Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 41

Sun, 16 Mar 2014

• 1. esther in a hurry (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: Esther in a hurry (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Esther in a hurry (Zev Sero)
• 4. Daas Torah and the Holocaust (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Torah Learning for the Ascension of a Deceased Person (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: WHY IS THE HOLIDAY CALLED PURIM? - R' DAVID FOHRMAN (Kenneth Miller)
• 7. To Drink or Not To Drink? - A Halachic Analysis of Getting Drunk on Purim (sholom)
• 8. Re: To Drink or Not To Drink? - A Halachic Analysis?of Getting Drunk on Purim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: How is Purim Different from Chanukah (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Daas Torah and the Holocaust (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Eitz HaDa'at (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Aliyyot to the Blind vs Aliyyot for women (T6...@aol.com)
• 14. Re: Can Women Receive a Heter Ora'ah? (Zev Sero)

<<Because there ISN'T "plenty of time". This is an emergency! In other
words, Esther is teaching us an important lesson, not to dawdle in such
cases. Such emergencies must be resolved surely and quickly, lest the
situation worsen even further.>>

If there are no other restrictions then Akiva is right - act immediately.
However in this case there are good reasons ro wait at least a short time
1) Esther is risking her life because she hasnt been called.
Perhaps in the next month she will get a call and obviate the risk she was
taking
2) Having a fast over seder night when it would seem that one could have
the same fast
some 10 days later without losing a seder

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140314/5ae436e4/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/03/2014 6:43 PM, T6...@aol.com wrote:
> Haman cast lots on Rosh Chodesh Nisan

Where did you see that?  The megillah does not specify the date on which
he cast lots, but it does say that the messengers went out on the 13th of
Nissan, so it stands to reason that he cast the lots either that day or
the previous day, not 12 days earlier.

>  The date on which we now fast is not the date on which they fasted that
>  year, obviously.

No, our fast does not commemorate that fast.  It commemorates the battle
that took place on the 13th of Adar, at which time the Jews should have
fasted but couldn't, because they had to have their strength, either to
fight or to flee if the fighting didn't go well.  Only Esther and her
servants, who were safe in the palace and would not be killed even if
the Jews had ch"v lost the war, were able to fast, and that's why we call
it Taanis Esther.

-- 
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 14/03/2014 6:46 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> So lets rephrase the question - why was Mordechai in a rush with 11 months to go
> Why not wait unril after Pesach as a minimum.

Who knows how long it will take to counter such a decree?  How were they
to know it would happen overnight?

-- 
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

At 05:03 PM 3/13/2014, Zev Sero wrote:


>The entire premise of the article is false.  The 
>Belzer Rebbe was not "rescued",
>he did not "escape"; he left Hungary at a time 
>when there was no crisis.  There
>is no reason to suppose that he knew there would be a crisis.

I do not know what you base your statement that 
the Belzer Rebbe was not "rescued" on.   From 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharon_Rokeach#Escape_from_Europe

During World War II, Belzer Hasidim both inside 
and outside 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism>Nazi-occupied 
Europe saw saving the Rebbe as their primary 
goal. They spirited Rebbe Aharon ? who insisted 
on being accompanied by his half-brother, Rabbi 
Mordechai ? out of Belz into 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wi%C5%9Bnicz>Wi 
nicz, then into the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bochnia>Bochnia 
Ghetto, then into the 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w_Ghetto>Krak?w 
Ghetto, and then back into the Bochnia Ghetto, 
narrowly avoiding Gestapo roundups and 
deportations.<http:
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharon_Rokeach#cite_note-rescue-2>[2] 


Footnote [2] is Israel, Yosef (2005). "Rescuing 
the Rebbe of Belz". NY:Mesorah Publications, Ltd. 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1578190592>ISBN 
1-57819-059-2.

This is an Artscroll book about the rescue of the Belzer Rebbe.

