Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 37

Thu, 10 Mar 2011

• 1. Re: Molad Alert: Friday night (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 2. Re: yotzros (David Cohen)
• 3. Re: Should Woman Go To Shul For Megilas Esther? (Danny Schoemann)
• 4. Re: Moshe Rabeinu and his family (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 5. tosafot (Eli Turkel)
• 6. women hearing the megillah (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Remaining Silent During the Chazzan's Recitation (Prof. Levine)
• 8. molad alert (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: tosafot (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Should Woman Go To Shul For Megilas Esther? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Molad Alert: Friday night (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: tosafot (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: Molad Alert: Friday night (David Cohen)
• 14. Re: Molad Alert (Rich, Joel)

R' Micha Berger quoted an old post of his:
> In the mid-4th century, the currently announced molad would
> have been accurate for mid-way between the Nile and the
> Euphrates....

and added:
> But as far as I can tell, it was never actually for Y-m. It
> was for the center of the Jewish world in the final days of
> the Sanhedrin.

It is difficult for me to accept that the molad calculations were based on
such a random location as RMB describes. One might respond that "the center
of the Jewish world" is not at all random, but is quite useful and logical.

But consider this:

If you take the duration from one standard calculated molad to the next,
and multiply it by the number of months since Creation, and deduct that
from any recently announced molad, you'll find that the very first molad
occurred at exactly 8:00:00 AM on the Erev Shabbos of Adam HaRishon's
creation.

Yes, but 8 AM according to which clock? Surely, it must be the local time
for some locality which was very significant to the Creation story, and not
some random point in the Middle East.

My bet would be on Yerushalayim, Tiburo Shel Olam (Navel of the Universe).
[Sanhedrin 37a] I suppose Gan Eden could also be a candidate, and that
might fit the area RMB describes, but I'd prefer it to be a location west
of there, such as the place where Adam had been before he was put out east,
in Eden. (Bereshis 2:8)

Reb Micha: You write that the location where the molad is correct has been
slipping eastward. Could you please calculate backwards from nowadays, and
backwards from the days of the Sanhedrin? Is it possible that even if the
molad is not accurate for Yerushalayim *today*, it was indeed accurate for
Yerushalayim at *Creation*?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Weight Watchers&#174
Official Site. Discover Weight Loss Freedom with Weight Watchers Today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4d786a854c8ff1650bbst01vuc

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> There are yotzeros for 4 parshiyos? I knew about piyutim during "Shemoneh
> Esrei" (I should say "Amidah" for accuracy), but not during birkhas
> Yotzeir haMe'oros.

Actually, there are.  They are not printed in as many siddurim, and not said
by as many kehillos as the kerovos (the piyutim in chazaras hashatz) are,
but they do exist.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/2bcb28f8/attachment-0001.htm>

From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
> Of course, the opinion of those who hold that one can (should) read
> the megillah to women at home presumes that one has a kosher megillah
> and that one is able to read it properly. ?This is certainly not the
> case for many men.

Pity.The Kitzur (141:13) suggests everybody should have one:

???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????, ??
?? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????, ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ????, ??
???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????
?????? ??? ??????

"It is correct and appropriate that everybody have a Kosher Megila so
that they can say by themselves each and every word quietly, lest they
miss a word from the Reader. So too each wise woman standing in the
lady's section, if possible it would be nice for her to have a Kosher
Megila to read from, for there it is difficult to hear, and women have
the same obligation as men [to hear the entire Megila]"

It's not such a big deal to write a Megila; a beginner Sofer can do it
in 70 hours, if they are VERY slow... start now and you'll have one by
next Purim. :-)

- Danny, who wrote his Sefer Torah in a mere 9 years.

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 16:36:10 -0500
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>

> On 9/03/2011 3:24 PM, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
>> I had responded because of the answer that was given:
>>        " He grew up in his parents' house for two years; by the time he
>> went back to Bat Par`o he was old enough to have started forming memories,
>> and would remember them."

>> Nowhere does it say that in the text, and I stand by that.

Zev answered:
> It certainly does.

