Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 184

Tuesday, August 24 1999

• Lashon Hara About the Dead
• Re: Midgets and Giants:Outsiders and Insiders
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• sleeping on the left side
• Lower Criticism
• The Letters
• Re: Lashon Hara about historical facts which were once publicized but are today obscure
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication
• Criticism:Halacha vs Secular
• A Minor Comment on the Leshon Hara Thread
• HOw to read a legal text
• Electricity, Dams, First Force, and Fans
• More on Using Chumras for Social means
• Re: Midgets criticizing Giants:Publication

Moshe Feldman wrote:

> Carl Sherer wrote:
> << [Moshe Feldman wrote:]
> > I also have a svarah to distinguish motzi shem ra from lashon hara
> > regarding the dead.  It's not right to falsify information about a
> > person whether he's dead or alive.  But the sin of lashon hara
> > (speaking the truth) is really one of causing the person pain; dead
> > people don't feel pain (see Brachot 19a).
> 
> Ah, but we don't pasken like that Gemara. We pasken like the 
> Gemara at the bottom of Brachos 18a that says that we don't wear 
> tztzis or tfillin in a Beis HaKvoros because of loeg larash. If the 
> meisim don't understand anyway, why would we pasken that way? 
> (See Yoreh Deah 361:3). Obviously the meisim do feel something. 
> (And yes, that's what the Zera Chaim I cited yesterday brought as 
> proof).
> >>
> 
> Despite the Zera Chaim's position, my understanding is that we do pasken
> like Brachot 19a.  Proof: the Mordechai brings this as a cherem which was
> instituted, not as ikar hadin of hilchot lashon hara.

Yes, the Mordechai does bring it as a Cherem. But OTOH we 
definitely DO pasken like the Gemara in Brachos 18a which says 
that you can't wear tzitzis or tfillin in the Beis HaKvoros because of 
loeg larash. See YD 361:3. And the only way to explain that 
Gemara is to say that the dead do "feel" something. That seems to 
be oker your svara.

> BTW, the context of the Mordechai is dealing specifically with motzi shem
> ra and how one never receives forgiveness from the sin; it seems that the
> Mordechai is *not* using the term motzi shem ra as equivalent to lashon
> hara; he means *specifically* motzi shem ra.

Have to wait until I get home to reread this one....

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

Daniel Eidensohn wrote: <<< Bottom line. There are insiders and outsiders
in the Torah world. (Something which I had thought was obvious to all.)
The insiders have access to information which not available to the
outsiders. This is related also to the issue of midgets and giants. >>>

And Joel Rich responded <<< Yes, it is obvious, but I'm not sure that it
means that it must be accepted as the best of all possible worlds. Is
orthodoxy inherently elitist based on intellectual ability? ... I
would've naively thought that the goal of each was to uncover amita shel
tora in whatever methodology worked best and that each would take this
seriously and personally. >>>

Yes indeed, Torah is elitist. We do have legitimate concepts which terach
us that access to Torah is not carte blanche. Some is revealed only to an
exclusive elite:

- Teaching something only to tz'nuin
- Halacha v'ayn morin keyn
- Ayn dorshin even to one student

I too have naively tried to uncover the amita shel Torah, but despite my
desire to know it, nay, my *need* to learn kol haTorah kulah, I also
realize that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and it
is for the better good of Klal Yiroel that certain information is held
only by those who are able to deal with it.

Let's be honest. We are willing to accept principles such as not learning
Kabala except under certain circumstances. So why does it bother us that
other parts of Torah are also placed beyond our reach? Because of kin'as
sofrim. We see that others -- whom we fancy to be our equals -- have
access to those parts of Torah, and so we want it as well. And we are
right for wanting it! But we must realize our place, and grow in the
right direction, so that we will meet those requirements, become a
legitimate "insider", and *that* is how to get access to those parts.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In message , Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes
>.
>
>I once asked one of my sons who was learning at Ponevitch about
>this issue. He replied, "the rosy stories are presented for the
>masses. The fact is that anyone who is going somewhere in the
>Torah world has full access to the stories - but it is kept as
>Torah Shebaal Peh. It is simply a question of to'eles. For
>someone who is an outsider and is not immersed in learning -
>the raw stories are harmful because they will be misunderstood.
>For the insiders - those who come in contact with the big
>people - the stories are understood in context."

I am aware of this attitude but I rather suspect that you are telling
tales out of school - or in other words, while this is the reality, it
is another piece of information that would be regarded as too harmful to
reach the masses. On the other hand, given that anybody on this list, by
definition, is so far over the edge of the world of the yeshivishe velt,
it probably does not matter.