Furthermore,  see Esther Farbstein's book Hidden 
in Thunder,  volume 1.  In particular,  from page 
113 "He [the Belzer Rebbe] managed to escape at 
the last minute from Budapest (as a 
refugee,  before it was occupied) after four 
years of moving from place to place. "

YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140314/07f1cc3b/attachment-0001.htm>

From Rav Aviner:
Torah Learning for the Ascension of a Deceased Person
Q: Does it benefit the deceased if one says before a regularly-scheduled class that the learning is "Le-Ilui Nishmat..."?
A: No.  Only if they add extra learning after mentioning the deceased (Ha-Rav Chaim Kanievski said the same.  Derech Sichah Vol.1 p. 484).


If you look it up there he also says that the credit for the extra learning
only goes to the deceased, not the learner. However a father always gets
credit for a son's learning. (We've discussed this issue before IIRC)
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/20140314/0ea8fae4/attachment-0001.htm>

R"n Toby Katz recommended these videos and posted links, and added:

> If you don't want to spend all that time, skip the first two and
> look at #3 and #4 --- where he really gets into the meaning of the
> word "Purim" in an original way.  I don't know if what he says is
> really "the" truth but it's novel and very interesting.

I echo her comments, and I am very glad that I heard those videos. By the
way, I found it sufficient to listen to it. Watching was not really
necessary, except when he quoted psukim - it was helpful to see the words,
but otherwise the audio was enough.

I would also add that he offers a very interesting answer to our current
question of why Esther had to deal with it immediately, without waiting.
I'd love to spill his secret. Instead I'll just make this offer: I typed
out some quick notes as I listened to this shiur the second time, and I
hope to tell it over at the Purim seudah. If anyone wants a copy of those
notes, just ask. It's a very quick copy&paste.

Akiva Miller
KennethGMil...@juno.com

.
____________________________________________________________
Never Eat This Carb
Literally Never! 1 Easy Tip to Increase Fat Burning, Lower Blood Sugar
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5323400320141400217c1st03vuc

 

On 2014-03-14 12:37, avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote: 

> The
Tur (OC 695), the Beis Yoseif and SA, all require shikrus.

The article
notes: "although the S"A seems to imply that he agrees with the Tur's
interpretation, that onemust get drunk, it must be noted that in [the
B"Y] he completely rejects this approach, exclusively citing Rabbeinyu
Efraim and the Orchos Chaim. 

Is that a mischaracterization? 

(I'm
without my s'forim here at work -- where's the Rema in this?) 

Here's
another naive question: while Rashi translates it as "sheker" -- why is
it that the Gemara doesn't use that verb? 

-- Sholom 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140314/546ac450/attachment-0001.htm>

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 01:56:24PM -0400, sholom wrote:
:> The Tur (OC 695), the Beis Yoseif and SA, all require shikrus.

: The article
: notes: "although the S"A seems to imply that he agrees with the Tur's
: interpretation, that onemust get drunk, it must be noted that in [the
: B"Y] he completely rejects this approach, exclusively citing Rabbeinyu
: Efraim and the Orchos Chaim. 

The BY quotes the gemara, the Tosafos, the Ran,
all saying one needs to get drunk. He then quotes the Ran's quoting Rabbeinu
Ephrayim who says the gemara concludes on the note of Raba shechting R'
Zeira -- don't get drunk, and then the Orechos Chayim who warns against
getting drunk enouhg that gilui arayos or murder might ensue.

The way I read the BY, "exclusively citing" appears wrong, and saying
he "completely rejects" is either wrong or an overstatement. I see
him as concluding that one should get drunk, but he is willing to explore
other shitos. Also, saying "completely rejects" an opinion he says
in the SA is halakhah is unlikely. (Although minds can change.)

: (I'm without my s'forim here at work -- where's the Rema in this?) 

Rama OC 695:2 tells you to drink more than your usual (Kol Bo) and
fall asleep. This is the Rambam's "ad delo yada".

: Here's
: another naive question: while Rashi translates it as "sheker" -- why is
: it that the Gemara doesn't use that verb? 

