Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 4

Thu, 08 Jan 2015

• 1. Re: Beris Metzitza Shabbos (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Is No Beris in the Midbar - a HoroAs ShaAh?? (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 3. Re: Metzitza (Arie Folger)
• 4. Sources Please - Bittul to a Rav HaMuvhak (Rabbi Meir G. Rabi)
• 5. Re: Sources Please - Bittul to a Rav HaMuvhak (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Metzitza (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: robot writing sefer torah (Micha Berger)
• 8. measurement error (David Riceman)
• 9. Re: Metzitza (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: measurement error (Kenneth Miller)
• 11. Fascinating, Little Known History of a Mi Shebeirach Revealed: The Hidden Story Behind A Shabbos Practice (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Re: measurement error (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: measurement error (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Beris Metzitza Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Is No Beris in the Midbar - a HoroAs ShaAh?? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: measurement error (Zev Sero)

R' Meir Rabi asked:
> I asked if someone could please bring Halachic support for the
> Torah obliging us to perform BerisMilah even where there is
> danger to life? Or danger to limb Or significant risk.

R' Micha Berger answered:
> Beris milah itself. Any surgery, particularly on a newborn, was
> more risky, statistically far worse than nidon didan, for most
> of history, ... And people were doing metzitzah bepeh with some
> percentage having HSV-1 in addition to many other things we no
> longer deal with back then too. ... Before mouthwash and
> toothpaste, mouths were much germier places. This isn't even a
> new risk; it's a much milder form of the old one.

I don't dispute any of this, but a critical point is: Were they AWARE that it was so dangerous?

B"H that I have know personal knowledge of it, but my guess is that
hemophilia is rather easy to identify, because the bleeding simply doesn't
stop. In contrast, if some sort of infection were passed from the mohel to
the baby, it would take some time to develop, at which point no one could
tell whether this illness came from the mohel or from someone else, or
whether it was just another case of a weak baby who wasn't strong enough to
survive.

I am not saying that I agree with RMR. I'm just saying that this particular
response seems very weak. It seems that his question (looking for an
example where milah is required even when dangerous) still stands. I
suspect that the answer will have something to do with the *degree* of
danger.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

Is there any suggestion anywhere - other than a posting on Avodah - that
the decision of BNY to not have Beris in the Midbar, was a HoRoAs ShaAh?

And why is it DANGEROUS to suggest that it was a Halachic decision and that
it was supported by Moshe Rabbenu?

And is it anywhere suggested, or is there any argument suggesting that this
decision was a  Horoas Shooh from a Novi?


Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150108/d0fd6665/attachment-0001.htm>

A numbrr of posters have discussed possible medical reasons for metzitza
befeh, and argued whether or not possible or claimed medical benefits
support or reject a thesis whereby metzitza is an indispensable part of the
actual mitzva of mila.

The arguments were generally eloquently argued, with one side coming down
strongly in favor of seeing no mitzva in metzitza, only refua, while the
other side strongly argued for it being inherently part of the mitzva.

Posters also recognized that even for those who hold metzitza to be part of
the mitzva, and the mouth playing a highly symbolic role, opinions differ
whether performing mitzitzavthrough a pipette is ok or not.

But for some odd reason, when discussing the medical reasons for metzitza,
posters seemed to invariably assume it was meant to disinfect the wound, a
benefit science could not find in the practice.

R'Dr. Mordechai Halperin wrote an article arguing quite convincingly that
it is suction, not saliva that provides a benefit, and it is to prevent
blood vessel trauma in hypospadias patients, whose gland would otherwise be
endangered.
--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150107/0fcdd500/attachment-0001.htm>

Please can anyone assist finding the Seif in Shulchan Aruch that says QUOTE
- one must have Bittul to their Rav Hamuvhak - END QUOTE

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150108/451e88ea/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 06:28:47AM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
: Please can anyone assist finding the Seif in Shulchan Aruch that
: says QUOTE : - one must have Bittul to their Rav Hamuvhak - END QUOTE

It's not in the SA, as far as Bar Ilan and I could find.

However, there is an example of it in the Beis Yoseif YD 294:28, quoting
the Raavad. "Even though my da'as doesn't rest on all this, lehalakhah
listen to him because is is a rav muvhaq. And whomever want to be machmir,
it is upon him to bring a ra'ayah."

