Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 076

Friday, June 4 1999

• Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
• Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Re: tav l'meysav
• Re: yiddish
• "Psychological Needs"
• Re: tav l'meysav
• Re: Goal of Yahadus
• Re: yiddish
• Re: "Psychological Needs"
• Re: Goal of Yahadus
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in metzius
• Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in metzius
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• RE: tav l'meysav
• Election Post Script
• Re: Goal of Yahadus
• Re: "Psychological Needs"
• Re: "Psychological Needs"
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew

On Thu, 3 Jun 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> No one denies that Yir'at shamayim (maybe even Yir'as Shomayim) is the
> goal of Yahadut and that ultimately halachic observance should be geared
> towards that goal.  And I certainly agree that the MB is meant to foster
> halachic observance.  The question is whether the MB is a sefer psak
> which is machree'ya between halachic options or just a summary of
> halachic works written until that time with some guidance as to the
> weight of halachic opinion so that one may accomplish "la'asoo'kei
> sh'matita aliba d'hilchita" (which is the declared goal of the MB in the
> last paragraphs of his hakdamah). 
> 

While the MB is often not machri'a, he often is. It is that kind of
halachic work - similar to many others. That is a type of halachic work.
Any other categorization is...

> Clearly the MB encourages one to perform mitzvot in the way most likely
> to lead to Yir'at Shamayim.  (Of course, the Ramban on "v'a'see'ta
> ha'yashar v'hatov comments that even lifnim meshurat hadin is *required*
> of everyone, and that the 613 mitzvot are merely examples of the
> exemplary way each of us should act.)  A sefer psak does more--it tells

Right, so a proper halachic work must tell you the halacha with yashar
v'tov included.

> you what is m'ikar hadin so that a posek can evaluate what to do in
> extenuating circumstances, or when the realities of life (such as
> psychological needs, in the case of a boss & LH) intrude upon the
> niceties of halacha. 
> 

That is the sefer psak, perhaps, that R' Moshe Feldman will b'ezras Hashem
write. While I do not concede that this is not what the MB does, let us
say, for argument's sake, his intention was to write a compendium of
shittos and be machri'a in a way that is inclined towards yoshor v'tov.
This is not psak?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> 
> Anybody have any ideas about the following?
> _________________________________________________________
> Dear Friends,
> 
> However, I am interested to know how Judaism treat another case: that of a
> believer in another (idolatric) religion whose life -apart from this aspect-
> is totally devoted to good deeds (ma'asim tovim?). A practical example: I
> have read that in Yad Vashem the names of many Christians who helped Jews
> are remembered as "Righteous of the Nations" (or something similar). A
> Catholic priest who put his life at risk to save persecuted Jews during WWII
> is surely an "idolater" in some respect, but it is hard to think that he
> will not receive a recognition for his commendable actions. This question
> has been debated by other religions as well (for instance, the Italian poet
> Dante Alighieri touched it in his most famous work "La Divina Commedia" in
> the frame of Christian theology, giving a positive answer).
> 
> Summarizing: the 'olam abba' is reserved to Jews + Noachides, or somebody
> else can apply?

===> The issue of a Priest who saved Jews getting Olam Habba was discussed
a while ago.  I *think* that if the Priest REALLY and fully believed in
Idolatry, it would be doubtful if he woudl be able to get Olam Habba since
a belief in Idolatry would appear to make it impossible to have a
"connection" to G-d.  However, (a) the Gemara notes that many non-Jews are
simply idolatrous "out of habit" and (b) xtianity may be -- FOR THE
NON-JEW -- a non-idolatrous belief.  Thus, the "more lenient" POV maight
assert that Olam Habba is only for Jews and Noachides -- but have a
relatively "lenient" definition of "Noachide".  A stricter approach would
simply note that while the Priest did a "good thing", he will get no
"reward" in Olam Habba since he is idolatrous -- and would get his reard
in this world....

--Zvi

> 
> Toda' rabba' in advance
> 
> Flavio
> 

<<
Why do you only look at the first instance of abuse?  From the little
amount that I studied these sorts of issues (such as battered women's
syndrome) in law school, it seems that psychologically there is often
a build-up over time.  Only after repeated abuse will the woman be
willing to leave her husband.  But at that point, why 
not say that she never truly accepted her husband's abuse, and that
she only now reached the "straw that broke the camel's back?"
>>

Once she returns, she is savra v'kibla.  She has reasoned and accepted the 
situation.  She can no longer make a claim of ta'us on that.  She can only 
claim to have gotten fed up with what she accepted.  This is not a valid 
argument for undoing kiddushin.

