Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 003

Wednesday, October 4 2000

• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Re: Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach
• Re: Kiddush Livanah and Mashiach
• Re: morah av ve'em
• Re: morah av ve'em
• Re: Redundancy in RH Mussaf
• Re: sukka
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Yir'ah mei'Ahavah
• Ikkarei Emunah: Malchios, Shofros, Zichronos
• Bichol levavcha
• Re: Redundancy in R"H Mussaf
• Re: Yir'ah mei'Ahavah
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• RE: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Reflections on Malchiyos
• RE: Fish on Rosh Hashanah
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: Fish on Rosh Hashanah/simcha
• Re: morah av ve'em
• Rov (was Re: bugs)
• The proper way to do vidui
• Re: R' Abbahu's "compromise"
• Re: Yigdal
• Re: Rov (was Re: bugs)

Aryeh wrote:

> The Mateh Efraim (183:3) brings two shitos that hold that one should refrain 
> from eating fish on RH.
     
> 1) fish is very chaviv to people and we want to minimize fulfilling our taivos
> on RH to show our "aimas hadin."
     
IIRC from a shiur I heard on Rosh Hashanah from R. Ephraim Kanarfogel, this 
minhag is brought down in some Ashkenazi rishonim such as the Agudah.

Gil Student

> When we announce the date of Rosh Chodesh during Kiddush Livanah, why isn't it
> al t'nai that ch"v we still don't have a centralized beis din?
     
Bentching chodesh?

[Thanks. It's been a less-than-accurate morning for me. -mi]

Perhaps this is a mesorah from the gaonim who instituted chodesh bentching that 
justifies the nusach of our invitations (as opposed to many [XYZ]
invitations).

Gil Student

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:20:19AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: Perhaps this is a mesorah from the gaonim who instituted chodesh bentching
: that justifies the nusach of our invitations...

I was asking for explanation, not for statement of fact. Appeal to
authority is an end-run around my question. Okay, so the gaonim had
some reason for the current nusach not including such a t'nai. What is
that reason?

As to invitations, how is it any different than the minhag (which was
pretty universal until the current generation) of burying the kinos
at the end of Tish'a B'av? In one case we don't plan for the what-if,
in the other it's a strong enough possibility to override bal tashchis.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> Is there a limit in how many times to rise for a parent as there is for a 
> rebbi?
     
Why should a parent's kavod be greater than that of HKB"H's?  Unless you are 
saying that a parent's kavod IS HKB"H's kavod, which is an interesting thought.

I would say that a parent's kavod is not equal to HKB"H's kavod because a parent
can be mochel.

Gil Student

On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 10:39:30AM -0400, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: Why should a parent's kavod be greater than that of HKB"H's?  Unless you are 
: saying that a parent's kavod IS HKB"H's kavod, which is an interesting
: thought.

And would be justified by the placement of kibud av va'eim on the lu'ach
of bein adam laMakom.

: I would say that a parent's kavod is not equal to HKB"H's kavod because a
: parent can be mochel.

Isn't HKBH constantly mocheil His kavod? After all, Hashem lets people use
the ko'ach He gives them, the very chiyus and havayus that He provides, to
be oveir retzono.

For that matter, consider the idea (which I noted recently WRT Rosh haShanah)
that kavod malchuso is a reference to middas harachamim. HKBH's kavod is in
the fact that He is willing to be mocheil it? Sort of "kol makom she'ata
matza gevuraso shel HKBH, sham ata matza anvonuso" (Megillah 31a).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Sun, 1 Oct 2000 22:04:02, "Eliyohu Hoffmann" hoffmann@centtel.com wrote:
> "U-minchasam ve-niskeyhem k'm'dubar... U-shnei temidim ke-hilchasam" I.e.
> we mention the temidim.
> Immediately afterward, we say:
> "Milvad olas ha-chodesh... ve-olas ha-tamid u-minchasah."
> Now, how could the afformentioned be "Not including the Olas ha-tamid," if
> the Olas ha-tamid is indeed mentioned???

RYBS was maqpid on this as well, not just on rosh hashana, but every time a
yom tov or rosh hodesh falls on shabbos, the siddurim have the same
redundancy (on shabbos the pasuq says "'al 'olas hatomid v'niskoh" and then
the siddur has "ushnei temidim" etc. RYBS said that since we, Ashkenazim
(as opposed to the pesaq of the Mehabber) say the psuqim of the musaf, and
we do this because of "unshallemo porim sefoseinu," we should be careful
about what we are saying and not repeat things. Alternatively, we could
just quote the pesuqim and not use the "liturgy" formulation.