I don't know. And why is it "mechayev" rather than "chayav"? And
"beFurei" instead of "beFurim"? Rava was clearly in a very Aramaic mood.
(Maybe it was the alcohol. <grin>)

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Live as if you were living already for the
mi...@aishdas.org        second time and as if you had acted the first
http://www.aishdas.org   time as wrongly as you are about to act now!
Fax: (270) 514-1507            - Victor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 07:18:37AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: The more authentic explanation, however, is that the difference between
: the critical periods
: as reflected by the two festivals, is that while the Purim episode
: took place in the Galut, the
: Chanukah story occurred in the Holy Land. On its own soil the Jews
: have the courage and
: resolution to FIGHT back! In the Galut the Jews are helpless, depending
: upon the good graces
: of its neighbors for survival. 

Except that Chanukah occured during Galus Yavan. Galus and diaspora mean
different things. And one of the four goliyos of seifer Daniel occurs
entirely during the Bayis Sheini period. I find your message of Jewish
pride and courage to be an overly secular take on a religious holiday. As
is defining galus in political terms rather than in terms of our feeling
Hashem's presence. We are in galus when we are out of the land because
it causes feelings of estrangement, but we can feel distanced from G-d
even while in Israel, as Galus Yavan proved.

I think a more telling difference is that Purim was a physical threat,
whereas in Chanukah we could have joined the Misyavnim in assimilating
and not been threatened at all. Jewish survival is guaranteed by Hasehm's
end of the beris. When the threat is to our avodah, the responsibility is
ours to fight for Him. And by being willing to fight for G-d, and seeing
His assistance at overcoming insurmountable odds, the estrangement came
to an end.

-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 14/03/2014 6:08 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 05:03 PM 3/13/2014, Zev Sero wrote:
>
>
>> The entire premise of the article is false.  The Belzer Rebbe was not "rescued",
>> he did not "escape"; he left Hungary at a time when there was no crisis.  There
>> is no reason to suppose that he knew there would be a crisis.

> I do not know what you base your statement that the Belzer Rebbe was
> not "rescued" on. From
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharon_Rokeach#Escape_from_Europe
>
> During World War II, Belzer Hasidim both inside and outside Nazi-occupied
> Europe saw saving the Rebbe as their primary goal. They spirited Rebbe Aharon
> ?who insisted on being accompanied by his half-brother, Rabbi Mordechai ?
> out of Belz into Winicz, then into the Bochnia Ghetto, then into the Krak?w
>  Ghetto, and then back into the Bochnia Ghetto, narrowly avoiding Gestapo
> roundups and deportations.

Yes, and then he made it to Hungary, which at that time was safe.  He didn't
need rescuing from there.  Nobody knew that it would not continue to be safe.
The speech we're discussing shows that he didn't know it was soon going to
become dangerous.


> Furthermore, see Esther Farbstein's book Hidden in Thunder, volume 1.
> In particular, from page 113 "He [the Belzer Rebbe] managed to escape
> at the last minute from Budapest (as a refugee, before it was
> occupied) after four years of moving from place to place. "

I'm not sure what that's based on.   Though I do see on the Hebrew WP page
that he left Hungary because he became aware that the Gestapo was demanding
that the Hungarian government hand him over to them.  If that is true (no
source is given) then it would be fair to say that he was rescued or that he
escaped, but only from a personal danger, not one that he could have expected
to include anyone else.

In any case, I fail to see the relevance of the Kastner train, and can't
think why RMB thought to bring it up.


-- 
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 09, 2014 at 02:18:32PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: I once heard an idea that perhaps there was nothing at all unique about
: this tree, chemically or biologically. The only thing unusual about it
: was that Hashem singled it out to Adam as being forbidden. It was a chok,
: pure and simple.

: When Adam then violated that law, the repercussions were dramatic,
: but they did not come from the fruit - they came from the eating. It
: was all psychological. Having sinned - and gotten caght - he is now more
: intimate with "right and wrong" than he ever wanted to be.

: It doesn't affect his DNA, because it doesn't need to. His kids will
: have to live with the consequences, and grow up in that cursed world. It's
: all automatic.

I was going to develop something along these lines, had RAM not beat me
to it. Let me add that this explanation can fit both the Rambam and REED.

