim's
biography of his father, Irving Bunim.

Bunim considered humor a mitzva. He often told a story from the Gemara's
Tractate Ta' an is in which Eliyahu ha-Navi (Elijah the Prophet) came
to a town. After greeting this holy man, the town's rabbi asked, "Who
will go to olam ha~ba [the World to Come]?" Eliyahu ha-Navi answered,
"Those two brothers who always dress as clowns."

"The clowns?" the rabbi asked. "Why? They are not particularly learned
or exceptional."

"Perhaps not," the prophet replied, "but they alleviate depression in
people. Anyone who relieves another man's burden merits olam ha-ba."

Given this, I always wonder at those who condemn any sort of a joke with
the categorization of "Letzonis." Indeed, what constitutes Letzonis and
what constitutes the humor that the gemara and Irving Bunim approved of?
YL

Returning to the main thrust of R. Micha's post, one might ask "How
far does Bein Adam l"Chaveiro go?" Does it apply only to fellow Jews
or are Gentiles also included? The following stories about the Alter of
Slabodka (Rabbi Nosson Tzvi Finkel), shed light on the answers to these
questions. The stories are taken from The Golden Tradition, The Old Man
of Slabodka, by M. Gerz pages 182 - 183.

   From time to time the Old Man [the Alter] would disappear. People
   thought he was probably at home, for where else would he be? But
   those close to him knew he was not at home. They began to trail
   him. They caught up to him just as he was setting out with a band of
   gypsies. His friends appealed to him, "Teach us, rabbi, what is the
   meaning of this?"

   "Gypsies are the most forlorn people in the world. They do not know of
    rest or home. They torture themselves and their families in their
    wretched travels. So they ought to be heartened by a cheerful mien,
    a friendly smile in their roaming and wandering."

    Because he believed wanderers were the most forlorn people, he used to
    often steal out to the nearby railroad stations. There he found much
    work for himself - helping travelers by carrying a bag, or giving
    advice or comforting them with a kind word, cheering them with a
    chat and sometimes with a loan. The Old Man used to say: "`Love thy
    fellowman as thyself Just as you do not love yourself because it is
    a commandment, do not love him because it is a commandment."

    Winter, he would rise early, cross the bridge into town, setting
    out for all the prayer houses and places of study, to start and
    stoke the ovens. He said that if the prayer houses and study houses
    would be warm early in the morning a coachman, a porter, or just a
    poor man would come in to warm up and find himself in a sanctified
    place. His closest friends asked him: "Rabbi, is it your business
    to start the ovens and carry packages?" He answered:

        "Even if it were as hard as you think it is, that would not be
        the point. The maskilim demand 'light,' humanity must be given
        light. But we must not forget that a light sheds light for all,
        but itself is extinguished. Otherwise, it would not be a light."

Yitzchok Levine

I asked a well-known posek what to do if someone else is blocking the aisle
while davening.

His answer: ?move him?

Alexander Seinfeld

On 3/1/11 9:52 AM, Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com> wrote:

> We have discussed before davening in a minyan on a plane.
> I just wished to bring several sources
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110301/38d8548d/attachment-0001.htm>

<<Not clear to me what the chidush is in this article. The item they found
is
not tzitzit. We already know that trunculus murex was used to produce dye,
based on archaeological evidence of dye factories with murex shells.

By the way, if you look up at the top of the sky, even at midday on a sunny
day, it is a relatively dark blue and not dissimilar to the colour of ptil
tekhelet tizitzit. Pale "sky blue" is more what you see looking straight
ahead, at the sky near the horizon.>>

The material that was found was a darker blue than that of ptil techelet.
This was much closer to black.

I will check with Dr. Zvi Koren for more details. I could not make the
lecture but
he said he would give (eventually) a private lecture

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110301/3a3612ab/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:43:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> if there is an announcement that prevents people
>> from mistaking what's going on. That's pretty harsh.

> You seem to think RMF is worried about onlookers who have no idea what's
> going on.  I don't know where you got such an idea.  This has nothing to
> do with onlookers.

Then why does RMF write:
    ... velakhein be'son maaseh sheyigrom sheyishkechu
    hadin ha'emes...

And:
    ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
    af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
    shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...