The BY often says some noted rishon (the Ran, the Rambam, Rashi...) is
a rav muvhaq and therefore we follow them lehalakhah. But in that one
case he kind of spells out bitul of his own da'as. Similarly, there
are an number of times he speaks of "mevateil da'as/-si/-so".

But in none of those cases does he state a rule that one *must*.

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

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
: R'Dr. Mordechai Halperin wrote an article arguing quite convincingly that
: it is suction, not saliva that provides a benefit, and it is to prevent
: blood vessel trauma in hypospadias patients, whose gland would otherwise be
: endangered.

Pesaqim about metzitzah would presumably be based on how they thought
metzitzah worked, not how (if the effect is even significant) it
actually worked. If metzitzah is miSinai, we would know that HQBH had
the real medicical affect in mind. But there is no reason to believe
anyone else did. And the leading theory, as will all bloodletting,
was to maintain the balance of the four humors. As per Hippocrates and
Galen, who held sway on this until the 19th cent. About the same time
germs were dicovered and sterilation came on the scene.

And about the same time alternatives to direct metzitzah bepeh started
being discussed. I don't think the timing is coincidental.

Aside: Since hypospadias can be seen without instruments, I find it hard
to accept its care as a motive for metzitzah in general.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 03:25:27PM -0500, via Avodah wrote:
: I don't understand how or why a Sefer Torah written by a robot would be  
: conceptually any different from any sefer printed by a printing  press..

Not written in order. Not that that's me'aqev for a s"t.

Not on kelaf, bound as a codex, not a scroll, and I don't know about the
ink.

Still, if a sofer were to fill a press with kosher diyo and put kelaf
on the press bed, held down the switch while having the right kavanos --
saying the traditional "hareini koseiv..." even -- then sows the kelafim
together kehalakhah, are you sure the result is pasul?

It's not a great koach gavra, but as RET noted in the original post,
those who perform the mitzvah of leil haseider with machine matzah do
rely on the parallel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org        excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org   'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (270) 514-1507      trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I think I asked a version of this once before, and no one answered, but 
I'd like to generalize the question, and maybe that'll spur some responses.

The mishna says that one can say Krias Shma until (standardized) 9 AM, 
because princes get up at 9.  Now the Biblical requirement is 
b'kumecha.  Hazal aren't saying that there's something special about 
princes, they're saying "here's a known group of people who don't get up 
as soon as it's light out."  And they quantified their waking time as 9 AM.

I had previously pointed out that nowadays there are groups of people 
who get up even later (exemplified by fictional characters like Auntie 
Mame and Bertie Wooster).  I found two things puzzling: is a person 
yotzei K"Sh later than 9 AM shekein derech Bertie Wooster ...?, and why 
do the poskim cite 9 AM as definitive? Is it only because they predate 
electric lights?

Lately, though, a friend recommended that I read Chang's book "Inventing 
Temperature".  I've only read a bit of it, but it's enough to reinforce 
my earlier question.  Chang discusses how people started to calibrate 
thermometers, and points out that people realized quite quickly the 
astonishing idea that boiling points and freezing points of pure water, 
measured on a thermometer, are quite consistent.  But they also realized 
that boiling and freezing are processes, and there are several degrees 
difference between various phenomena which can all be legitimately 
described as boiling or freezing.

I learned Hullin with a teacher who'd been educated in Mir before the 
war, and Yoreh Deiah with someone who'd been educated in Kletzk before 
the war.  In both cases we used phenomenal descriptions of temperature 
(e.g., yad soledes bo).  But I knew people who'd been educated by people 
born in America, and they had translated the Talmudic terms into degrees 
farenheit.

Arguably they were doing what Hazal did for K"Sh, translating into 
measurable terms.  But, arguably, the concepts aren't the same.  9 AM 
may be the time princes in Hazal's day got up; is it the time princes 
get up today? Is it the time the latest risers get up today?

Similarly yad soledes bo is not easy to quantify: it will, for example, 
be different for a professional baker than for a Zamboni driver.  Do 
babies bellies react differently since the introduction of central heating?

My point is that, if we replace a conceptual definition with a 
measurable definition, we may lose the original concept, and, over time, 
we may get the halacha wrong.  And the old formulations allow more leeway.