Seth Mandel

RS Newman wrote:
>                  one issue the article deals with is if there is a problem
> with ruach mtzuyah; trying to find shitot to explain the us e of these
> sukkot.

I haven't seen the article but in shiur R. Hershel Schachter quoted the Chazon 
Ish as saying that any wall that does not actually fall due to the wind is fine.
He also quoted R. Moshe Feinstein and R. Ya'akov Kaminetsky as saying that the 
wall cannot move more than one or three tefachim due to the wind (I don't 
remember who said which).  IIRC, RHS was more noteh to the shitah of three 
tefachim, but I could be mistaken about that.

Gil Student

In Avodah V6 #2, EHoffman ended by saying:
> Any comments?? <

The girsa you're questioning is indeed questionable. As listmembers
know, I'm familiar with the nusach at "Breuer's," which is based on
minhag Frankfurt, and they use a different phraseology -- b'li neder
(as I'm not familiar enough with it to know it by heart!), I'll bring
my machzor into the office and type it up for y'all.

All the best (incl. wishes for a g'mar tov) from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I found the following in Hamaayan for Rosh Hashanah by Shlomo Katz
<skatz@torah.org>. It sounds much like RYGB's take on R' AE Kaplan's
peshat in "yir'as Shamayim" -- Gilu Bir'adah. (At least, my understanding
thereof, I invite his comments.)

-mi

:       "Now I know that you are a G-d-fearing man, since you have
:       not withheld your son, your only one, from Me.  (Bereishit
:       22:12)
: 
:    R' Yehuda Loewe z"l ("Maharal"; 16th century) writes: Fear of G-
: d comes from love of G-d, because when you love someone, you
: intend to fulfill that person's desires, and you fear lest you
: will fail in even the smallest way.  This is the type of fear
: that our verse describes. (Netivot Olam: Netiv Yirat Hashem Ch. 1)

Another davar machshavah, from the same issue of Hamaayan.

-mi

:    R' Yosef Albo z"l (14th century) writes: It appears to me that
: the correct count of the fundamental principles of our faith is
: three (not thirteen, as Rambam claimed).  They are: (1) That G-d
: exists; (2) That He watches us, and rewards and punishes us for
: our deeds; and (3) That the Torah is of Divine origin.  All of
: the other beliefs which Rambam lists are included within these
: three.  For example, the belief that G-d has always existed and
: will always exist is merely an aspect of our belief that He does
: exist; the belief that the Torah is of Divine origin requires a
: belief in prophecy, and so on.
: 
:    An allusion to the fact that the three principles listed above
: are the core of our faith is that our Sages composed three
: special blessings to recite in musaf on Rosh Hashanah.  The first
: of those blessings, "Malchuyot" / "Kingship," parallels our
: belief that G-d exists.  The next blessing, "Zichronot" /
: "Remembrances," speaks of the fact that G-d watches us, and
: rewards and punishes us for our deeds.  Finally, the third
: blessing, "Shofarot," recalls the sound of the shofar which
: accompanied the giving of the Torah.  (Thus the third blessing
: opens: "In the cloud of Your Glory did You appear on Your holy
: mountain . . .") (Sefer Ha'ikkarim Part I, Ch. 4)

R' Yehudah Prero recently quoted the following aggadita (Kiddushin 81a)
to his email list. I noticed somethign about the conclusion, but I
decided not to edit down the rest of the story from the quote to ellicit
other people's remarks.

: Certain redeemed captive women came to the city of Nehardea. They were
: taken to the house of R. Amram the pious, (where they stayed in the upper
: level of the house) and the ladder was removed from under them. As one
: of the women passed by the opening between the attic and the house,
: a light fell on the house, illuminating the face of one woman. R.
: Amram seized the ladder, which ten men could not raise, and he alone set
: it up and proceeded to ascend. When he had gone half way up the ladder,
: he set firm his feet and cried out, 'A fire at R. Amram's house!' so
: that people would come to extinguish the fire, and thereby his desire
: would be quashed by the embarrassment he would suffer. The Rabbis came,
: thinking there was a fire in need of extinguishing. They reproved him,
: saying 'We have shamed you!' He said to them: 'Better that you shame
: Amram in this world than that you be ashamed of him in the next.' He
: then adjured it [the Evil Inclination] to go leave him, and it left him
: in the shape of a fiery column. He said to it: 'See, you are fire and
: I am flesh, yet I am stronger than you.'

When Anshei Kenesses Hagdolah captured the yeitzer hara for avodah zarah
it emerged from the Kodesh haKdashim as a lion of fire.

