Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 009

Saturday, September 18 1999

• Psak Halacha and Local Communities
• Young Gdolim, New Biography of the Rav Z'l
• Re: revising historical revisionism
• Re: Adam as a prophet
• Fwd: Re: Avodah V4 #3
• Streamlined Selichos
• 13 middot
• Zochreinu
• Chazaras Hashatz at Mincha
• "Midas Harachamim"
• Bris
• Definition of Anava
• Re: vidui
• RE: Blanket mechilah/specificity in vidui
• Psak, Brisk, Chumro
• Edah Conference
• Gadol vs. Gedulah -- the case of the Hafetz Hayyim
• Re: 13 middot
• Re: Zochreinu
• REPOSTING: Blanket mechilah/specificity in vidui
• Re: Gadol vs. Gedulah -- the case of the Hafetz Hayyim

This area is one which is fraught with controversy . In other words, when do 
communal norms permit and sanction different minhaghim or darchei chinuch?  
Let me pick one example. In Frankfurt, RSR Hirsch 's curriculum included a 
very broad spectrum of secular studies. At one point, Rav Chaim Ozer was 
asked why this was so. Rav Chaim Ozer responded and stated that the needs of 
the German Kehillah were different than the needs of the Litvish communities. 
The letter is in Achiezer : Kovetz Igros Vol.2:290. I reccomend it highly as 
introduction to this issue.            Zeliglaw@aol.com(Steven Brizel)

RYB SoloveitchikZ'l was recognized by Rav Chaim Brisker, Rav Kook and the 
Dvar Avraham as a gadol . Rav Shapiro wrote in his semicha for the Rav that 
the Halacha is like him in all places(halacha kmoso bcal makom). 
  Rabbi Rakaffet-Rothkoff 's two volume "The Rav:The World of Rabbi Joseph B. 
Soloveitchik" is out in print. This book is an avodah kashah sbmikdash. Even 
if your understanding and knowledge of the Rav stems from being a talmid or a 
talmid shel talmidei HaRav , this book is fascinating and contains many 
beautiful pictures. In addition, the book compliments Nefesh HaRav and Rabbi 
Genack's volume. Gmar chasima Tova to all list members.
                     Zeliglaw@aol.com(Steven Brizel)

--- "Ari Z. Zivotofsky" <azz@lsr.nei.nih.gov> wrote:
> This posting from last month was too good to be true
> so I finally decided
> to verify it.
> On the way to work this morning I stopped at a local
> seforim store.
> They have the third edition, 1998. And lo and behold
> like the claim made,
> on page 141 is a picture  of R. Moshe shaking hands
> with R. Aaron Kotler.
> But contra the claim ... Rav Soloveitcik is right
> there. And the caption
> does mention him.
> 
> GC"T,
> 
> Ari


Could this be a re-revised addition, i.e. a return to the original
picture with the original caption?  

I have heard that some in leadership positions at Agudah have some of
the very same concerns that many of us here on the list, namely, that a
too sanitized biography of a previous Gadol is counterproductive. 

As a result, I believe Artscroll has tried to be more  realistic in
their more recent portrayals.  For Example, in the R. Yaacov biography,
I clearly remember reading that he used to give out candy to trick or
treaters on Holloween.  This is certainly something that would have
been omitted in the past.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

Russell Hendel referred to Adam Harishon as a prophet, and Josh Backon
points out that Adam is neither in Rashi's list of neviim, nor in Rabbenu
Channanel's.

Please note that those lists also do not include Noach nor Bilaam. That's
because those lists are of Neviay *Yisroel*.

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.

------Begin forward message-------------------------

From: bilk1@ix.netcom.com
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Date: 09/14/99 21:32:15
Message-Id: <1999914213215318467@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #3
X-Mailer: Netcomplete v4.0, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.

Date: September 14, 1999
Subject: RH Shalosh Seudos
From: Bert L. Kahn <bilk1@ix.netcom.com>

	Saul Newman in his posting of September 14 inquires as to the halachic 
basis of shalosh seudos (seudah shlishit). The basis is Exodus ch.21 verse 
25, 
where in discussing the maan on Shabbat, the Torah uses the word hayom 
(today) 
three times. This reason is given by the gemarra in Shabbas 117b, at the 
very 
end of the daf.

						bert l kahn
------End forward message---------------------------

> In yeshivas generally, less selichos are recited, but I never 
> witnessed such a "streamlined" approach until I arrived in Rechasim.  
Anybody familiar with similar minhagim?
	In Yeshiva Rabbi Chaim Berlin they say Ashrei, Kadish, Shomea Tefila,
Kel Erech Apaim+13 Midos,  the Pizmon of that day,  Kel Melech+13 Midos, 
then Zechor Rachamecha to the end.  Doesn't come much more streamlined
than that.  I should add that it is definitely me'at bekavana and takes
some 35-40 minutes on a regular Selichos day.

