Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 44

Wed, 13 Mar 2013

• 1. Re: HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't pass (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: HKB"H doesn't give anyone a test they can't pass (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. Re: Who Brings the Chatos When BD Errs (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Re: kitniyot (D&E-H Bannett)
• 5. Re: kitniyot (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: komah zekufa (Micha Berger)
• 8. Kitniyos Oil and Breadcrumbs (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi, its Kosher!)
• 9. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Torah mi-Sinai and More (Prof. Levine)
• 11. Re: carrying an ID card on shabbat (Zev Sero)
• 12. Biur Chametz and Bitul in the morning (Kenneth Miller)
• 13. return after the fall (saul newman)
• 14. An absolutely amazing Shovevim shiur for men from R Wallerstein (M Cohen)
• 15. Raiach Nichoach (Liron Kopinsky)
• 16. Lecithin in Chocolate KLP (Meir Rabi)
• 17. Gebrochts SheRuYa, Origins and the ShTeshuvah (Meir Rabi)

On 11/03/2013 2:17 PM, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>
> *Bereishis Rabbah*[i]*(32:3):*A potter does not test defective vessels
> because he cannot even give them even a single blow without breaking
> them. Similarly G?d does not test the wicked but only the righteous.
> When a flax worker knows that his flax is good then he knows that the
> more he beats it the more it improves. In contrast when he knows that
> it is poor quality he doesn?t bother beating it because he knows it
> will simply split. Similarly G?d does not test the wicked but only the
> righteous. When a person has two cows one of which is strong and the
> other weak, obviously he puts the yoke on the strong one? Similarly
> G?d does not test the wicked but only the righteous.
>
By the way, the Malbim has an excellent explanation of this medrash.
He points out that these are not three examples of the same point, but
three different kinds of test, for distinct purposes.

1. For the benefit of its object.  The purpose of beating flax is to
improve it; beaten flax is better than unbeaten.

2. For the benefit of the tester.  A cow is not improved by carrying a
yoke.  Yoking it and making it work is for the owner's benefit.

3. For the benefit of onlookers.  A pot is not improved by striking it,
nor does the owner benefit from striking it.  He strikes it in order to
impress potential buyers with its soundness.

The medrash is telling us that the Akeda was for all three purposes.
It improved Avraham's character, it gave pleasure to Hashem, and it
served to prove to the world that Avraham was a true tzadik who deserved
all that that Hashem had given him.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 3/11/2013 9:05 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 08:17:22PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> *R' Saadiya Gaon*[iii]*(Emuna V'De'os 5:3):*The righteous suffer for two
>> reasons. The first reason is that it is for the few sins they have
>> committed... The second reason is that it a trial...
> What about yisurim shel ahavah?
>
>
maybe he agrees with the Rambam?

> It is hard to imagine that
> when the case was discussed the member of the Beis Din didn't present his
> arguments and have them rejected.

He may have been absent. Maharatz Chayos uses this principle to explain 
"Rav tanna hu u-pallig." Rav reserved the right to continue disagreeing 
with the majority of Rebbi Yehuda HaNassi's Beis Din when he was absent 
and felt his arguments would have been persuasive.

Just a reminder that has been posted a number of times in 
the past.

When I was a youngster in the US many years ago, my mother 
bought oil for Pesach with a hekhsher.I don't know what type 
or what hekhsher. But,. the chareidim did not trust many 
heksherim and would use only the oil made by Zupnick. It was 
Zupnick Peanut Oil. In those days, I knew of nobody who did 
not eat peanuts on Pesach.

I met my first no-peanuts-on-Pesach man in the early '50's 
in Israel, Harav R' Menahem Ofen.  We laughed at him. His 
son sits one seat from me in shul and a few years ago, Reb 
Menahem visited for Shabbat.  When I greeted him I added. R' 
Menahem, nitzachta otanu!  He knew to what I was referring.

Some twenty years ago while I was cleaning in the cellar, my 
wife called me to show me the oil she had just bought. It 
was marked 'asui mikitnit.  I ran back downstairs to show 
her an empty bottle from the previous year I had just found; 
same company, same soybean oil. It was marked kasher 
l'feasch lim'hadrin.  I said the new marking was botanically 
correct. Soya is a legume, but it is as kosher as it was 
last year.  The marking was probably for Reb Menahem Ofen. 
A few years later the marking was changed to "l'okhlei 
itniyot" and after that it became 'L'okhlei kitniyot 
bilvad".