But has the halacha changed? If someome says K"Sh at 10 AM is he yotzei 
d'orayssa? Does he have some peculiar d'rabbanan status?

David Riceman

R'Dr. Halperin's responses to your questions are:
1) People didn't know how it worked, but bsbies were on the balance
healthier pist mila, when metzitza was performed, while when it wasn't,
there were certain complications that were wont to occur.
2) You only notice hypospadias when you look out for it, which is rarely
done. Except, that is, by contemporary mohalim, as they are trained to look
out for it.

--
mit freundlichen Gr??en,
with kind regards,
Arie Folger

visit my blog at http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
sent from my mobile device
On Jan 7, 2015 9:59 PM, "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 11:08:43AM +0100, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
> : R'Dr. Mordechai Halperin wrote an article arguing quite convincingly that
> : it is suction, not saliva that provides a benefit, and it is to prevent
> : blood vessel trauma in hypospadias patients, whose gland would otherwise
> be
> : endangered.
>
> Pesaqim about metzitzah would presumably be based on how they thought
> metzitzah worked, not how (if the effect is even significant) it
> actually worked. If metzitzah is miSinai, we would know that HQBH had
> the real medicical affect in mind. But there is no reason to believe
> anyone else did. And the leading theory, as will all bloodletting,
> was to maintain the balance of the four humors. As per Hippocrates and
> Galen, who held sway on this until the 19th cent. About the same time
> germs were dicovered and sterilation came on the scene.
>
> And about the same time alternatives to direct metzitzah bepeh started
> being discussed. I don't think the timing is coincidental.
>
> Aside: Since hypospadias can be seen without instruments, I find it hard
> to accept its care as a motive for metzitzah in general.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive.
> mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak.
> http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150107/316b7ce2/attachment-0001.htm>

R' David Riceman wrote:

> The mishna says that one can say Krias Shma until (standardized)
> 9 AM, because princes get up at 9.  Now the Biblical requirement
> is b'kumecha. Hazal aren't saying that there's something special
> about princes, they're saying "here's a known group of people
> who don't get up as soon as it's light out." And they quantified
> their waking time as 9 AM.
>
> I had previously pointed out that nowadays there are groups of
> people who get up even later (exemplified by fictional
> characters like Auntie Mame and Bertie Wooster).  I found two
> things puzzling: is a person yotzei K"Sh later than 9 AM shekein
> derech Bertie Wooster ...?, and why do the poskim cite 9 AM as
> definitive? Is it only because they predate electric lights?

On reading this post, my initial thought was that the Torah tends to deal
in absolutes. In d'Oraisaland, everything is black and white, with no
exceptions or room for bending. The daled amos of a person with short arms
is the same size as the daled amos of a person with long arms.

Are there any exceptions? Are there any d'Oraisas that depend on sociology?
If Sof Zman Krias Shma was purely clock-based, it would have been so simple
for Chazal to say "kumecha refers to the early morning; once the morning is
half gone, it is too late for Shma." Such a formulation would yield the
exact same halacha that we have now, and it would be practicable at any
level of technology. So why did they bother to mention the princes, unless
it was to suggest to future generations that if we'd have a group of people
who are known for how late they get up, then Krias Shma would follow them
too.

I started thinking about shiurim. I know that a m'lo lugmav *does* vary
with the size of person's cheek, but I don't know if it is a shiur for any
d'Oraisa situations - they tend to use the reviis.

Could tznius be relevant? If I live in a place where all the women cover
their entire hands, even their fingers, am I allowed to say Shma where such
fingers are exposed? I'm pretty sure this would be assur d'rabanan, but I
have no idea whether it would also be assur d'Oraisa, or whether the
d'Oraisa rules are the same for all times and all places.

I guess what I'm suggesting is that if d'Oriasa never does allow for such
adjustments, the Sof Zman Shma will not change, even if our sleeping habits
do.But if exceptions can be found, then we can ask why Chazal mentioned
princes; were they being descriptive or prescriptive?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Odd Trick Fights Diabetes
"Unique" Proven Method To Control Blood Sugar In 3 Weeks. Watch Video.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/54ade543b1847654363d1st04vuc

 From http://tinyurl.com/l5fylat

Davening for a sick person on Shabbos?

May one daven for a sick person on Shabbos?