Here we find the yeitzer hara for arayos appears as an amud
ha'eish. Perhaps the very fire he was yelling was at his home. Note that
only chachamim, not the ummah, come to put out this fire. The yeitzer
hara has the very same appearance as that associated with the Shechinah
herself during yetzi'as Mitzaryim!

In both cases we see the notion of "'bichol livavcha' -- bishnei yitzrecha".
The yeitzer hara is no less for avodas Hashem than the yeitzer hatov. It
exists not to be repressed, but to be properly channeled.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halbserstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ
>The girsa you're questioning is indeed questionable. As listmembers
>know, I'm familiar with the nusach at "Breuer's,"...

Note:
I believe that this is the Alternate girsa brought down by Baer...
Baer sites the Maharil and notes this is Minhag Frankfort
as in FFDM...

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

RM Berger posted [quoting Hamaayan]:
 
:    R' Yehuda Loewe z"l ("Maharal"; 16th century) writes: Fear of G- 
: d comes from love of G-d, because when you love someone, you
: intend to fulfill that person's desires, and you fear lest you 
: will fail in even the smallest way.  This is the type of fear
: that our verse describes. (Netivot Olam: Netiv Yirat Hashem Ch. 1)

This is also the subject of the last paragraph in the Orchos Tzadikim's sha'ar 
ha'ahavah.  This seems to be different from the Mesilas Yesharim's yiras 
haromemus which is fear out of awe.

Gil Student

On 3 Oct 2000, at 9:03, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> The Mateh Efraim (183:3) brings two shitos that hold that one should
> refrain from eating fish on RH.

> 1) fish is very chaviv to people and we want to minimize fulfilling
> our taivos on RH to show our "aimas hadin."

I don't understand this. RH is considered a Yom Tov. As such, we 
have a mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov, which according to many 
Rishonim requires that we eat meat and drink wine. Isn't that more 
of a taiva than eating fish, which according to some poskim is 
required every Shabbos? 

> 2) because fish is sometimes spelled with an alef in between the daled
> and the gimel, this hints to fear.

Where is it spelled that way? (I'm in the office and don't have 
access to a ME. Does he bring examples?).

-- Carl

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.

From: Carl M. Sherer [mailto:cmsherer@inter.net.il]
>> 1) fish is very chaviv to people and we want to minimize fulfilling
>> our taivos on RH to show our "aimas hadin."

> I don't understand this. RH is considered a Yom Tov. As such, we 
> have a mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov, which according to many 
> Rishonim requires that we eat meat and drink wine. Isn't that more 
> of a taiva than eating fish, which according to some poskim is 
> required every Shabbos? 

As for your first point, I also don't understand it, as I never thought of
fish as a food that people were especially desirous of.  However, I believe
that there is a machlokes whether there is a chiyuv of simchas yom tov on
RH. (I'm pretty sure that I saw it brought down in the ME, but I don't have
the time to look for it.)

>> 2) because fish is sometimes spelled with an alef in between the daled
>> and the gimel, this hints to fear.

> Where is it spelled that way? (I'm in the office and don't have 
> access to a ME. Does he bring examples?).

As for your second point, the ME brings one example:  "dag" is spelled with
an aleph in Nechemia 13:16.

KT and GCT
Aryeh

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.

> I don't understand this. RH is considered a Yom Tov. As such, we have
> a mitzva of Simchas Yom Tov, which according to many Rishonim requires
> that we eat meat and drink wine

Sha'agas Arye discusses whether there is simchas Y"T on R"H or only the
3 regalim, and even if there is simcha since there were no shalmei simcha
maybe there is no requirement of meat.

RC Sherer wrote:

> I don't understand this. RH is considered a Yom Tov. As such, we have a mitzva
> of Simchas Yom Tov, which according to many Rishonim requires that we eat meat
> and drink wine. Isn't that more of a taiva than eating fish, which according 
> to some poskim is required every Shabbos? 
     
The rishonim suggest removing a small dish from the meal so that there is still 
simchas Yom Tov but a small diminution to overcome our yetzer of stuffing 
ourselves.

Gil Student

RC Brown wrote:
     
> Sha'agas Arye discusses whether there is simchas Y"T on R"H or only the
> 3 regalim, and even if there is simcha since there were no shalmei simcha 
> maybe there is no requirement of meat.

RYBS also discusses this in Shiurim Lezecher Abba Mori.  He thinks the 
conclusive proof that there is simcha on RH and YK is that they are mafsik 
aveilus.

Gil Student

Several years ago I gave a drosho on RH re: Malchiyos/Malchuyos.
The title was "Hashem is King - and *YOU'RE NOT*".