Zev, please point to where in the text it says "two years", rather than
(A) the Midrash that says "2 years", or (B) inferring that 2-years is
fine because it's reasonable..

I say it isn't in the Torah and you say it is, which is inaccurate,
since it is clear that your use of 2-years is being inferred because it
is reasonable, or is linked to a Midrash.

That is the first point, that I do not want to digress from: It is not
about what is inferred, reasonable, or Aggadic (all of which are valid
forms of interpretation), but whether it is in the text, which is the
main point.

The second part, which is a continuation, is that you say that "he grew
up in his parent's house" is also in the text. I say that it is not,
and it is clear that this too is being inferred, even though it is a
reasonable point of view.

And so the position of "It certainly does" fails to hold up upon
examination.

The entire point of this argument was that while it is perfectly
acceptable to infer, my position was simply to present that when inferring
and using Midrash, using phrases like "according to a Midrash" or "from
my perspective" are very helpful in providing clarity, lest someone
believe that it's in the actual text (something that I have taken issue
with on more than one occasion with more than one ganenet!). And while
this discussion has digressed to prove reasonableness, the fact is that
"Nowhere does it say that in the text", as I wrote earlier, is perfectly
true, denials notwithstanding.

Now, I do agree that we have conflicting positions on something that
is not in the text, which is fine. I can see where both sides have
validity. And if the original questioner had come to me and asked for
my opinion, I might has stated it like this:

"According to Midrash Rabbah Shemot 1:26, '[The mother] nursed [Moses]
for only 24 months...and Bat Pharaoh used to kiss him and hug him, loving
him as if he were her own son and would not allow him out of the King's
palace', and so we see that there is a position that he was raised in
the palace, since the phrase "and he/she brought him/her to..." is often
used in the Tanach to express a change in position/authority (Berashit
24:67 immediately comes to mind). Therefore, it is reasonable to infer
from this that for short amounts of time for a couple of years, while
she visited the child several times a day, that the mother of Moses may
have had some impact upon him."

It's ok for me to say that because I point out sources, instead of
simply saying "The Torah states that Moses grew up in Pharaoh's palace",
because it doesn't, even though it is a reasonable assumption to make, and
shorter to say "The Torah says that baby Moses was raised in the Palace".

Sound reasonable? ;)


[EMail #2. -micha]

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 18:53:23 +0100
From: Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com>

RB wrote:
> After he was an infant, how did Moshe Rabeinu know who his family was?
> We know his sister watched our for him, and was picked up by Bat Pharoa,
> but did Bat Pharoa know that the one who nursed Moshe was his Mother?
> Did she relay this information and/or keep Moshe in touch with his family
> after Moshe grew up in the KIing's Palace?  Or did Moshe find out some
> other way who his family was? and if so, how???

RAF Answered:
> Is that not wonderful evidence for 'Hazal's contention that Bitia (NOT
> BATYA, ain't no such name - check your Chronicles) was a ba'alat
> teshuvah? She turned on her father's policies by saving Moshe, which,
> according to some, was even opposed by her maidservants, whom she
> immediately overrode. So it stands to reason that she continued on
> that path.

Yes, the Bavli (Sotah 12b) mentions that the Angel Gabriel beat the
maid servants to death so that they could not speak against her. It does
have some interesting ramifications! As for being a "ba'alat teshuvah,
I don't believe that this would really be a fit title for a non-Jew (Bat
Noach?), although I could be mistaken. Now, while it may sound reasonable
to assume that this priestess opposed the god of Egypt (her father) and
continued on THAT path, it is also equally reasonable to assume that if
she survived (once the child is given to her, we read nothing more of
her), then her survival is evidence that the King was either ignorant
of what was going on, or that she kept it private, if she did it at all,
or if she survived. I too would prefer that she did the right thing and
lived (married a nice Jewish butcher, raised some kids, etc.)!