As to cottonseed oil,  when soya became chametz chareidim 
started to use cottonseed oil. But that was stopped soon 
afterward.  The story I heard was that shemen kutna (cotton 
oil in Hebrew) sounded too much like kitnit, kutna = kitnit.

BTW, I don't eat corn or its products on Pesach because that 
chumra was made before I was born and my mother told me not 
to.  The reason we didn't eat dried fruits, she said, was 
that they might have been dried in chametzdig ovens.  But 
then my grandmother didn't eat tomatoes on Pesach and I do, 
Go explain.

Pesach kasher v'sameach,

David

On 11/03/2013 4:28 PM, D&E-H Bannett wrote:

>  In those days, I knew of nobody who did not eat peanuts on Pesach.

Which doesn't mean there weren't such people.   How many people did you
know then who were careful with cholov yisroel?

See Melamed Leho'il, cited here earlier, who forbids peanuts, though he
was prepared to allow peanut oil if the rabbis of Hamburg and Posen would
join him.  Does anyone know whether they did?


> As to cottonseed oil,  when soya became chametz chareidim started to
> use cottonseed oil. But that was stopped soon afterward.  The story I
> heard was that shemen kutna (cotton oil in Hebrew) sounded too much
> like kitnit, kutna = kitnit.

The story you heard was false.  The debate about cottonseed oil has nothing
to do with its Ivrit name; it's about early sources that refer to cotton as
a kind of kitniyos.  See Minchas Yitzchok (cited earlier in this thread)
for a full explanation of why he held that it was forbidden.


> my mother told me not to.  The reason we didn't eat dried fruits, she said,
> was that they might have been dried in chametzdig ovens.

This is an explicit Rama, who also says that if it's made with proper care
it's OK.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 03:02:54AM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: If a needle and thread are actually pushed through the actual ID card and  
: the card is sewn onto a garment the same way a label or a button is sewn on, 
: you  might have a point.  But I think an ID card may be hard plastic and 
: would  have to be sewn in by being enclosed in some kind of holder or pocket 
: or frame,  so that the pocket or holder is what is sewn onto the garment 
: while the actual  card is readily removable from this pocket or frame...

You're right. I didn't think through the logistics of removing the card
after Shabbos, moving it from outfit to outfit, etc...

So my case is now hypothetical. I still think the other parties on this
thread (pun intended) deny that there are very solid grounds to have
permitted the hypothetical.

-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

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 07:08:16PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: What does the issue of komah zekufa (OC 2:6) mean?

The source is Berachos 43b, where it spells out 4 amos, and the MB
notes that the 4 amos falls out by the time you reach the SA.

Yuma 8b explains "'vatelakhnah netuyos garon' (Yeshaiah 3:16) -- shehayu
mehalkhos beqomah zequfah". Similarly, Hil Dei'os 5:8 says that a talmid
chakham shouldn's go "beqomah zequfah vegaron natui". It sounds to me
like the English idiom "walks around with their nose in the air".

And I think that's the meaning in the SA as well. 2:4 refers to putting
on your shoes, 2:5 refers to taking them off, and 2:6 is saying that
one should not walk around with airs on in between.

What I find odd is that it refers not only to carrying oneself as a
baal gaavah, but also to healthy self respect. For example, see Rashi
on Vayiqra 26:9, "Verhirbeisi eskhem". He defined HQBH's promise of
"vehirbeisi" as "beqomah zequfah".

-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

Since the scenario discussed by the Rema is not a clarified oil, as we have
explained below,

but sesame oil derived by crushing the seeds in a mortar,

and this oil has not been clarified,

and is consequently thick with sediment and sesame pieces

in which breadcrumbs will be Battel

[because if the oil would be clear then the breadcrumbs would not be Battel]

the Rema must be understood to have no concerns for a clarified sesame oil.


So CLEAR sesame oil is KLP LeChatChiLa

Sesame oil thick with sediment is BeDiOvad, not because of the oil but due
to the sesame substance within the oil.