And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."

Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
they speak to?

Obviously when RMF writes "qidushin", he doesn't mean it, since a woman
giving a man a ring isn't qidushin. So what does he mean? Your diyuq
halashon in a term that has to have meant loosely is causing you to read
your conclusion into the words.

You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's part of
the wedding ceremony. I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking
to others like it's part of the wedding. At least half of the teshuvah
is about avoiding future ta'us, including defending this as grounds for
an issur from question based on Abba's question on Abayei. Thus, it's
not an issue of intent, it's an issue of timing -- it's during the window
people think of as the the wedding.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

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

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 05:10:37PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Not clear to me what the chidush is in this article. The item they found is
:> not tzitzit. We already know that trunculus murex was used to produce dye,
:> based on archaeological evidence of dye factories with murex shells.

: The material that was found was a darker blue than that of ptil techelet.
: This was much closer to black.

But the same murex derived indigo / dibromoindigo mixture for the
dye. Just used differently -- much more of it.

A R' Ari Greenspan of the Amutah commented on RDE's blog
<http
://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7309929059139673041&;postID=6799
467053063050128>:
> I was at dr. korens lecture. It was disappointing in my
> estimation. while his science is good his conclusions are mistaken

> what he claimed to have discovered has no bearing on tekhelet.

> 1. it is not tzitzit

> 2 it was found on masada which for most of its usage was roman and not
> jewish so this cloth in no way is jewish.

> 3 it is a small fragment embroidered onto a cloth in his words "found
> near the shul"

> it IS a snail dyed fragment but that is it.

I want to strengthen this point:

RDZK found a patch on a woven garment from Masada. Not a tassle with
a blue string or two. For this dying to have been lesheim mitzvah we
would have to be talking about bigdei kehunah. I don't think there is
a beged kehunah which is mostly white with blue decoration. The only
beged of the 4 begadim that could be tekheiles would be the avneit,
but that's all blue. Do any of the 8 kehunah qualify? And in any case,
why would anyone expect to find the begadim of the kohein gadol at Masada?

And we do know that the murex-derived dye was used for divrei chol,
at least by wealthy non-Jews.

I therefore am eager to hear from RET how R' Dr Koren concluded that
the use was for tekheiles, even if the dye is the one the Amutah (and
before them, Josephus [who wore bidgei kehunah in one period in his life]
and the Arukh) say is the one used for the mitzvos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 09:37:12AM +0200, Eli Turkel replied to me
:> I am actually happier with the possibility that QvC isn't standard logic.
:> It is listed among middos shehatorah nidreshes bahen, and rules of
:> logic that were well known in Chazal's day -- such as Aristotle's study
:> of syllogisms -- are not. The question of why QvC is derashah and not
:> sevara has bothered me.

...
: However, the gemara does learn halachot from logic. The most famous being
: not killing someone to save one's life because who knows that your blood
: is redder than him.

Yes, "lamah li qera, sevarah hi?" Sevara is used to produce halakhah. But
no other rule of logic is included in any of the lists of derashos.

: On the second question does the gemara learn anywhere the 13 rules of R.
: Yishmael
: (or other opinions) or is this all halacha le-moshe mi-sinai (machloket in
: that?)

They're deOraisa and not in the Torah. You could use one rule of derashah
to derive another, which would give us a deOraisa that is neither written
outright nor halakhah leMosheh miSinai. But it would still mean that at
least one of the derashos would have to be HLMMS (or written in a pasuq
I'm not thinking of) to bootstrap the others.

As for the rules... There isn't really a machloqes. R' Aqiva actually
uses kelal uperat more often than R' Yishmael does -- a point made by
RSRH in the volume of Collected Writings attacking Graetz's position.
What is in dispute is more the organizational system than the contents
themselves.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Brains to the lazy
mi...@aishdas.org        are like a torch to the blind --
http://www.aishdas.org   a useless burden.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 - Bechinas HaOlam

On 28/02/2011 7:54 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> On 02/28/2011 03:42 AM, Zev Sero wrote:

>> There exists a minhag that a yosom starts putting on tefillin a full year
>> before his bar mitzvah, rather than merely a few weeks or months.