EDT

<<
'gefrailach'
>>

i know what frielach means (joyous)

and i know what geferlach means (terrible)

but what is gefrielach?

EDT

> From: Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: Mishna Brurah: Advice or Psak?
> 
> Clearly the MB encourages one to perform mitzvot in the way most
> likely to lead to Yir'at Shamayim.  (Of course, the Ramban on
> "v'a'see'ta ha'yashar v'hatov comments that even lifnim meshurat
> hadin is *required* of everyone, and that the 613 mitzvot are merely
> examples of the exemplary way each of us should act.)  A sefer psak
> does more--it tells you what is m'ikar hadin so that a posek can
> evaluate what to do in extenuating circumstances, or when the
> realities of life (such as psychological needs, in the case of a boss
> & LH) intrude upon the niceties of halacha.

===> There is a key point here that can get lost: ..."such as
psychological needs... intrude upon the niceties of halacha"... I think
that this is a key here.  It seems that it is very easy to take the termso
fo modern society and use them as "basis" to permit things -- without
recognizing that our usage may be nothing more than the Yetzer Harah
finding a new tactic to subvert our observance of halacha.  This is a
perfect example.  Nobody ever had "psychological needs" until the 20th
century?  ChaZaL who seemed to have been pretty astute about people and
their feelings knew nothing about "psychological needs"?  The Baalei
Mussar (whom I have seen described as true masters of the Human Mind) did
nto understand "psychological needs"?  I think not.  If there is a true
need, it (the need) can be discussed with a Posek who can help one see if
this is REALLY a "need" or the blandishment of the Yetzer.  For example,
with s tough boss, what is this "need to vent"?  It *sounds* as if there
is a need to "tell L"H to *someone*".  What is the to'eles in such a
recitation?  OTOH, if one is asking advice what to do, or how to accept
what has happened -- the to'eles seems clearly enough defined that we do
not need a new category.  Perhaps, if the Boss is Jewish, a Rov could help
with issues of how to speak to the Boss (if the Boss is frum and will
listen) or what an appropriate response to the Boss is -- even if the Boss
is NOT frum...  However, absent such "clear-cut" cases, it seems to me
that we shoudl be very careful about accepting "psychological needs" as an
intrinsic to'eles...

--Zvi




> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe

<<
My point is that there are many reasons which tend to make remaining with
a "mildly" violent spouse more tolerable than divorce.  I don't see why
that is an obstacle to RETROACTIVELY anulling the marriage IF the
violence later becomes so severe that separation becomes the more
tolerable option.

There may be many problems with R. Rackman's position. I just don't
understand Rabbi Teitz's explanation of how "What about the kids" is one
of them.
>>

As I explained elsewhere, the argument of ta'us means that as soon as a 
situation arises the woman has to walk out, claiming that I would never have 
entered into the marriage.  If she is in the marriage and tolerates a 
condition, she can no longer claim that she would not have tolerated it and 
therefore the marriage is void.  

Aside from this point, there are many women who marry men who are know to be 
'rough' and 'difficult'.  One can not make blanket assessments that no woman 
would tolerate such conditions, and therefore issue releases based on an 
assumption to the contrary.

EDT

<<
No one denies that Yir'at shamayim (maybe even Yir'as Shomayim) is
the goal of Yahadut and that ultimately halachic observance should be
geared towards that goal.  

....

Clearly the MB encourages one to perform mitzvot in the way most
likely to lead to Yir'at Shamayim.  (Of course, the Ramban on
"v'a'see'ta ha'yashar v'hatov comments that even lifnim meshurat
hadin is *required* of everyone, and that the 613 mitzvot are merely
examples of the exemplary way each of us should act.)  
>>

My wife and I were discussing this exact point on the way to a wedding this 
past Sunday.

Ramban seems to argue at least a bit with the premise of the first argument 
here.  If yashar and tov are mandatory, then it is not only yiras Shamayim 
that is the goal.  Being good is also a goal, as in "The mitzvos were given 
to refine the person."  Also, we have HaShem's own comment of "Osi azavu, 
v'sorasi shamaru", heeding the mitzvos is the goal, not recognition of 
HaShem.  Although that should follow from the observance, it is not the goal.

So we see many different goals, there is no one clear goal.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 6/3/99 9:16:19 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> but what is gefrielach?