The Rambam said that Adam qodem lacheit only had to chooce between emes
and sheqer. According to REED AQL only wanted to do good, and it would
take an external influence to convince them to do otherwise. The two
dovetail -- only through sheqer would someone who only wants to do good
be convinced to do something which is in reality evil.

But after the first sin, regardless of what that sin would have been, the
nequdas habechirah moved. The battle-front in the war between desires is
in a new place. We tried something else, we find it was attactive too. And
so taavah became internalized, and we could start fooling ourselves into
doing things that on other levels we know is wrong.

On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 05:50:04AM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
:> "Internalizing the conscience - bringing the extrinsic Jiminy
:> Cricket into one's inner essence - is the process of becoming
:> fully 'human.'"

: I never really understood how to do that. It's one thing to accept the
: advice of a friend, but I think that is quite different than actually
: internalizing the friend...

But one can internalize his advice and thus replace the need for
an external avisor. The nachash can be replaced by a yeitzer hara,
cartoonishly sitting on one's shoulder.

The question is whether we see ourselves as wanting to be good, if it
weren't for that pesky yh"r. A self-image in which the yh"r isn't
that far from the original nachash. Or do I think of myself as
including that voice to satisfy base desire, and to h-ll (literally!)
with the consequences, I'll worry about that later, it'll take care
of itself, or whatever? The self-image in which I don't hear my yh"t
pushing me to learn, but I want to learn, makes it inherently easier
to motivate to go learn. Even though all these things are self-images
and attitudes, and don't really describe different realities about
the soul, the yh"t and the yh"r.

Or perhaps self-image is itself a metaphysical presence...

...
> contrast, the cartoon devil and angel who sit on one's shoulder - they
...

Tangent:
Notice that in those scenes there are always *three* copies of the
person's face, one in red, one with a halo, and a big one in between
them. The yh"t and yh"r, or the animal vs the angel (not that those
are the same model!) each have to convince the ruach. There is a basic
threeness to the human condition whether we talk Naran, Superego-Ego-Id
(IMHO, an interesting collapse of naran by someone who didn't believe
we were created for qedushah), Parent-Adult-Child, or most other models
of that condition.

Now think pesach, matzah, maror; the three crowns in the BHMQ (shulchan,
aron, mizabei'ach hazahav) and the three uncrowned keilim (kiyor, menorah,
mizbei'ach), etc....
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/category/psyche/naran

: This is a VERY different take on Adam than what I'm used to. But to
: be honest, if we take Right and Wrong out of the picture, and instead
: say that "Staying away from the tree is Emes, and eating from the tree
: is sheker", well, to me that smacks of squeezing a square peg into a
: round hole. Right and Wrong *must* have been understood by Adam, and R'
: Folger's explanation shows how it was both understood yet still foreign.

Since those are lashon tzivui statements, it's impossible. Emes vs sheqer
really only applies to avar, hoveh and (although this raises philosophical
questions) asid, where we talk about whether or not something occured, not
whether or not it ought to. Perhaps that's what you mean by "round hole".

This is how I resolve it using the Rambam-REED fusion. Our only desire
was to do Retzon haBorei, and thus our field of decision-making was
choosing what we thought that was. Either we got it right (emes) or not
(sheqer). And until the first mistake, we didn't have an internal source
of sheqer either, sin needed an external force to misrepresent things.

On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 04:53:35PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
> The Rambam says that if a story in the Bible contains a mal'ach, EVEN AT  
> THE VERY END  (emphasis mine), the entire story is a retelling of a  
> prophetic vision rather than physical history (MN II:42).  And, of  
> course, the story of etz hada'as ends with the kruvim and the lahat  
> haherev hamis'hapeches.

> So, "if you go with the Rambam", the question should be "what is the  
> nimshal in the nevuah?", not "what species is the tree?".

But according to the Rambam, as explained by the Abarbanel (on the Morah,
ad loc) in his answer to the Ramban's questions on parashas Vayeira,
a prophetic vision isn't a pure mashal. It's the mind wrapping familiar
images when it directly experiences metaphysical events.

Thus, the Abarbanel says mal'achim really came and destroyed the cities
of the planes, even according to the Rambam. The Rambam is only saying
that the ability to see them required nevu'ah.