As far as my use of the name "Batya", it is based on Midrash Rabbah
Vayikra 1:3 (and since I was already speaking of Midrash, I didn't
elaborate) where it explains that the name bet-tav-yud-heh is really
2 words, "baht yah", as a daughter of HQBH. (I have a grandson named
B'nayah, the male version! :D). And while Chronicles (Divrei Hayomim)
will often mangle and change names altogether, it is apparently a source
for calling her Bitya as well! In the Aruch HaShulchan, Rabbi Yehiel
Mikhel Epstein wrote that while there is a common practice to call the
daughter of Pharaoh Batyah, one should call her Bityah, reasoning that
because it is in Divrei Hayomim-A 4:18, as Bityah, then that should be
the name.

I still write Batyah! :D

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel

<<A stirah in Tosfos, Gittin 31 (Assur) and Menachos 55 (Muttar).>>

As an aside I never like the phrase "Stirah" for Tosafot. These are probably
different
baale Tosafot and in different mesechtot likely different editors.

So I would phrase it as a machloket between baale tosafot rather than a
Stirah

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/de733caa/attachment-0001.htm>

<<*Nobody* needs a minyan.  What is needed, at least by men, is "berov am",
and it stands to reason that that can include women.  Those who go to
women's readings may hold that women also need "berov am", or they may
go just for convenience.>>

I mis-used the word "minyan". What I meant to exclude was the opinion quoted
that women should hear Megilla "be-Tzibbur"
Thus, rephrasing the querstion is whether a women's megillah reading is
consider
"be-tzibbur" or are these groups holding like the Chelkas Yaakov

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


is an importance attached to women hearing Megila Bi Tzibbur.
Therefore unlike the Chelkas Yaakov he holds if there is a choice
between women coming to Shul and having children under Bar Mitzva
baby sit or vice versa, the women should come to shul and the
children can hear the megila later at home.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/84229a32/attachment-0001.htm>

At 06:09 AM 3/10/2011, R. Micha wrote:

>Is either technically a hefseiq though, that there is something inferior
>to the way we are doing things now?
>
>Tir'u baTov!
>-Micha

Who is the "we"?  I say kedusha exactly as Rabbi Hamburger writes and 
I do know of other shuls where everyone does this. KAJ in WH is one example.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/1698811e/attachment-0001.htm>

<<at 21:54:08 +0200 Eli Turkel wrote:
> There is a debate among rishonim about the validity of the calendar of
> Hillel II.
> Did they declare in advance the kiddush of every month or do the Jews of
> EY do the kiddush today as representatives of the entire nation. RYBS
> postulates that announcing the time of the molad and our prayers are
> the re-enactment of the kiddush hachodesh by bet din in each synagogue

After meeting up here, RYGB and RYZ collaborated on a paper on the
subject of R' Saadia Gaon's calendar controversy for JO a"h. One of the
more central points of the controversy was whether the Gaon had authority
as the globally accepted gadol hador, or whether R' Aharon ben Meir had
priority as he led the qehillah within EY. That sounds like it could be
what RET is talking about.>>

No - I was referring to the Rambam (Kiddush Hachodesh 5-1)
that kiddush hachodesh depends on the Sanhedrin
and when they dont exist one relies on the cheshbon.
In halacha 5-13 he continues that the Jews in EY determine Rosh Chodesh
(see also sefer hamitzvot 153)

Ramban (hasagot on sefer hamitzvot) disagrees and says that the Sanhedrin
not longer existed from 40 years before the churban and nevetheless
witnesses were still accepted for kiddush hachodesh for many years
afterwards.
He also questions that the Jews in EY determine kiddush hachodesh and
which Jews are involved. Rather the Sanhedrin was mekadesh the months
in advance.

The chioddush of RYBS (and there is a similar piece in the Griz) that the
primary group that is mekaesh months is not the Sanhedrin but the Jewish
people. The Sanhedrin acts not as a bet din but as the representative of the
Jewish people. In later generations it is the Talmidei Chachamim in EY that
act as the represntatives of the Jewish people to mekadesh the month.
(originally appeared in Hapardes 17-11 and later in chiddushei Torah ha-Gram
ve-ha-Grid)

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/c080f014/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:58:10PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> A stirah in Tosfos, Gittin 31 (Assur) and Menachos 55 (Muttar).