> I had not heard of such a minhag, but that is interesting.  Do you know
> of a reason for the minhag?

See http://chabadlibrary.org/books/admur/ig/3/503.htm

A reference to this rather common minhag can be found here:
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2005/06/Today-I-Am-A.aspx



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

On 1/03/2011 10:18 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> Given this, I always wonder at those who condemn any sort of a joke with
> the categorization of "Letzonis." Indeed, what constitutes Letzonis and
> what constitutes the humor that the gemara and Irving Bunim approved of?
> YL

AIUI, letzanus means mockery of others.

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

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:17 PM, [R Alexander Seinfeld]
<i...@daasbooks.com> wrote:
>  I asked a well-known posek what to do if someone else is blocking the
> aisle while davening.

> His answer: "move him"

actually I have this problem more in shul were people daven in the aisles
and doorways and I need to go out for birchat cohanim (I am a Levi but
Cohanim have the same problem) and of course people who need the bathroom

Eli

On 1/03/2011 12:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 04:43:33PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>> if there is an announcement that prevents people
>>> from mistaking what's going on. That's pretty harsh.
>
>> You seem to think RMF is worried about onlookers who have no idea what's
>> going on.  I don't know where you got such an idea.  This has nothing to
>> do with onlookers.
>
> Then why does RMF write:
>      ... velakhein be'son maaseh sheyigrom sheyishkechu
>      hadin ha'emes...
>
> And:
>      ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
>      af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
>      shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...
>
> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."
>
> Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
> they speak to?

The participants themselves, of course.  If he meant onlookers he would
have said so.



> Obviously when RMF writes "qidushin", he doesn't mean it, since a woman
> giving a man a ring isn't qidushin. So what does he mean?

A purported kiddushin.  *We* know that it's nonsense; if we allow them
to go through with the charade, thinking that it's harmless, they won't
know that it is a charade, and will think she really was mekadesh him,
and that there can be such a thing.


> Your diyuq
> halashon in a term that has to have meant loosely is causing you to read
> your conclusion into the words.

The term is not meant loosely, it is the most important word in the
teshuvah.  He repeats it *every time* he mentions what it is that she
is doing.  The whole *point* of the teshuvah is about this kiddushin
that she is performing.  It is an act of kiddushin, even if we know
that it's futile and meaningless.



> You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's
> part of the wedding ceremony.

Absolutely.  Not only that it's part of the ceremony, but that it's
*an act of kiddushin*.  The objection is specifically to her attempting
to be mekadesh him; and the same objection would apply if she used some
other object of value, or if she tried kiddushei shtar instead of kesef.
But if it's some other part of the ceremony then that is not the subject
of the teshuvah.


> I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking to others

Again, he does not mention others, he doesn't hint at them, they simply
don't exist in the teshuvah.  You're making them up.


> like it's part of the wedding.

No, like it's a kiddushin.  *That* is the problem.


> At least half of the teshuvah
> is about avoiding future ta'us, including defending this as grounds for
> an issur from question based on Abba's question on Abayei. Thus, it's
> not an issue of intent, it's an issue of timing -- it's during the window
> people think of as the the wedding.

There is not a mention or even a vague hint at any such thing.  You're
inserting it yourself.


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

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 07:21:48PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>      ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
>>      af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
>>      shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...

>> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."

>> Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
>> they speak to?

> The participants themselves, of course.  If he meant onlookers he would
> have said so.

He is speaking of future weddings. IOW, general impression of the community
if we allow ring exchange to become a norm.

...
>> You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's
>> part of the wedding ceremony.

> Absolutely.  Not only that it's part of the ceremony, but that it's
> *an act of kiddushin*. ...

It's during the ceremony either way. You're insisting the iqar is the
participants' intent that it be part of what makes qiddushin chal. Again,
I don't see how that difference has much to do with the problem RMF is
trying to avoid.

...
>> I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking to others

> Again, he does not mention others, he doesn't hint at them, they simply
> don't exist in the teshuvah.  You're making them up.

He speaks of future weddings. That's others.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 1/03/2011 8:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 07:21:48PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>       ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
>>>       af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
>>>       shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...
>
>>> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."
>
>>> Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
>>> they speak to?
>
>> The participants themselves, of course.  If he meant onlookers he would
>> have said so.
>
> He is speaking of future weddings. IOW, general impression of the
> community if we allow ring exchange to become a norm.