I discuss this shitah at more length in Mesukim miDevash on Mishpatim,
on a parallel machloqes about the Man on the Throne. The Ramban, who
understands nevu'ah to be a movie that relays a message, has no problem
saying that the Man was simply a representation of G-d for the sake
of the message. The Rambam says it was the Kavod Nivra which leshitaso
is a created metaphysical entity. This in turn impacts how we understand
Shechinah (created representation vs name of G-d) and so on. See
http://www.aishdas.org/mesukim/5764/mishpatim.pdf

The Rambam (al pi the Abarbanel) would still leave us wondering how
much of the story of the eitz hada'as was physical reality, and how much
was Adam and/or Chava's mind trying to make sense of non-physical realities.
The tree could welll have actually existed.

In either case, that too is no big deal, since the religious question is
still what is the nimshal -- of the prophetic message, the metaphysical
event, or the physical occurance. And knowing the species would be
a significant clue to that. (Picture the difference in lesson between
grapes, the source of wine and thus addiction and esros.) Being historical
or not doesn't change the identity of the Author nor His message to
us today.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Never must we think that the Jewish element
mi...@aishdas.org        in us could exist without the human element
http://www.aishdas.org   or vice versa.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch

On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:54:52PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
: The Piskei Teshuva in Choshen Mishpat siman 7 si'if 5 quotes both the
: Birchei Yosef and the Sefer HaChinuch and relates it back to Devorah and
: (one of the) positions in Tosphos that what Devorah did was to teach the
: din the judges who actually ruled - something that, given that what she was
: teaching them was hardly settled din, they were the foremost scholars of
: the time, and they then relied upon her teaching has to be considered
: hora'ah.

In the sense I meant it, yes it was. Beis din settled the din, and
Devorah taught it. She didn't do the hora'ah, bequething authority on
one interpretation of the law (or new gezeira or new din derabbanan or
in Devorah's day, a devar soferim was also possible).

IN fact, the PT appears to specifically answer my question as I meant
it with a "no, she may not get a heter hora'ah" which is why BD did
the the hora'ah and she taught their conclusions.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

 

On 13/03/2014 12:55 PM, sholom Simon wrote:
>> In  contrast to Suma, Women are not obligated in Keri'at haTorah (this 
is the view  of all known Rishonim and the overwhelming opinion of Aharonim - 
thoroughly  documented in the article, Section III and note 85). Hence 
shome'ah ke-oneh  cannot work and the Berakha would be le-vatala.  As a result, 
there is no  such dispute or ruling regarding women receiving aliyyot in the 
 posekim.
>
> Naive question: why doesn't the gemara bother  mentioning this in Megilla 
when it quotes the baraisa that says women aren't  called up because of 
kavod ha'tzibbur?

From: Zev Sero  <z...@sero.name>
Why would it?  There's no suggestion there that  women are obligated.   The
braisa certainly doesn't suggest  this.

-- 
Zev  Sero               

 
>>>>>
 
This doesn't really answer his question.  His question -- if I  understand 
it -- is, Why doesn't the Gemara say women can't get aliyos because  they 
are not obligated in kriyas haTorah?  Why does it give what would seem  to be 
a secondary reason -- kovod habrios -- and not what seems to be the  primary 
reason?
 
--Toby Katz
..
=============


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140316/d2302b9d/attachment-0001.htm>

On 14/03/2014 3:50 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 08, 2014 at 09:54:52PM +0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
> : The Piskei Teshuva in Choshen Mishpat siman 7 si'if 5 quotes both the
> : Birchei Yosef and the Sefer HaChinuch and relates it back to Devorah and
> : (one of the) positions in Tosphos that what Devorah did was to teach the
> : din the judges who actually ruled - something that, given that what she was
> : teaching them was hardly settled din, they were the foremost scholars of
> : the time, and they then relied upon her teaching has to be considered
> : hora'ah.
>
> In the sense I meant it, yes it was. Beis din settled the din, and
> Devorah taught it.

No, you've got that wrong way around.   She taught the BD how to rule.


-- 
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


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


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 32, Issue 41
**************************************

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