It's nice to praise Hashem for His majestic rulership of the
universe.  It is also praiseworthy to let HIM run that unviverse
and for us to refrain from "playing G-d".

When one really thinks they KNOW soemthing, remember only
Hashem is omniscient.

When one starts reading people's minds and motives remember
that only Hashem is "bochein klayos voleiv"

When one engages in Judgement remember only Hashem is "Dayan Emes".

Therefore proclaiming Hashem as Melech al kol Ho'Oretz is
not only a function of coronoting Hashem, but it is
also a function of stepping back and letting Him do His job.

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe

pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

From: Stein, Aryeh E. 
>                                                                   I believe
> that there is a machlokes whether there is a chiyuv of simchas yom tov on
> RH. (I'm pretty sure that I saw it brought down in the ME, but I don't have
> the time to look for it.)

I found it.  The ME (actually the Elef LeMagen) brings the machlokes about
whether there is a chiyuv of simchas yom tov on RH (ME 183:1).  Ayin sham
for the names of the various poskim.  The ME paskens that there is an inyan
of simchas yom tov.

Similarly, the ME brings a shita which holds that our clothing on RH should
not be as nice as that of other yomim tovim because of the awareness that we
should have that RH is the yom hadin.  Again, the ME says that we are noheig
to wear just as nice clothing.  According to the Elef LeMagen, this is talui
on the above machlokes. 

> He thinks the conclusive proof that there is simcha on RH and YK is that
> they are mafsik aveilus.

The reason a regel is mafsik aveilus is because the aseh d'rabbim
of simcha is doche the aseh of asveilus for the yachid. We extend
this to R"H/Y"K because 'hukshu kol hamoados' (other reasons also).
The issue in lomdus is how to understand that extension - is the Torah
megaleh through the hekesh that R"H and Y"K also have a din of simcha,
or really they don't have a din of simcha, but the Torah extends to them
the ability to be mafsik aveilus based on the hekesh.

Do you have a hechreich for one tzad over the other?

On 3 Oct 2000, at 15:20, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> RYBS also discusses this in Shiurim Lezecher Abba Mori.  He thinks the 
> conclusive proof that there is simcha on RH and YK is that they are mafsik 
> aveilus.

Do you have a cite for this? (Please tell me it's in the chelek I have 
and not in the chelek that is out of print :-) 

I am still in the office, so I have nothing in front of me, but IIRC, isn't 
there a pasuk somewhere in Navi that goes something like "Lech 
echol b'simcha lachmecha..." from which we learn that there is 
Simchas Yom Tov on Rosh haShanna? 

WRT Yom Kippur, there's an explicit Gemara which says "lo hayu 
yamim tovim l'Yisrael k'Yom Kippur v'Chamisha Asar b'Av" (I don't 
have a cite offhand - I think it's in Taanis or Yoma). Don't we learn a 
mitzva of simcha on Yom Kippur from there, and isn't there another 
Gemara that we express our simcha on Yom Kippur through k'sus 
nkiya since we cannot do so through basar v'yayin? 

Can anyone confirm all this?

-- Carl

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.

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:50:47 -0400 Micha Berger said:
>Isn't HKBH constantly mocheil His kavod? After all, Hashem lets people use
>the ko'ach He gives them, the very chiyus and havayus that He provides, to
>be oveir retzono.

>For that matter, consider the idea (which I noted recently WRT Rosh haShanah)
>that kavod malchuso is a reference to middas harachamim....

I heard once from a "mekubbal" that the whole kuntz of the bri'a was
to give Adam as much bechirah as possible so as to make his choice of
Serving or Admiring Hashem all the greater.

One thing Mal'ochim cannot do is truly appreciat Hashem because they
lack this bechirah.

The only Way Hashem could be appreciated as a true "melech"
was to create humans betzelem Elokim and allow them total
freedom of choice and THEN when they wake up and have
a realization of Hashem, THEN Hashem is truly appreciated,
(and perhaps vice versa then Hashem can truly appreciate
what He created).

"Gmar Chasima Tova"
Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
pmsrxw@ibivm.ibi.com

We were recently talking about finding bugs in vegetables and how frequent we 
must find them in order to be obligated to check for them.

Around 10-11 years ago there was an Or HaMizrach dedicated to the issue of tuna 
fish.  R. Hershel Schachter has an article there in which he lists five types of
rov and the differences between them (pp. 160-161).

1. 51+% - Rov garua - This type of rov vs. chazakah, lav ruba adif (Tosafos 
Avodah Zarah 41b sv ve'ein safek).

2. Appr. 70/80% - Rov bari - This has a miut hamatzui (Tosafos Kiddushin 80a sv 
semoch).  When possible, one has to verify rather than rely on this rov.