The suggestion that the Rema is constructed on the unstated foundation that
clarified sesame oil is no better than the sesame themselves, cannot even
be shoe-horned into the Rema and DMoshe as explained by the Mishne B
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130312/b9fcf6d5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 10/03/2013 11:33 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
>> On a side note, I'll point out that although the SSK does not allow going
out with spare buttons, he does offer a solution to the ID card problem:
>>18:22 - "It is mutar for anyone to go out to a Reshus Harabim during a war
or other emergency with his identification, by transporting it k'l'achar
>>yad, >such as by inserting it into his hat, provided that he is going to a
dvar mitzvah, to tefilah, or to learn Torah."

And RZS replied:

> The chance of being challenged for ID is small, as is the fine for being
caught without it.

I am not so sure you are right here.  I would agree that the chance of being
challenged was small *prior to the court case*.  But now everybody knows
that Orthodox Jews don't carry their ID on Shabbat.  If you are a slightly
anti-semitic police officer (or even just a stickler for law enforcement),
you have just been handed a piece of knowledge that could enable you to have
lot of fun harassing Orthodox Jews - all perfectly legally.  Remember it is
the law that you have to carry such cards, the fine is merely a reflection
of the punishment for the law.  If you know that a group of people are
systematically breaking the law then as a police officer, isn't is your job
to haul them in?  

And in your comment about the smallness of the fine, you are forgetting a
few things.  Firstly, if you don't have your ID on you, the police
officially "don't know who you are" (even if you tell them truthfully).
That means that they are probably legally required to take you down to the
police station to question you.  That is highly likely to involve you being
bundled forcibly into a police van, not to mention being asked to do all
sorts of other things like write your name when you get there.  Even were
you able to avoid doing any issurim d'orisa or d'rabbanan (and you will be
placed in situations where it may be difficult - and where the punishments
may be even more severe if you don't), your chances of making Kiddush and
performing any other of the positive mitzvos of shabbas including tephilla
d'zibbur (although I guess if they take enough Jews every week down to the
police station, you might end up with a minyan there)- not to mention have
any oneg at all, are likely to be slim.

And even if it were true that it is just a fine and you go on your way
(although how can that be, how do they know who to fine if they don't have
your ID? and you are not exactly carrying money either), and for an
individual, once, the money may be small,  as a tax on shabbas that you may
have to pay every week (and the community may end up paying every week for a
significant part of the community), the money will start to add up.  After
all, if I was a purely mercenary minded member of the local authority, I
might rather appreciate having found a way of generating yet more money for
my budget by way of an "Orthodox Jew Tax" - and quite happy to authorise my
police officers to go on a collection mission every shabbas. 

So I suspect that the issue is much more tricky to ignore than you are
suggesting here.

>The heter for a shvus dishvus letzorech mitzvah requires that the mitzvah
is impossible without it.  In a time of war one can easily justify that,
>because going out without ID is not a viable option, so the only
alternative is staying at home and not do the mitzvah; but in today's
Netherlands there >is a viable alternative that allows one both to avoid
carrying and to do the mitzvah: simply ignore the law.

I am not going to deal with the issue in detail regarding a shvus d'shvus
letzorech mitzvah - because I note that there is a teshuva directly on point
from the Kol Mevasser chelek 1 siman 79.  He doesn't mention war or any
emergency, rather the question is about carrying some sort of identity card
(teudat hamishtara) in one's hat purely due to a "gezera hamalchus". And he
rules that even if there is a real reshus harabbim d'orisa he allows based
on shvus d'shvus - since (a) you are carrying it in an abnormal manner
(k'l'acher yad) and (b) it is a melacha sheaino tzricha l'gufa - since you
are only carrying it in order to avoid onesh from the police and hence
permitted.  And furthermore given that most hold that there are very few
reshuyos harabbim d'orisa nowadays, and so we are most likely dealing with a
karmalis, then you have a shvus d'shvus d'shvus and that is certainly
permitted l'tzorech mitzvah.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and

Regards

Chana

 From http://seforim.blogspot.com/2013/03/torah-mi-sinai-and-more.html

Torah mi-Sinai and More
by Marc B. Shapiro

1. Some people have requested that I do more posts on theological 
matters, as I have done in the past. So let me begin with what I 
think will be a three-part series on Torah mi-Sinai.