Not a simple matter. Recall that we don't say the regular, weekday 
Shmoneh Esrei, which contains a prayer to heal our sick, on that day.

See the above URL for more.  YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20150108/1bfd3054/attachment-0001.htm>

My point is that, if we replace a conceptual definition with a 
measurable definition, we may lose the original concept, and, over time, 
we may get the halacha wrong.  

----------------------------------------------------
Unless you understand the halachic process in such a way that the
measurable definition now in fact becomes the halachic definition as part
of the halachic process so the halacha is not "wrong".	Using the
conceptual definition may have its own issues - e.g. yad soledet -can 2
people heat something on shabbat to the same temperature and one be chayav
and one patur depending on their individual heat sensitivity?  How do you
determine mishakir on a foggy morning?....
IMHO this is related to societal changes similar to why miyut hamatzui was never defined percentage wise until the 1800s IITC
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.

I may have more to say about this once I have more time to think, but
I want to make one comment early on in the conversation, since I'm not
sure I agree with how the whole thing is framed.

On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:38:13PM -0500, David Riceman via Avodah wrote:
: The mishna says that one can say Krias Shma until (standardized) 9
: AM, because princes get up at 9.  Now the Biblical requirement is
: b'kumecha.  Hazal aren't saying that there's something special about
: princes, they're saying "here's a known group of people who don't
: get up as soon as it's light out."  And they quantified their waking
: time as 9 AM.

This is asking: How do we know when Chazal is stating something absolute,
and when their words depend on the umdenah? Here we have a shiur, we're
given the reason for the shiur, and that reason doesn't hold anymore.
Do we rethink the shiur or not?

We often discuess science and halakhah, and what to do when Chazal
say something giving a reason found in science we now know to be
wrong. Not all the positions transfer over to this case, but one line
of reasoning I think does.

RAYKook's answer (as we called it in early iterations, later found to
be the Gra's) is that we do not know if the reason we have is the only
sevarah; in fact it's nearly guaranteed to just be one line of reasoning
among many. So, when Chazal's science is an argument lequlah, we now
have a reason to be machmir. But when we question their scientific basis
of being machmir, we have to assume that there are other reasons to be
machmir that still stand. So change is possible, only lechumerah.

Similarly here; perhaps the whole defining bequmekha by when princes of
their day awkoe is only one line of reasoning among many. And therefore
only if no significant population sleeps until "9am" today would we move
the time up; never would we make sof zeman q"sh later.

I think RAM's point about not knowing whether the rationale is the cause
of the ruling or a post-facto justification is also very important. In
fact, since we needed a sof zeman q"sh well before the mishnah, I would
lean toward post-facto. But in any case, this safeiq would also lead
us to be more machmir to account for current realia, but never more
meiqil. (At least, not on deOraisos. Whether safeiq derabbanan lequlah
applies to doubt due to ignorance is its own topic. I think it doesn't;
that halachic safeiq isn't a Bayesian concept.)

...
: I learned Hullin with a teacher who'd been educated in Mir before
: the war, and Yoreh Deiah with someone who'd been educated in Kletzk
: before the war.  In both cases we used phenomenal descriptions of
: temperature (e.g., yad soledes bo).  But I knew people who'd been
: educated by people born in America, and they had translated the
: Talmudic terms into degrees farenheit.

This, to my mind is a second topic, which is why I'm not sure I
agree with how RDR framed the problem.

This is asking about our ability to measure, the modern world's
scientific bent and love of measurement, and the current texutal
emphasis to halachic observance, and how that means being more
comfortable with objective standard than using how something
feels as measurement.

BTW, carrying 4 amos bereshus harabbim is 4 of one's own amos, assuming
they have mainstream bone structure. It's where I am in AhS Yomi.
But notice that we would naturally assume "amah" as unit of length, not
as a function of how far that particular person can reach. (Although it's
more complicated than that because someone with a congentially atypical
arm has a different reach, but uses an average ammah.)

That's the difference between saying yad soledes bo means "scalads
your hand" and saying it means "scalds the average/median/whatver
hand".

Then if we do find its based on norm rather than the invidual,
we can go back to the first question -- what do we do if the
norm changes? Do we use today's norm, or do we assume chazal
were given a measure ledoros.