Gershon

> We (in our Daf Yomi Minyan - mostly Misnagdim, davening in a Chabad Shul)
> have come to do almost precisely this, based on the conglomeration of the
> streamlining of selichos as practiced by Skokie yeshiva combined with the
> Minhag Chabad to diminish the amount of 13 Middos recited.
> 
Rav Soloveitchik felt that the piyutim were an excuse for reciting
the 13 middot which are the most important.
When I am in the middle of a piyyut when the tzibur reaches the
13 middor I stop what I am doing to join the tzibur and continue from
there.

Eli Turkel

Does anyone know the origin of the custom to repeat the insertions
"zochreinu lechaim", "mi chamocha"  etc. when the sh"tz repeats Shemone
Esreh?

Gershon

I erred when I wrote yesterday that the only downtown Chicago mincha minyan
that observes chazaras hashatz is Chabad of the Loop. There is also a
"traditional" shul (Chicago-speak for Orthodox rabbi, but no mechitza)
that also observes chazaras hashatz. Assuming you don't subscribe to R'
Moshe Feinstein's view (which I believe is a da'as yachid) that mechitzo is
mid'oraisa, is it any worse to daven mincha without a mechitza (assuming
the presence of a woman) than to daven mincha without chazaras hashatz
(assuming the presence of a minyon)?

With respect to Moshe Rayman's query,

"While I'm at it, does someone have a "reworking" of the phrase "midas
harachamim aleinu hisgalgili", that does not pray to the midas harachamim
but preserves the rhyme and the meter? 

In Telz we say "Midas Harachamin aleinu nigalg'la / vilifnei koneinu
tchinasienu napila / ub'ad ameinu rachamim nishala", and the fourth line
stays unchanged.  Granted, that line does not continue the rhyme scheme,
but the first three lines all preserve rhyme and meter, and no one is
guilty of practicing poetry with an invalid license.

As to the question of "kidamti shachar", it certainly should be proper to
say it after chatzos, but it is improper to say it after dawn, since its
meaning is "I have preceded the dawn".

SNTargum

___________________________________________________________________
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.

 Can someone with a CD or more conventional bekius locate for me the
thought that milah is after seven days so the baby can have the
experience of Shabbos before the Bris?  
Thank you.
Gershon

I realize its not to the point of the recent postings on this subject, which
relate to the
interface of anava and the adoption of chumros, but whenever I hear a discussion
of anava,
I am reminded of the the following humbling comment by Chida in Bris Olam on the
teachings
of Sefer Chasidim (#15) regarding the anivus required of rabbonim: 

"Rabaynu z"l diber b'doro, dor rabosaynu ba'alay hatosfos, d'mi shenikra rav
haya rav muvhok
v'kulay talmuda k'man d'munach b'kistay, u'lazeh limed derech anava. Am'nom
b'dor yosom
shekol lomed machzik atzmo l'rabi u'misnaseh mibayis u'michutz shehu moreh
horaos v'yodaya
da'as lasayas v'lases b'sha"s, AYN TZARICH L'ANAVA, ROK SHEYAKIR ERCHO. . . .
V'yisa
bayom hahu kal v'chomer: Im harishonim shehayu sh'lemim b'Torah v'tikun nafshom
omru perek
kama d'Eruvin d'nikva halacha k'bays Hillel mip'nay shehayu aluvim v'nochim,
u'ma ne'eneh anon shekama chato'os v'avonos l'kol echod al shtay k'sayfov
l'zikoron, u'bifrot CHILUL HASHEM AL R'DIFAS HAMOMON u'kyotzay, she'im nitztaref
lazeh ga'ava b'limud haTorah , hu ovon p'lili v'lo y'chaven el ha'emes klal
v'ayn l'hkb"h sh'vach bo. . . ."