In a previous post, available 
<http://seforim.blogspot.com/2007/08/marc-b-shapiro-forgery-and-hal
akhic.html>here, 
I mentioned R. Shlomo Fisher's rejection of R. Moshe Feinstein's view 
that R. Yehudah he-Hasid's "biblical criticism" was not authentic. As 
R. Fisher put it, R. Moshe assumed that even in the past everyone had 
to accept Maimonides' principles, but that was not the case, and when 
it came to Mosaic authorship R. Yehudah he-Hasid disagreed with 
Maimonides. R. Uri Sharki has apparently also discussed this with R. 
Fisher, as he cites the latter as claiming that the issue of whether 
post-Mosaic additions are religiously objectionable is a dispute 
between the medieval Ashkenazic and Sephardic sages. See 
<http://ravsharki.org/content/view/1220/741/>here.

What this means is that in medieval Ashkenaz it was not regarded as 
heretical to posit post-Mosaic additions, while the opposite was the 
case in the Sephardic world (and this would explain why Ibn Ezra 
could only hint to his view). I am skeptical of this point, 
particularly because Ibn Ezra's secrets are, in fact, explained 
openly by people who lived in the Sephardic world.[1] Yet Haym 
Soloveitchik has also recently made same point, and pointed to 
differences between Jews living in the Christian and Muslim worlds. 
His argument is that since medieval Ashkenazic Jews were not 
confronted with a theological challenge of the sort Jews dealt with 
in the Islamic world, where Jews were accused of altering the text of 
the Pentateuch, there was no assumption in medieval Europe that 
belief in what we know as Maimonides' Eighth Principle was a binding 
doctrine of faith.

See the above URL for more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130312/22cef7d5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/03/2013 9:15 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> If you are a slightly
> anti-semitic police officer (or even just a stickler for law enforcement),
> you have just been handed a piece of knowledge that could enable you to
>  have lot of fun harassing Orthodox Jews - all perfectly legally.  [...]
> After all, if I was a purely mercenary minded member of the local
> authority, I might rather appreciate having found a way of generating yet
> more money for my budget by way of an "Orthodox Jew Tax" - and quite happy
> to authorise my police officers to go on a collection mission every shabbas.

This is precisely why I think it's important for the Dutch community to
resist this, and *not* to find any heterim to comply.  A deliberate
campaign to harass and mulct shomrei shabbos comes pretty close to "she'as
hashmad".  An individual may be able to find a heter for himself, but in
doing so he only makes it worse for the community.


> I am not going to deal with the issue in detail regarding a shvus d'shvus
> letzorech mitzvah - because I note that there is a teshuva directly on point
> from the Kol Mevasser chelek 1 siman 79.

Who is the author of this sefer?


> He doesn't mention war or any
> emergency, rather the question is about carrying some sort of identity card
> (teudat hamishtara) in one's hat purely due to a "gezera hamalchus".

When and where did he live, and what were the circumstances at the time?
What were the consequences at the time for defying a "gezeras hamalchus"?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Last year, in Avodah 30:22, I questioned part of the text which we use for Bitul Chametz in the morning:

> "which I destroyed or did not destroy". Of course I must be
> mevatel the chometz that I did not yet destroy, but I find
> it odd that I'm also being mevatel the chometz that I already
> destroyed. This seems superfluous to me, and my guess is that
> "d'viartay" is included purely to preserve the double-phrase
> symmetry of the section. If anyone can offer another reason
> to include it, I'd be interested to hear it.

No one offered any ideas at that time, but a possibility has come to my
attention. I am now reading the "Pesach Guide 5773", printed by the rabbi
of a certain shul (not in my community) for his congregants. It includes
this line: "The final bittul should be recited after the remaining chametz
has been thrown into the fire and has been at least partially consumed."

This is new to me. I had thought that the proper procedure is to first
insure that *all* the chametz has been destroyed by burning, and *then* to
say the bittul in order to get rid of whatever chametz he might have
forgotten.

Reviewing the relevant halachos, however, I do not find the word "all"
used. Rama 434:2 writes, "One should not do the daytime bittul until after
he he has burned the chametz, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of burning
with his own chometz." I can see room to argue that one has accomplished
this as long as *some* of the chometz gets burned prior to the bittul.