After all, the problem with making such a view public is that is blows
out of the water one of the traditional arguments for everybody
remaining in learning, namely that "who knows where the next gadol is
coming from".  The reality in places such of Ponavich is that indeed
they do know, from a very young age, who is going somewhere - and as the
flow of information is controlled, anybody who is not deemed to be
"going somewhere" is going to have as much difficulty accessing it as
anyone outside the yeshiva. But the illusion of inclusivity seems to be
a deliberately created one - you too could be a gadol, just as you too
could be (in the US) President. I wonder if that is because the real
reason is fear of the dangers of abandonment of torah if the yeshiva was
left, but to say flat out to people that the reason we think you should
stay in yeshiva is that we don't trust you to avoid temptation if you
leave, while the notion that by their presence they may be nurturing the
creation of gadolim is a much more palatable one. Not sure, the last is
just speculation (maybe your son might have some input into the
question).

>                              Daniel Eidensohn
>

Kind Regards

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

The following article supports chazal's recommendation to sleep on the left
side.

Right-Sided Sleep Exacerbates Heartburn
Aug. 23, 1999 

Reuters 


NEW YORK -- Symptoms of acid reflux (heartburn) are more pronounced in
patients who sleep on their right side compared with those who sleep in any
other position, according to researchers. 

"Patients with (heartburn) might be advised to sleep preferentially in the
left... position," report Dr. Ramez M. Khoury and colleagues, from Graduate
Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They published their findings in the
August issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology. 

Heartburn occurs when acidic stomach contents reflux into the esophagus,
causing irritation of the esophageal wall. The problem is often exacerbated
at bedtime, as the horizontal sleeping position places extra pressure on the
stomach and esophagus. 

The Philadelphia researchers examined the effect of four sleeping positions
-- back, stomach, left- and right-side -- on the nighttime reflux patterns
of 10 patients with recurrent heartburn. The evening of the study, patients
were fitted with a special acid-detecting probe, positioned 5 centimeters (2
inches) above the lower esophageal sphincter, where the esophagus joins the
stomach. All subjects were fed a high-fat dinner and an evening snack.
Portable monitors recorded nighttime sleeping positions. 

The researchers found that patients who slept in a right-sided position had
longer periods of acidic pH levels in their esophagus compared with those
who slept either on their left side, back, or stomach. 

"Surprisingly, the number of reflux episodes was more frequent in the supine
(on the back) position," the authors report. But acid took longer to clear
from the esophagus in patients who sleep on their right sides, the
researchers explain. 

The authors point out that the lower esophagus veers a little to the left as
it connects with the stomach. They speculate that during sleep, the effects
of gravity straighten out this curve -- raising the potential for stomach
acids to spill into the esophagus. 

Khoury's team suggest that patients with recurrent heartburn sleep on their
left side whenever possible. The use of a soft 'sleeping wedge' behind the
back might "be useful in maintenance of that position throughout the night,"
they add.

SOURCE: American Journal of Gastroenterology 1999;94:2069-2073. 
c. Reuters News Service
 
© 1998-1999
drkoop.com, Inc.

From: Shalom Carmy <carmy@ymail.yu.edu>

> 1) Since I never specified to which text I referred re: lower criticism, I 
would
> be curious to know who does NOT accept lower criticism at all?

R. Chaim Heller, to begin with. A minority voice, perhaps, but still 
a gadol be-Torah who knew the evidence.

===> Q: Do you mean he would not accept lower criticism even regard to Talmud?


> 3) BTW, any yeshiva that accepts any hagohos on the Talmud accepts 
> lower criticism insofar as the Talmud goes.  And the TB makes lower 
> critical remarks re: Nach.  (EG re: the 7th of Av and Churban Bayis 
> Rishon).

This does not imply erroneous text transmission. Only that the original 
correct text reflects confusion on the part of the author.

===> Be kitzur the fact is we do not take a given text as literally accurate, 
and that is a de facto criticism in that it overrides the text and claims it is 
in error, albeit there was no scribal error.  While I do not reject your 
distinction, I consider it to be a nit.  The point is without that piece of 
criticism the text would have been taken literally, and the TB had no hesitation
to tell us to ignore the literal textbecause it was in error due to a confusion.
I would think it's a kal vachomer that the TB would allow (at least in Nach) for
"honest" scribal errors, too.