Apart from the mussar value of this comment, it is instructive as to the
definition of anava. Chida's comment suggests that Anava is the suppression of justified or deserved
pride in ones status or accomplishments, while ga'ava is presumptuous self-indulgence in
unwarranted
pride. Thus, in our time (and even in Chida's), rabbanim and lomdim are capable
only of ga'ava
as to their learning, but not anava, because they are so deficient in Tora and
tikun nefesh. Our
challenge is not to achieve anava, but to frankly ackowledge the meagreness of
our accomplishments in learning and personal refinement so as to avoid ga'ava.

Would anyone care to offer an interpretation of the words "ashamnu 
mikol am" which I have read all my life without paying attention to
their stratling import if taken literally.  What are we to make of that 
statement?  Is it simply poetic license, or is there some level on which 
it should be taken literally?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com> wrote:
> Micah answered one of my questions but not the other.
> 
> He states about Blanket Mechilah
> 
> >It's possible to regret a sour relationship in general without
> remembering
> >each instance that made it sour. It's also possible to 
> regret the way we
> >interact with all the faceless people on the net without remembering
> each
> >person we insulted.
> 
> 
> Agreed. But his next statemet
> 
> >(Note also that we have a liturgical vidui listing categories of
> chata'im,
> >we do not insist that vidui must consist of specific acts of 
> violation.)
> 
> bothers me because CONFESSION ***DOES*** require specificity
> (Rambam Repentance 1 based on the verse "..please forgive this
> nation who made a golden god)
> 
> This also answers Eli who cites the Tefillah Zaccah. I have alot of
> problems with the whole Yom Kippur Viddui because of this Rambam
> 
> Confession is suppose to be specific on something you 
> did...the purpose
> of all the acrostics (Ashamnu..) is to go over things YOU MIGHT HAVE 
> done...but the actual confession must be done personally...I don't see
> how you can be Yotzai with our current davening)

I would distinguish between asking mechilah and vidui.  Asking mechilah
deals with undoing the *damage* you caused to your fellow.  (See Al
Ha'tshuvah p. 50.)  Vidui is about resuscitating your *relationship* with
Hashem; this is why we say "tavo *l'fanecha* tefilateinu" (ibid pp. 50 ff.).

If the damage can be undone through a blanket mechilah, then you've
accomplished your goal.  But, as for your relationship with Hashem, you must
review in detail each sin.  See Al Ha'tshuvah pp. 149 ff., and especially p.
157 (first full paragraph), describing this idea beautifully--a person has
distanced himself from Hashem through a sin, and a person should encompass
in his vidui "kol gilgulei machsh'votav v'achzvotav, chaviyotav
hansoarot..."; "hakarat ha'chet is nothing but an acknowledgement of the
distance which a person has distanced himself from Hashem...."

I question though whether blanket mechilah is always enough.  Al Ha'tshuvah
pp. 49-50 points out (based on Rambam Hil. Tshuva 2:5) that often it makes
sense to publicize the fact that you regret sins bein adam la'chaveiro
because "when a person fights with his friend or speaks rechilut or is motzi
shem ra about him, it is not enough to regret it or even to ask him mechilah
privately, since it is necessary to purify his friend's name."

Since I publicly sinned against Eli Clark on the Avodah list (specifically
in using somewhat harsh language in a long posting on May 17, dealing with
Sho'ah, Crusades and R. Meiselman; also in some postings leading up to that
post), I would like to apologize to Eli and ask him mechilah for getting so
worked up about our disagreement.  I also grant him mechilah.

Kol tuv and gmar chatimah tova,
Moshe

Briefly:

It is IMHO futile to survey every opinion and to be chosheish to all of them. 
Indeed, I would amend my comments wrt Brisk who DID engage in chumros.  I 
negelecte to point out that Briskers tended to be exacting in lomdus and in 
defintions, but somehow very machmir in shiurim, etc.  Let me also say, my 
impression is that R. Yeruchim Gorelick was specifically adamant about leaving 
things fuzzy.  It might not be a valid generalization to say the same for all 
Briskers.  Since R. Yeruchinm was my "rebbe muvhok" (so to speak) and his rebbe 
muvhak was the Griz, I have extrapolated (and perhaps incorrectly!) 