: As an aside I never like the phrase "Stirah" for Tosafot. These are probably
: different baale Tosafot and in different mesechtot likely different editors.
: So I would phrase it as a machloket between baale tosafot rather than a
: Stirah

Except the Chida considered it a setirah that required resolution. (As
per the rest of the paragraph you quoted.) And this is far from the
only case where an acharon tries to resolve a setirah in "stam Tosafos".

This subject came up before, when RRW wrote
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n045.shtml#09>, which shifted a
discussion of the CI and acharonim who change the normative pesaq to
when do we rely on Tosafos and what it is Tosafos set out to do. (Eg
when they justify learning almost exclusively shas, or that we don't
need mayim acharonim. As well as the more usual cases.) A few posts
later in that discussion we get to R' Dr Josh Backon's post, which is
short enough to quote rather than post a link:
> TOSAFOT: saying that "Tosafot" does this and does that doesn't take into
> account that there were over 800 (eight hundred) baalei tosafot over 5
> generations in 4 different countries.

RRW suggested in reply
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol10/v10n060.shtml#05>:
> Good point.  That is EXACTLY how Tosafos is by defintion a da'as rabbim and 
> NOT a da'as yachid

> You could make a claim that any STAM Tosafos - almost like a Stam Mishna 
> -represents a consensus.

> Illustration: the very fact that kitniyos is deemed by Tosafos to be assur is 
> a reflection that it caught on in MANY MANY kehillos throughout Ashkenaz, and 
> dspite the protestations of Ri of Courville, etc.   

> IOW if Rif or Rambam state something, you cannot prima facie presume it has 
> the weight of all of Minhag Sepharad, but OTOH when Tosafos says something 
...
> OTOH, iut has been said that 20 Gdolim from the same school does not 
> represent extra weight.  So Ba'alei Tosafos, like Beis Hillel, has the wight 
> of only one "dei'ah".

RET, you yourself then turned this into its own thread
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TOSAFOT>. So, when
you say "I never like the phrase 'Stirah' for Tosafot" I can attest it's
been true for at least 10-1/4 years.

RJB replied with something about Tosafos vs Tosafos haRosh (and how
being related to the Soncinos helps rishonim get published), and RRW
similarly comments on girsa'os.

RRW's consensus theory would explain the desire to resolve stam Tosafos.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:58:30AM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: It's not such a big deal to write a Megila; a beginner Sofer can do it
: in 70 hours, if they are VERY slow... start now and you'll have one by
: next Purim. :-)

Can you use a stencil and silk-screen? >;-)

(BTW, if you want to see how it's done,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvFED55xhv8>, starring R' Yosef Tesler.)

Argument-baiting aside... Does kesivah have a particular definition
regardless of the thing being written? If so, why does a mezuzah
require being written in order, and tefillin not require sirtut --
both differences from kesivas s"T?

I ask because Y-mi Gitten 2:3 11b says "'Vekasav' (Devarim 24:1) -- lo
chaqaq. 'Vekasav' -- lo matif. 'Kasav' -- lo hashofeikh. 'Kasav' -- lo
choqwiq. Is taniyei tani: Afilu choqeiq." The pasuq there is "vekhasav
lahh seifer kerisus..." Since we learn from that about sifrei Torah,
I presume we take it as defining writing a "seifer". Not necessarily an
"igeres" like the megillah...

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 Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:06:20AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Reb Micha: You write that the location where the molad is correct
: has been slipping eastward. Could you please calculate backwards from
: nowadays, and backwards from the days of the Sanhedrin? ...

Others already did, and I already posted their results. Today the
molad is accurate in Qandohar, and in the final days of the Sanhedrin,
it was accurate at around midway from Nile to the far end of the
Euphrates. That's the whole thing you questioned earlier in the same post.

Useful for visualizing how the length of the molad (as opposed to the
zero-point) matches reality is Dr Irb Bromberg's chart compating actual
lunation (2nd order approximation) and molad
<h
ttp://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/Molad_All_Months.pdf>.
The
black dots are data points, the blue curve being the "quadratic
least-squares statistical regression line". IOW, the "mean" that minimizes
the total distance to those dots. Presumably what the molad represents.