  The only area of controversy would be Chumash, and I take
> the TB at its word that we are not beki'im in moleh and chosier as 
> indicative that some elements of "lower criticism" exist on that
> level.

+ R. Akiva Eger (Gilyan haShas, Shabbat 55b) Hagahot habah (San. 4b). See 
also article by Y. Maori in Carmy, Modern Scholarship in the Study of 
Tora: Contributions and Limitations.

===> Please elaborate.  I would be interested in the salient points.

Rich Wolpoe

Micha Berger forwarded to the list:

 (I
> say this as someone who knows more "dirt" about certain great sages than he
> ever wanted to know, all gathered from written sources! Is it "listening" to
> lashon hara to read something?) 

It is certainly Lashon Hara to write something derogatory about 
another - See Hilchos Lashon Hara of the Chafetz Chaim Clal 1 S'if 
8 and Beer Mayim Chaim S"K 12 there. I am not sure that reading 
Lashon Hara is an aveira in itself if one is not mekabel it as true, 
although the Chafetz Chaim does say that hearing Lashon Hara - 
even without being mekabel it - is assur under some 
circumstances - see Hilchos Lashon Hara Clal 6 S'if 2-3, but see 
S'if 4 (that sometimes one should listen). 

Most importantly, see Be'er Mayim Chaim Clal 1 S"K 14 which 
seems remarkably close to what has been hinted at (and today 
described) on the list with respect to publishing the letters (I have 
not read the article and only have heard about it on the list).

I'm still thinking through where I come out on publishing things that 
some people might deem derogatory (but others might not) about 
other people in general and about Gdolim in particular.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Moshe Feldman wrote:

> I beg to differ.  Marc made it very clear that one of the more difficult
> questions a halachic historian must deal with is the parameters of
> lashon hara.  While you may be bothered by the philosophy, it seems that
> he is bothered more by the halacha.  To quote Marc: 
> 

Since Marc is not a member of the list, it is of little issue, right now,
whether this was his issue or not. It is,nas of now, mine, and you may
address it as such.

YGB

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

On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

> I am aware of this attitude but I rather suspect that you are telling
> tales out of school - or in other words, while this is the reality, it
> is another piece of information that would be regarded as too harmful to
> reach the masses. On the other hand, given that anybody on this list, by
> definition, is so far over the edge of the world of the yeshivishe velt,
> it probably does not matter. 

What do you mean by "over the edge"?

YGB

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

Eli Turkel wrote:

>My experience is that RDE comments on the nonacceptance of
>these rosy >pictures is misplaced. My experience is that the
>"average" yeshiva student >completely accepts everything quite
>literally.

If you reread what I wrote - I said that the elite - the
insiders have access to the information. I specifically
excluded the average yeshiva or kollel student. My main point
was that the information is not lost - but its dissemination is
restricted.

>Instead, I find that students that come from families with an
>open mind like RDE >are more critical. I don't think his son is
>typical.

I agree that my son is not typical but he is not unique in this
area. (BTW he mentioned that his statement was merely a
paraphrase of one of the letters of the Chazon Ish). I don't
think this is different - percentage wise than with any body of
institutionalized knowledge. Most of the people I went to
college with were focused on being competent not becoming
knowledgeable. I remember my freshman calculus course. The
instructor said "while most of you have learned calculus in
high school - there is a major problem of learning transfer. In
high school your equations probably and a's and b's while I
teach them with x's and y's." Most people do not seek out a
coherent objective understanding of what they do. Education
typically deals with internalizing the values that perpetuate
the system.

In addition it is probably suicidal to encourage a highly
critical and skeptical attitude towards all knowledge for
everyone. It is not likely that such a society would survive
(Remember Plato also made such an assertion?). For those who
disagree with my point of view, the Israeli government is
performing an experiment in this area. They have decided to do
away with the myths connected with the Jewish state in the
secular (but not religious schools). It is doing away with the
the "myth" that Jews were a hard pressed minority when they
fought the war of Independence. In fact the new texts indicate
that it was clear that the Arabs would lose. They are teaching
that the myth of heroism against incredible odds - was just
propaganda (This is a 9th grade text). Furthermore they are
doing away with the racists theories that G-d promised Israel
to the Jews. They are also teaching how the Arabs were
mistreated and driven out of their homes etc., etc.. When the
Palestinians were asked when they were going to teach
"objective" history they replied "We can't afford the luxury".
What impact do you think this "objective" history will have on
the vitality of the Israeli society - especially when
contrasted with the vitality of the biased Arabs?