It is a Plitas HKeyboard <g>

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/3/99 9:22:29 PM EST, weissz@idt.net writes:

>  ChaZaL who seemed to have been pretty astute about people and
>  their feelings knew nothing about "psychological needs"?

Further more the whole Mitzvah of Tochocho is based on this need and to avoid 
Lo Sisnoh Es Ochicho Bilvovecho, Torah defines what is the proper way to vent 
furstration.

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Bloshon Hakosuv: Sof Davar..E-lokim Yera Veas Mitzvosuv Shmor.

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Zvi Weiss writes:
:               I *think* that if the Priest REALLY and fully believed in
: Idolatry, it would be doubtful if he would be able to get Olam Habba since
: a belief in Idolatry would appear to make it impossible to have a
: "connection" to G-d.

Issues of Christianity and Rambam vs. Tosfos on shutfus aside... What if the
priest were a Brahmist Hindu -- a true aku"m.

I think it's only the Rambam who sets up this causative relationship between
connecting to G-d and olam habba. (And I wonder if R' YGB, who objected to
the assertion that the Rambam so connected yedi'ah to olam habba would agree to
this variant. To the Rambam, yedi'ah is the means of connection so...) For the
rest of us, it's about culpability. IOW, not what the person did or believed,
but what he can be found accountable for doing or believing.

Why wouldn't we argue that the Hindu was a "tinok shenishba" or the like?
If a Jew isn't punished for aveiros due to poor upbringing, why should a
non-Jew?

I would therefore give (the incidentally very PC) answer that anyone who tries
their best given their kishronos and history to be "good" (including trying to
figure out what that means) ought to merit olam haba.

-mi
-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 6/4/99 9:05:42 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I would therefore give (the incidentally very PC) answer that anyone who 
> tries
>  their best given their kishronos and history to be "good" (including 
trying 
> to
>  figure out what that means) ought to merit olam haba.
>  
The Rambam writes that to be considered "Chassidei Umos H'olom" they must do 
the 7 Mitzvohs because Hashem said so thru Moshe, logical and emotional 
reasons will not count, do you have any source in Poskim that disagree?

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

>>What ikar emunah is at stake here?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov<<

1) How about Emunas chachomim!? <smile>
2) I think it is presumptive (almost arrogant) to ASSUME we have it right and 
the Gemoro had it wrong.  Hashkofo-wise, we should presume the Gemoro is right, 
and look for a reconciliation, preferably an elegant one.  I think the hashkofo 
that the Gemoro is fualty re: science is what bolstered Reform during the 
"enlightened" 19th century, - the thought that WE are right and the Gemoro and 
poskim are wrong,

I think Dr. Backon is on the right track with hasivo.  It seems to me to be in 
the spirit of the Rambam to reconcile Mesora with science; and reconcile we can 
given enough time and effort and siyyato dishmaya.

More later.

Rich Wolpoe 

Joel Rich:>>Would you extend this analysis to medical advice in the gemora? If 
not, why not?<<

Ok, let's survey our list.  Would we revise halacho lemaase in the following 
cases?  For the sake of argument, let's PRESUME that the scientific analysis was
provent beyond a reasonable doubt. 


1) 51 yr Persian period vs. 250.  this would effect Shmito.  shouldn't we 
obwerve at least a sofeik shmito just in case?
2) Solar yr @ 365.25.  Isn't tekufas Nissan and Tishrei off?  Shouldn't v'sain 
tal umotor be altered from Dec. 4/5?  
3) Shema yakdim kone l'vishet.  Since it's front backand not left-right 
shouldn't lefties now do hasivo on their right?
4) The Fertilized egg issue, is masechos Beitzo correct?
5) Sof zman Kiddush levono,  Shouldn't we folliwng the Sual Stokarian doctrine 
of getting the excat time each month as opposedto using an  average?
6) Same for Bircahs haChaman
7) Tav l'emseisav might be overturned by socilogical data.
8) Maggots
9) Pi should be 3.14... instead of simply 3. (affects Eiruvin, etc.)


Summary:
A) Halahcially speaking - what is the klall here, if scientific metzius 
conflicts with our mesorah, which takes precedence when deciding Halocho?

B) Hashkofo-wise, were the chazal simply taking their best guess, or were they 
transmitting to us something meaningful?  Does Emunas Chachomim come into play? 

C) Scientifically speaking - can we trust scientific paradigms to be THE correct
way of lookking at thtings?  EG, how about the pre-Semlwiss surgeons who refused
to wash there hands between operationg on patients? Was their wisdom superior to
the hygenic rules so well articulated in Halocho?  How do we know current sciene
is not as equally flawed in its presumptions?