In practice, I have seen *many* people who simply add their chametz to the
communal fire, recite the bitul almost immediately, and walk away without
insuring that it gets completely burned. (In fact, I remember one year when
the pile was still smoking on Yom Tov morning.) And a quick search with
Google found me this quote, though I do not have the sefer to verify it:

> Rav Yaakov Emden in Mor U-ketzia 434 says that one can say
> the bitul before burning the chametz even lechatchila.
(I'm not sure, but this might be found at the very top of page 82 in http://www.hebrew
books.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7921)

Perhaps this answers my question about the text of the bittul: maybe we
should translate "d'viartay ud'la viartay" as "which I began to destroy,
and which I did not destroy at all."

Comments?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
How to Sleep Like a Rock
Obey this one natural trick to fall asleep and stay asleep all night.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/513f7d20d36b27d20674ast01vuc

http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/vayikra/BenIz.pdf

on whether 'anshe  tzibbur' should return  to prior position after  being
'caught'
just as he states at end that  elected officials the voters get their say,
 one assumes
that  the users of a given mossad would get to vote with either feet or
money....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130312/001f0081/attachment-0001.htm>

An absolutely amazing Shovevim shiur for men from R Wallerstein - essential
to all of those men 'out there'

Includes story of his own gambling addiction, and advice for working with
kids at risk (including your own)

 

R Wallerstein Shovevim

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2k-yfbwNMY6RzZIVm04ZU1SdkE/edit?u
sp=sharing
to download

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/94053242/2013-01-06%20Rabbi%20Wallerstein%
20Mens%20S
hiur.mp3  for listening

 

Mordechai Cohen

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130313/e388664f/attachment-0001.htm>

Being as we are now in Vayikra, does anyone know where I can find a
good explanation of what Raiach Nichoach means?

Thanks,
-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130313/6e17b0a0/attachment-0001.htm>

Can anyone explain why chocolate with lecithin is a problem during Pesach?

Even if lecithin is Kitniyos, it is not a majority of the chocolate, it is
not visible to the naked eye and it is not added for the express purpose of
making a KLP product?

Same goes for drinks that use corn syrup or other Kitniyos derived
products, as sweeteners.



Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130314/fffcb4ce/attachment-0001.htm>

The ShaArey Teshuvah 460 makes some surprising comments about the origins
of Gebrochts.
In the standard print of the MBerurah, page 118 line begins, SheKorin
Chremzelen.

Firstly, the risk is restricted to those batches of dough to which flour
has been added after kneading has already started.
Secondly, he outlines the origin of this stringency: it would seem that the
concern for residual flour in the Matza is not adequate to explain the
reason nor the origin for this stringency [maybe because it was so rare to
add flour after kneading has begun] and he therefore feels it necessary to
offer a reasonable proposition.
originally he explains, Matza for producing Matza Meal was made from thick
Matza that was at great risk of not being adequately baked. [which means it
is at risk of being Chamets] Therefore the Gd Fearing Yidden refrained from
eating foods made with Matza Meal.

Now this only makes sense if we understand that they had no problem eating
their Matza, but were only concerned for the Matza made for Matza Meal.
I presume that those wanting Meal, wanted it to be less well baked so it
should be whiter, and perhaps were also preferring a different texture.
{I suspect that even today Matza baked for Meal is baked in special batches
to minimise the browning of the Matza}

The ShTeshuva concludes that these days we are more careful, Matza is not
made thicker than an Etzbah [about 12mm?] and the Matza baked for Meal is
baked until crisp.

You will also note that originally Meal was made by grating the Matza on a
Rib AyZen, whereas later it was crushed. This fits in nicely with the shift
from grating soft Matza for Meal to the adjusted custom of baking it hard
and therefore needing to crush it in order to make Meal.

His conclusion - these days there is no point in not eating Gebrochts.

Yet I still seem to hear people quoting the ShTeshuvah as a source for
supporting the notion of not eating Gebrochts.

[And some imaginative people suggest that this Sh Teshuvah prohibits soft
Matza]


[Email #2. -micha]

ShaArey Teshuvah 460, page 118 line begins, BeSoch

in a note printed within parentheses, I presume is also authored by R Ch M
Margoliyus, he explains that pockets of flour that remain in the Matza may
become Chamets if the whole Matza or large pieces of Matza are immersed
into soup for example.
However, if the Matza is crushed into small pieces which are then combined
with liquid, then the flour is no longer in a clump but is dispersed
throughout the crushed crumbs and such specks of flour will not become
Chamets. Those speck s simply become part of the liquid.

Best,
Meir G. Rabi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 44
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)