>Hence, while one must be careful in ones language I do not
>agree to >whitewashing all deeds of gedolim that don't agree
>with present day views.

I think Marc Shapiro made a very cogent presentation
contrasting the objective academic point of view with the
halachic point of view. One who is bound by halacha is severely
restricted in what and how he presents information.

>More important this comparison is very far from modern
>estimates on the size of >the sun and so in fact proves the
>opposite of what Rav Schach wishes to say. I >am sure that in
>Ponevezh  the immediate reaction would be to criticize R.
>Lictenstein as not being on a level to disagree with R.
>Schach.

Not having read or heard of Rav Schach's statements I
won't try to defend them. But considering the readiness to
disagree with other statements of Rav Schach by members of
Ponevezh - I don't think your conclusion is valid. Ponevezh is
not composed of a mass of robots (sometimes to its detriment) -
as the secular press has delighted in pointing out.

>Does this mean we can criticize only some gedolim and not
>others based on >which gedolim are more "kanai" than others?

If Rav Soleveitchik was not ready to denounce others - why are
his talmidim not striving to emulate him? I cited Rav Moshe
Feinstein that halacha governs this area also. Did Rav
Soleveitchik ever encourage his students to criticize gedolim?
Did Rav Litchtenstein tell any of you that he thought your
criticism was appropriate? If you don't have a role mode to
imitate in criticizing gedolim - don't you have poskim that you
can cite? If you have neither - than I fail to see what your
basis of justification is - other than the secular academic
attitude expressed by Marc Shapiro.


                         Daniel Eidensohn

It seems to me that this thread has not focused enough
on the concept of INTENTION/COGNITION

DOEG HAADOMI was guilty of RECHILUTH because
he KNEW that when he told Saul that the Priests
of NOV gave Saul's enemy David food that Saul would
be angry at Nov (and grateful to Doeg).

So..I don't think the issue is only whether people are
dead, or facts are obscure but also what the intention
of the writer is. (And if his intentions are good then I
think we should seriously examine the LESHON HARA
issue in that light).

Russell Hendel; ModeratoR Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

David Nadoff and I seem to have gotten involved in
a controversy which boils down on how to read the 
legal text of the Rambam.

Reading the Mishneh Torah is different than 
reading the Moreh Nevuchim.

I cited 3 Rambams using strong language on certain
practices and David's response was "The Rambams deal
with SPECIFIC practices".

That is simply not true. The Rambam IN ADDITION
to the specific practices he mentions adds the GENERALIZING
COMMON FEATURE.  So the Rambam EXPLICITLY says 
in MEzuzah 

---because "they make the mitzvoth into PERSONAL kamayoth
for their own benefit"

In Idolatry he explicitly says

--because "they make the torah a PHYSICAL remedy and not
a SPIRITUAL remedy"

In the final quote from Idolatry the Rambam says that

--"Jews don't use FOOLISH practices but use WISE practices"

In summary upon reading BOTH the examples and the GENERAL
PRINCIPLES in the Rambam I conclude that we should

---discourage foolishness and encourage rationality
---not use mitzvoth for personal physical benefit
---not use the torah for specific physical remedies.

I also learn that these are great sins for which we can use strong
language.

Hence....a person who does a Mitzvah WITH THE EXPLICIT INTENT
of remedying some illness is directly violating the PRINCIPLES mentioned
by the Rambam. A person who simply buys nicely decorated shaymoth
for protection is not engaging in wise practices but foolish practices
and
using Gods name for "personal means".


It seems to me if David wishes to disagree with the above he would have
to
---come up with another model for these 3 rambams
---this other model MUST include all his examples
---this other model MUST include his generalizations
---and this other model must allow kamayoth etc.

I find it hard to believe that David can do that but I contend that this
is
the way lawbooks should be read

Russell Hendel; PHd ASA; moderatoR Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

David Bannett nicely thru out my use of PREVENTING THE
PREVENTOR. But my original arguments STILL stand. I have
left 3 specifc questions

QUESTION 1: Water operated fan
==========================
I bring a water run fan to a water fall. The water falls, spins 
a wheel, which generates a circular motion which runs a fan
(which keeps me cool). My question is WHAT BIBLICAL
ISSUR IF ANY IS THERE (There is probably a Rabbinic
issur of using complex utensils (like riding a bycycle to those
who prohibit it). 

QUESTION 2: Electric operatred fan
============================
(So I throw out the PREVENTING PREVENTOR argument)

I bring a solar operated fan outside--the sunlight hits the
battery, which creates a current and runs a motor that
turns the fan.