If you don't like dirty hands, how about giving diabetics lots of sugar because 
they were losing too much via the urine?  That USED to be the recommnded 
treatment!

More Later, BEH
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 6/4/99 9:05:42 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Why wouldn't we argue that the Hindu was a "tinok shenishba" or the like?
>  If a Jew isn't punished for aveiros due to poor upbringing, why should a
>  non-Jew?
>  
There is difference between punishment and reward, a Yid has a natural Chelek 
Lolom Haboh, to loose it would require those Aveiros that are enumerated in 
Perek Chelek and brought in Hil. Tshuvah of the Rambam (with another few 
exceptions like Hamalbin Pnei Chaveiroi B'rabim, also brought in the Rambam, 
etc.), a non-Jew to get Olom Haboh has to earn it (that's why he needs to 
except Toras Moshe and according to the Rambam [possible] before Beis Din, 
HKB"H has many ways to reward.

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: EDTeitz@aol.com [mailto:EDTeitz@aol.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 03, 1999 10:34 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: tav l'meysav
> 
> 
> 
> As I explained elsewhere, the argument of ta'us means that as 
> soon as a 
> situation arises the woman has to walk out, claiming that I 
> would never have 
> entered into the marriage.  If she is in the marriage and tolerates a 
> condition, she can no longer claim that she would not have 
> tolerated it and 
> therefore the marriage is void.  

How is this measured? For example, maybe a woman is willing to be smacked
around twice a week. If her husband does so for a couple of years, but then
degenerates to three times a week, can she walk out and claim kiddushei
ta'us, since the very first time an intolerable situation arose (i.e.
getting smacked around three times in one week) she walked out? (I would
suspect not, but according to what you've stated above, maybe yes?)

Avi Pechman

It's well known that about 70-75% of the Israeli Jewish population either
supports the Oslo accords or Bedi'eved feels that the point of no return
was long since passed and therefore is willing to live with them and see
them to their (hopefull) peaceful conclusion.  In this context the
following survey results, which appeared in the Thursday Ha'aretz, are
particularly interesting:

In view of the fateful decisions on the final borders with the
Palestinians, the Lebanese mess, etc.,  P.M.-elect Barak is trying to form
a broad coalition government.  The other stated reason for seeking a broad
coalition is to begin to address and hopefully heal the rifts between
various sectors that plague this country.

However a broad coaltion (which would include dati & hareidi parties, and
probably the Likud as well) would probably slow down the Oslo process; a
narrow coalition of Labor-Meretz-Shinui(Lapid)-the Center Party & the Arab
parties would speed up the Oslo process, but would probably worsen the
rifts.

Question - which would you prefer, a broader coalition but slower progress
on Oslo, or a narrower coalition with faster progress implementing Oslo,
getting out of Lebanon etc?

Something like 75% of the respondents prefered the broader coalition, with
dati and hareidi parties, even at the cost of slowing down the Oslo
process.  In other words, the vast majority of the Israeli (in this case
Jewish) population feel we need to make peace among ourselves more urgently
before we make peace with others.


.............................................................................
                             Hershel Ginsburg, Ph.D.
              Licensed Patent Attorney and Biotechnology Consultant
                          P.O. Box 1058 / Rimon St. 27
                                  Efrat, 90435
                                    Israel
              Phone: 972-2-993-8134        FAX: 972-2-993-8122
                         e-mail: ginzy@netvision.net.il
.............................................................................

In the early days of the list, we established that current hashkafos revolve
around one of two different concepts about what the goal of Yahadus is: d'veikus
or temimus (to use my choice of terms).

Mussar is temimus oriented -- it focuses on self-perfection, including yir'as
shamayim. In contrast, Chassidus is about d'veikus -- connecting with G-d,
which includes striving for self-perfection. The difference is one of
determining which is ikkar, which actually ends up having nafka minos in how one
paskens.

Given that the Chafeitz Chaim was a ba'al mussar, when R' YGB rhetorically asks,
"What is possibly the putpose of Yahadus if not 'proper hanhogo and Yir'as
Shomayim'?" I would assume that the CC would stress the former saying that it
includes the latter.

But that's the detail, the original point of the thread was the second part of
his question "What is possibly the putpose of Yahadus if not "proper hanhogo
and Yir'as Shomayim can an Halachic work have?" The answer is "none" -- BUT.
Not every work what addresses proper hanhogo needs to be a halachic work. It
could be one about lifnim mishuras hadin, hanhagos tovos, and the like -- in
addition to halachah. Mussar had many hanhagos beyond the limits of halachah.