(It is likely that with the industrial revolution, urbanization, and our
more sedentary lifestyles, the typical hand has more sensitive skin than
the norm in Chazal's day.)

Where RDR sees one big issue, I see two.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org        If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org                     - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 01/07/2015 07:09 AM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> R' Meir Rabi asked:
>> >I asked if someone could please bring Halachic support for the
>> >Torah obliging us to perform BerisMilah even where there is
>> >danger to life? Or danger to limb Or significant risk.

> R' Micha Berger answered:
>> >Beris milah itself. Any surgery, particularly on a newborn, was
>> >more risky, statistically far worse than nidon didan, for most
>> >of history, ... And people were doing metzitzah bepeh with some
>> >percentage having HSV-1 in addition to many other things we no
>> >longer deal with back then too. ... Before mouthwash and
>> >toothpaste, mouths were much germier places. This isn't even a
>> >new risk; it's a much milder form of the old one.

> I don't dispute any of this, but a critical point is: Were they AWARE
> that it was so dangerous?

They were certainly aware of it. They held that a newborn is a choleh,
but not mesukan; but that for three days after the bris he is mesukan.
So they were aware of the normal risk accompanying *any* milah.

They were also aware of the existence of hereditary conditions that
made milah almost inevitably fatal, and they had no means of diagnosing
these conditions, so as far as they knew *any* baby might have one, and
yet they required us to accept that risk.   After all, that is the
argument the anti-MBP people are making, isn't it?  We know that herpes
exists, and we have no practical way of diagnosing whether a given mohel
is shedding viruses at this moment, so we should ban all mohalim from
doing it just in case.  By the exact same logic Chazal should have banned
milah, because any given baby might have a condition that makes it
inevitably fatal.

More than that, even if a family lost a son to milah, thus significantly
raising the probability that there is a hereditary condition that will
affect their other sons as well, they are still required to risk their
second son!  It's not until they've lost *two* sons that Chazal finally
judge that the risk has risen high enough to justify omitting milah for
any subsequent sons!  Can you imagine how that decision would be treated
by the same activists who rail against MBP today?   Can you imagine what
charges they would like to bring against the mohel who did that second
bris, against the parents who handed their son over to the slaughter,
and against the rov who paskened that it must be done?  And yet Chazal
tell us that they would be wrong.

On 01/07/2015 02:43 PM, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> Is there any suggestion anywhere - other than a posting on Avodah -
> that the decision of BNY to not have Beris in the Midbar, was a
> HoRoAs ShaAh?  [...]
> And is it anywhere suggested, or is there any argument suggesting
> that this decision was a Horoas Shooh from a Novi?

Of course it wasn't a hora'as sha'ah from a navi; if it were, then
how could Shevet Levi disobey it?   When a novi tells you that
today Hashem wants you to bring a korban bachutz, or to eat on
Yom Kippur, that's not a suggestion, it's an order.  "And whoever
who does not listen to My words, that he speaks in My name, I will
deal with him."

The real question to ask about those parents who were too scared to
circumcise their sons in the midbar is *who told you they were right*?
On the contrary, it's pretty clear that they were wrong, and they
behaved like this only because they had just come from Mitzrayim and
still lacked in faith in Hashem.  Not only Shevet Levi circumcised their
sons, but so did all the tzadikim.  Only those who were scared didn't,
and the beis din couldn't force them because they had a legal excuse.

On 01/07/2015 09:01 PM, Kenneth Miller via Avodah wrote:
> On reading this post, my initial thought was that the Torah tends to
> deal in absolutes. In d'Oraisaland, everything is black and white,
> with no exceptions or room for bending. The daled amos of a person
> with short arms is the same size as the daled amos of a person with
> long arms.

Not always.  For the four amos that one may carry in Reshus Harabim, they
are indeed the person's own amos, from his elbow to the tip of his middle
finger (unless he has such disproportionately short arms that this would
leave him with less than his own length with his arms spread out, in which
case he gets four standard amos).


> I started thinking about shiurim. I know that a m'lo lugmav *does*
> vary with the size of person's cheek, but I don't know if it is a
> shiur for any d'Oraisa situations - they tend to use the reviis.

The shiur mid'oraisa for drinking on Yom Kippur is m'lo lugmav.




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



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


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


*************************************

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.)