Have I violated a Biblical Issur? Note: The usual objections
to electricity---light, fire and completing/building a circuit
are no longer there.  

IF the fan is sealed I probably have not violated any rabbinic
issue.

NOTE: David asked "Is running a water wheel and electricity
the same." So I am explicitly pointing out that that is the
issue and I think that as far as running a fan it is

QUESTION 3: Is solar electricity 1st or 2nd force
=====================================
Even if you think the answer to question 2 is prohibited
nevertheless would the electricity generated by a solar
cell be 1st or 2nd force. Here is the argument:

The sunlight hits the cell and then the cell creates 
electricity and then the electricity runs the motor.
So I regard running the motor as a 2ndary action

There is a Rambam (last law in Chap 6, Murder) that
if I throw a stone at a fruit and the fruit kills a baby
then I do not go into Galuth (because the death
of the baby come from THE FORCE
OF MY FORCE (2nd Force) rather than 1st force).
I infer that this classification as 2nd force is because
TWO OBJECTS are used ( I can defend this if asked
to)---So if SOLAR POWER and ELECTRICITY are
used to generate a motor we also have a 2nd force

If David is away for awhile and no one else answers
I will repost this.

Russell Hendel; phd ASA; 
moderator Rashi Is simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/ 


___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Carl nicely defended the right of people to help each other

If I know a couple and they have a problem I should give
advice.

Agreed.

But there are two other questions left which Carl has
not answered.

1) Should I CREATE a chumrah to achieve my goal
2) Should I do so WITHOUT telling the couple.

This goes back to my question about Genayvath Daas

It also goes back to my question ala Rabbi Akiva that
there are several issues in eg marital separation---avoidance
of sin and maintaining the marriage. 

Yes I know, Carl answered my question---keeping attractive
and having Chumroth are not the same. But is it the Rabbis
job to judge or the couples? And should this be done behind
their back? Isn't the whole point of being married that you
bring the totality of all your experiences to bear on your
continual striving for attraction and sin avoidance. How can
anybody (even a posayk) possibly know you so well that
they can think for you and behind your back.

Finally let me supply the proofs for the serpent-chava 
incident. It explicitly says in Gen 2:17 that DEATH 
would result from eating of the tree while when Chava
repeats this prohibition to the serpent she  mentions
TOUCHING the tree as causing death Gen 3:3. Hence
I conclude that a component of Chava's sin was Adam
being too Machmir.

I might also add that the Tzdokim and Baithothim sinned
because of a Chumrah (their rebbe told them not to do
mitzvoth in order to receive reward and this led them to
rebel--their Rebbe's position to do mitzvoth for their
own sake was a chumrah which led to their sin)

While Carl is right that there MAY be stories where
Kuloth caused problems we still have to examine them
and we still have to LEARN form these stories.
These stories are BIBLICAL /MISHNAIC stories.

I don't mind studying them in the context of other
stories but I still insist that we must learn from them

In summary Carl has defended the ability of people
to help other people avoid difficult situations. But
Carl has not defended
--the right to use halachah to do that
--the right to lie (to say a chumrah exists when it doesn't)
--the right to avoid dealing with the classical intepretation
of the Chava-snake story.

Russell Hendel;Moderator Rashi Is Simple
http://www.shamash.org/rashi/
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

In message <Pine.HPP.3.93.990823180331.9137B-
100000@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes
>On Mon, 23 Aug 1999, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>
>> I am aware of this attitude but I rather suspect that you are telling
>> tales out of school - or in other words, while this is the reality, it
>> is another piece of information that would be regarded as too harmful to
>> reach the masses. On the other hand, given that anybody on this list, by
>> definition, is so far over the edge of the world of the yeshivishe velt,
>> it probably does not matter. 
>
>What do you mean by "over the edge"?

Beyond the perview of.  Think of a (flat) earth.  There are those people
who are over the edge of that earth, and therefore cannot be seen, and
hence are beyond consideration.  That is not necessarily perjorative,
they are just beyond the line of sight and hence of consideration.
Anybody with an internet account is likely to fall within this category
(unless you are BT and being weaned off it, in which case you may be on
the edge, but you may be visible).

When anybody in Ponavich makes a statement, any statement, he will have
his world in mind.  He *might* have the secular Israeli world in mind
(that is another planet, but it is visible, like a baleful moon), but
people like on this list are just not within view.

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

Kind Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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         ]