In fact, one could argue that the true ba'al mussar doesn't have lines between
strict obedience to halachah, chumros (e.g. chosheid for shita X), and the
hanhagos tovos dictated by mussar. Perhaps we're imposing external
categorizations on a system of thought that blurred the distinctions we're
making.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> ===> There is a key point here that can get lost: ..."such as
> psychological needs... intrude upon the niceties of halacha"... I
> think
> that this is a key here.  It seems that it is very easy to take the
> terms
> of modern society and use them as "basis" to permit things --
> without
> recognizing that our usage may be nothing more than the Yetzer
> Harah
> finding a new tactic to subvert our observance of halacha.  This is
> a
> perfect example.  Nobody ever had "psychological needs" until the
> 20th
> century?  ChaZaL who seemed to have been pretty astute about people
> and
> their feelings knew nothing about "psychological needs"?  The
> Baalei
> Mussar (whom I have seen described as true masters of the Human
> Mind) did
> nto understand "psychological needs"?  I think not.  If there is a
> true
> need, it (the need) can be discussed with a Posek who can help one
> see if
> this is REALLY a "need" or the blandishment of the Yetzer.  

You have missed my point for the second time on the same issue.  I
*did* discuss this issue with 2 poskim and I heard of psak in the
name of a third.

Certainly poskim do take psychological needs into account.  My point
is that the MB does not seem to do so and this reflects on his status
as a posek.

> For
> example,
> with s tough boss, what is this "need to vent"?  It *sounds* as if
> there
> is a need to "tell L"H to *someone*".  What is the to'eles in such
> a
> recitation?  

You obviously work in an easy field.  I just had a non-Jewish boss &
non-Jewish client yell at me for nearly 2 hours this past week and I
went home completely stressed-out (with my stomach literally in
knots), feeling like a rag and that I must be deficient.  I talked it
over with my wife and we decided that I should reappraise the
situation given the fact that (a) the client's real complaint was
with the wishy-washy (and dilatory) advice that our foreign advisors
had given, that (b) as the low-man on the totem pole I was more
likely to be blamed than anyone else, and that (c) the boss' claim as
to what he had told me was a reinterpretation of events in light of
the client's anger.

This reminds of the difference of opinion between R. Abraham Amsel
(who denies the importance of dealing with the subconscious and tries
to create a "Jewish psychology" just based on sifrei mussar) and R.
Moshe Halevy Spero (who takes psychology seriously).

As to your point about whether the 20th century is any different than
the past, the fact is that the rates of (recorded) depression have
increased tremendously during the past couple of decades.  Today, 25%
(I seem to recall) of all people have experienced clinical
depression.  

> OTOH, if one is asking advice what to do, or how to
> accept
> what has happened -- the to'eles seems clearly enough defined that
> we do
> not need a new category.  Perhaps, if the Boss is Jewish, a Rov
> could help
> with issues of how to speak to the Boss 

Sometimes bosses just don't want to admit that they're the ones at
fault.  Sometimes it makes sense to deal with your hurt on your own.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/3/99 9:22:29 PM EST, weissz@idt.net writes:
> 
> >  ChaZaL who seemed to have been pretty astute about people and
> >  their feelings knew nothing about "psychological needs"?
> 
> Further more the whole Mitzvah of Tochocho is based on this need
> and to avoid 
> Lo Sisnoh Es Ochicho Bilvovecho, Torah defines what is the proper
> way to vent 
> furstration.

But there are certain parameters of Tochacha: one does not do it
where it is unlikely to work.  It is rare that an underling can
successfully be mo'che'ach a boss, especially where the boss believes
the underling to be at fault (and believe me, I've tried).

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Rich Wolpoe quotes me then asks:
: The Rambam writes that to be considered "Chassidei Umos H'olom" they must do 
: the 7 Mitzvohs because Hashem said so thru Moshe, logical and emotional 
: reasons will not count, do you have any source in Poskim that disagree?

First, I excluded the Rambam bichlal for the discussion, asserting he's a da'as
yachid in making o"h about causality and not cupability. But bichol zos...

I'm not asserting that a person who worshipped avodah zara because he was raised
in it could be a chassid (lower case C). I'm saying that he's not culpable for
his lack of chassidus. Just as a tinok shenishba is still nebich a chotei. Just
that HKBH doesn't punish someone for something that was outside of his control.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]