The blue line gets closes to 0 in 4119 (see the base text at
<http://individual.utoronto.ca/kalendis/hebrew/molad.htm>). Again,
during Rabbi Hillel II's nesi'us. And NOT back when we got it, which
was before galus Bavel. Since it was first documented in Bavel by
Babylonians during that period, a millenium before. That's the chizuq
emunah data point I've mentioned in the past.

Back to our discussion of where the molad was computed for... The minimum
error is +23 min, not zero. IOW, the molad is right in length (to the
nearest cheileq) in R' Hillel's day, but wrong in starting point. If
we look up where that's accurate, we are going about 5deg 45' east
(translating 23 min of time to longitude) of Y-m. Somewhere in Eastern
Jordan and the aforementioned midpoint between something like Alexandria
to Nehardaa -- the large Jewish populations at the extremes.

:                                                         Is it possible
: that even if the molad is not accurate for Yerushalayim *today*, it was
: indeed accurate for Yerushalayim at *Creation*?

Or maybe when HQBH said "hachodesh hazeh lakhem".

Well, let's figure that out... Leaving out 2nd order effects just to
get a thumbnail...

Today the molad is accurate for 65deg 43' E, and 1550 years ago, it was
accurate at 40deg 58' E (more on that, below). Plotting backwards linearly
(leaving out 2nd order effects just to get a thumbnail) that's a drift of
1485' or a drift of 95.8' per cent. Which brings us back to Y-m about 370
years before Hillel II, or a century after churban bayis or so. Maybe if
we threw in those second order effects, we would get the year 4000 (for
CI fans) or the year of churban bayis or something significant like that.

But then we would have to explain why we use a molad length that was
most accurate in a different year than the molad starting point was
most accurate.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

As an aside I never like the phrase "Stirah" for Tosafot. These are probably different
baale Tosafot and in different mesechtot likely different editors.

So I would phrase it as a machloket between baale tosafot rather than a Stirah

--
 Is this consistent with the way achronim viewed the situation?
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/20110310/90b7d85f/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> After meeting up here, RYGB and RYZ collaborated on a paper on the
> subject of R' Saadia Gaon's calendar controversy for JO a"h. One of the
> more central points of the controversy was whether the Gaon had authority
> as the globally accepted gadol hador, or whether R' Aharon ben Meir had
> priority as he led the qehillah within EY. That sounds like it could be
> what RET is talking about.

I figured that RET was probably referring to the machalokes between the
Rambam (today's chachmei EY) and the Ramban (advance kiddush hachodesh by
beis din of Hillel II) about what gives the force to our calendar today.

But since RMB brought up the dispute between R' Saadya Gaon and R' Aharon
ben Meir:

RAZ and RYGB had a very creative suggestion as to the origin of RAbM's
position, which you can see in the article to which RMB linked.  A different
suggestion was given in an article in Tradition about 5 years ago, in which
the authors suggested that RAbM's motivation was to account for the
"slippage" of the molad that is being discussed on this thread.  A third
hypothesis is proposed by R' Remy Landau at
http://hebrewcalendar.tripod.com/overposo.html.

But I am convinced that the correct explanation is the one given by R'
Rahamim Sar-Shalom in his book on the Jewish calendar.  Perhaps I'll explain
it in greater detail when I have access to the book for reference, but in a
nutshell the suggestion is that RAbM's position is a consequence of
calculating the molad by working forward from a "first molad" that took
place in Nissan, rather than in Tishrei.  So it really all goes back to R'
Eliezer vs. R' Yehoshua.  I am convinced that this explanation is correct
because it is the only explanation that accounts for the *exact number of
chalakim* (642) by which RAbM wanted to adjust the cutoff for molad zakein.

-- D.C.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110310/578023f4/attachment-0001.htm>

RYBS postulates that
announcing the time of the molad and our prayers are the re-enactment of the kiddush hachodesh by bet din in each synagogue

 -----------------------------
IIRC he explains the saying of "chaveirim kol yisrael"  on a similar basis as well.
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/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110310/fcf262d7/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 37
**************************************

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..."