3. Appr. 90% - This has a miut she'eino matzui.  No obligation to verify, even 
lechatchilah (Chiddushei HaRamban and Milchamos, Chullin ch. 1 [probably on 
Chullin 11b-12a])

4. Appr. 99% - Even R. Meir would not be choshesh (beginning of Gittin).  Also, 
we would be mozti mamon based on this rov (Shu"t R. Akiva Eiger, tinyana 
103:15).

5. Appr. 99.9% - This is not a safek and we are not even choshesh for sakanah 
(Shu"t Chasam Sofer Y"D 338; Pischei Teshuvah Y"D 357:1).

According to the above, if we find bugs in a particular vegetable less than 10% 
of the time, presumably this is a rov of type 3 and there is no obligation to 
check, even lechatchilah.  However, one probably needs a rov from this 
particular source.  There could be a big difference between lettuce grown in NJ 
and lettuce grown in Arizona.

I once asked mv"r R. Mayer Twersky a similar question regarding checking for 
sha'atnez.  He told me that if I knew that this particular brand and style has 
sha'atnez less than 10% of the time I don't have to check.  He quoted a 
Mishkenos Ya'akov from the 10% figure which I looked up but can't remember which
siman.  Presumably, this is why people don't check London Fog coats.

Gil Student

Many of us are familiar with the "vidui" pamphlet, which lists specific sins
associated with each al cheit.  My understanding is that we should think of
the sins appropriate to us when we say the generic al cheits, but that we
don't actually verbalize these sins.

The Rambam, Hil. Tshuvah 1:1 says "...And how do we do vidui?  One says ...
[I have sinned] and done such and such."  It seems to me that the Rambam
implies that we are mefaret the actual sin (e.g. I publicly embarrassed X)
rather than just listing the category of sin (e.g., embarrassing people).
Is there an inyan on Yom Kippur to make a detailed list of one's actual sins
and verbalize vidui for those sins?

Kol tuv and GCT,
Moshe

R' JRich wrote:
> .R' Abbahu's compromise to blow all the different combinations was
> (according to R' Hai Gaon) so that Balabatim wouldn't think only they were
> yotzeh their way and no one else was yotzeh,

Could it be that R' Abbahu did not say to blow the different combinations
of teki'a-terua'-teki'a but only the shevarim-terua' form? The hemshekh
in the Gemara is the questions of others about the wrong terua' being
posel. Perhaps R' Abbahu does not agree that the extra kol between the
teki'ot is mafsik and posel and so only the combined shevarim-terua'
form is necessary.

GCh"T, 
David

Re: prayer to other than HKB"H himself.

The following quote is taken from R' -mi (aka RMSB) who I believe is
quoting the words of R'RWolpoe:
:> the presence of Yigdal and Ani Maamin in the liturgy-w/o any controversy -
:> is testimony to its "virtual universal acceptance

Are you aware that some Hasidic siddurim omit Yigdal from Shaharit on
the grounds that it does not portray correctly the 13 Ikkarim.

I don't remember a stated reason for the ban but assume that it is
because the usual text does not state the ikar of lo levado... v'ein
lehitpalel lezulato. They evidently were not aware of the corrected text:
hino adon olam, ve-chol notzar yoreh...

While on the subject, I noted the poster's mention of barekhuni leshalom
in addition to Makhnisei rahamim. How about bamarom yelamedu aleinu
('alav or 'aleihem) zekhut? And, on the second day of selihot, what of
the pizmon Malakhei rahamim?

Not believing that a "mida" is a supernatural being, I personally would
not add to the questionable prayers the request in ne'ila for the
midat harachamim to intervene. This is especially true if we accept
Goldschmidt's evidence that the original text had tehinatekh and not
techinateinu.

Gemar tov to all, (perhaps with the aid of the midat harahamim adding
its techina to ours,)
David (aka DRB)

>1. 51+% - Rov garua - ...
>2. Appr. 70/80% - Rov bari - ...
>3. Appr. 90% - This has a miut she'eino matzui...
>4. Appr. 99% - Even R. Meir would not be choshesh ...
>5. Appr. 99.9% - This is not a safek and we are not even choshesh ...

When I was a young lad at Sha'alvim, one of the olde bachurim taught me, 
when learning the sugya of pesach pasu'ach, a Reb Shimonideke klal 
(modernized): "B'chazaka lo holchim b'kilo" - similarly, by unz (mamshichei 
darcho of R' Shimon and the Telzer derech), b'rov lo holchim b'achuzim :-) .

GCT
KT, YGB
ygb@aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

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


[ 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         ]