Again, *where are the words* about onlookers who don't know what's
going on?  They're not there.  You're ignoring words that are blatantly
there and repeated, because they're essential to the topic, and then
inserting words that aren't there, but would have to be there if it
were saying what you want it to say.  Why don't you just try reading
it for what it says, instead of what you want it to say?  Just take
its words as they are printed, and don't assume them to mean more or
less than what they say, and see how it comes out.



>>> You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's
>>> part of the wedding ceremony.
>
>> Absolutely.  Not only that it's part of the ceremony, but that it's
>> *an act of kiddushin*. ...
>
> It's during the ceremony either way. You're insisting the iqar is the
> participants' intent that it be part of what makes qiddushin chal. Again,
> I don't see how that difference has much to do with the problem RMF is
> trying to avoid.

It has everything to do with it: the problem is that people will think
a woman can be mekadesh a man.  The reason for this concern is obvious:
what is the sevara to allow it, which he rejects?  That sevara is
*explicitly* "let them do whatever they like, let them think whatever
they like, we know that what they're doing is of no effect and therefore
harmless".   To reject that, he points out the obvious: if you allow them
to do so, then they will naturally think it works!  What else should they
think?  That you're humouring them while laughing at them inside (which
is in fact what you propose doing)?!  Obviously they will not think that,
or they wouldn't put up with it in the first place.  They take this
seriously, and if you allow them to go through with it they can *only*
conclude that you agree with them that this is a valid kiddushin.  And
that is the harm that this will do.  Ziyuf hatorah.  These people will
be mistaken about the halacha, and so will everybody they tell about
this "chidush torah" that they learned from you.  But that is all about
the actual participants who *know* what's going on; all they don't know
is the actual halacha.



>>> I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking to others
>
>> Again, he does not mention others, he doesn't hint at them, they simply
>> don't exist in the teshuvah.  You're making them up.
>
> He speaks of future weddings. That's others.

Where does he speak of future weddings?  Where do those words appear?


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

On 3/1/2011 8:07 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 07:21:48PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>>>       ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
>>>       af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
>>>       shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...
>>> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."
>>> Who are the future people making this error if not onlookers and those
>>> they speak to?
>> The participants themselves, of course.  If he meant onlookers he would
>> have said so.
> He is speaking of future weddings. IOW, general impression of the community
> if we allow ring exchange to become a norm.
>
> ...
>>> You presume RMF is talking only about when her intent is that it's
>>> part of the wedding ceremony.
>> Absolutely.  Not only that it's part of the ceremony, but that it's
>> *an act of kiddushin*. ...
> It's during the ceremony either way. You're insisting the iqar is the
> participants' intent that it be part of what makes qiddushin chal. Again,
> I don't see how that difference has much to do with the problem RMF is
> trying to avoid.
>
> ...
>>> I'm noting that he discusses it simply looking to others
>> Again, he does not mention others, he doesn't hint at them, they simply
>> don't exist in the teshuvah.  You're making them up.
> He speaks of future weddings. That's others.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
My understanding is as you say - he cites the Yam Shel Shlomo BK in 
other places where the issue is that an act will cause the halacha to 
forgotten or misunderstood in the future.

On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 08:34:24PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> He speaks of future weddings. That's others.
>
> Where does he speak of future weddings?  Where do those words appear?

I quoted them four times now. The majority of RMF's teshuvah is about
how allowing it now can lead to error of halakhah in the future!

From the port you're replying to:
>>>>       ... yeish leesor mitzad zeh atzmo
>>>>       af im lo yavo lidei qilqul kelal
>>>>       shelo yit'u lomar shesagi raq beqidushin shelah...

>>>> And "hu issur gamur uvarur mitzad shikhechas hadin veshinui hadin."

Or
    "Al yedei zeh osin sheyishkach meiharbeih din qiddushin..."

Or RMF's comparison to the gezeira against ba rasha verubo bemayim
sho'avim, "... shehu mishim debitechilah hayu tovelin... umikol maqom
ba mizeh she'amru..."

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org        The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 30
**************************************

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..."