The few Litvisher Rabbonim I knew personally (as opposed to Yeshivishe rebbes) 
were devotees of the Aruch haShulchan.  While the Mishno Bruro might have been 
the "textbook" of choice, the Aruch haShulchon was their first choice for 
paskening or deciding.  I really  think this distinction between LEARNING 
halocho and DECIDING halocho has been blurred.

re: Anovo. My impression of Moshe Rabbinue's Anovo would be best uunderstood as 
parallel to the pop-psychology definition of "ego-less".  He was not timid, he 
simply lacked his own agenda and pursued Hashem's agenda as purelyu as humanly 
possible.  This is hinted at by the sneh she'ieno ukal.  This symbolims shows us
that the lowly sneh is not consumed by the Fire of Hashem  - when it is pure, 
humble and lacking it's own ego.  contrast this with Korach as in a sense very 
ego-cnetric and his avoda was a catastrophe.  Aaron too was very humble, and in 
a sense had an "ego-ess" approach - at least as far as he could.  No mortal is 
perfect.

Thereofore Moshe rabbinu could be very forceful on behalf of Hashem, similar to 
Pinchos, in that he sincerely lacked a need to enforce his own agenda but was 
driven by concern for Hashem's glory.  Anovo is this understanding is a totally 
shibud of one's persona to Hashem.  As such an onov WOULD be meek for himself, 
(eg R. Schwab NEVER asked his kehillo for a raise in 30 years of service), but 
one could be az kenomer for Hashem's sake!

Moshe further reflected this when Dorosh Dorash and his reaction to Aaron's 
response, Vayitav.  IOW, when he realized Aaron had a valid reason for not 
eating it, he did NOT persist in pusuing his POV in order to make himself right.
The emes was right, not Moshe's Drosho!  This is an onov, pursuing Torah with 
zrizus BUT backing down when realizing that one's POV has been validly 
countered.  contrast with an ego-based response that keeps arguing and arguing 
and overlooking the legitimate alternatives... Whoops I must do some Teshuvo 
<smile>!

Gmar Tov,
Rich Wolpoe

In the current issue of Moment, there is an article by self-described
"non-Orthodox Jewish
feminist" Letty Cottin Pogrebin on the conference sponsored by Edah last winter
in Manhattan,
at which Rabbis Saul Berman, Shlomo Riskin and Yitz Greenberg, among others,
spoke.
Does anyone know where I can find a more balanced, less agenda-driven account of
that event
and the reaction thereto by the Orthodox establishment?

I had inquired into RDE's statement that

> : The historical fact is that the Chofetz Chaim was not viewed as a
> : posek or  gadol in learning during his lifetime...

RDE replied:

>My original posting brought the testimony of Rav Chaim Ozer and Rav Hutner
>to that effect.

I suppose I did not read your original posting that way.  That post
contained a second hand report from R. Hutner and the following: "Rav
Chaim Ozer said in his hesped that the Chofetz Chaim's tzidkus was so
great that his gadlus in learning was not noticed."   I suppose one
could take such a statement literally, in which case the lamdut is being
damned with faint praise (a strange thing to do in a hesped),  or one
could see it as a rhetorical statement emphasizing his tzidkut.

I take no issue with your statement that the Mishnah Berurah was not an
influential work in its author's lifetime.  It seems clear that its
prominence grew after WWII and especially in the last 25 years.  Many
works become more or less popular in subsequent generations.  (How many
people learn Hayyei Adam today?)

Regarding the major controversies in which the Hafetz Hayyim's view was
solicited, you write:

>The major controversies were - to the best of my
>understanding  - not readily categorized as halachic issues nor did they
>involve high levels of learning.

I don't know enough to make such a categorical statement.  But the
example you raise -- regarding the learning of Russian in yeshiva -- may
certainly be categorized as a halakhic issue (just as the general
question of secular studies is often evaluated in terms of the halakhic
concerns of bittul Torah and protection from harmful influences).  In
any case, no matter how big a tzaddik he was, I find it hard to believe
that so many gedolim in Halakhah and learning would be persuaded by an
appeal rooted in non-halakhic argumentation.

On a side point:

>Rabbi Shurkin told that the
>standard picture we have of the Chofetz Chaim comes from the passport photo.
>The Chofetz Chaim ripped it up after the conference and the picture was made
>based on the scraps of that photo - and thus is not a completely accurate
>likeness.

It was my understanding that the current popular image of the Hafetz
Hayyim in fact bears no resemblance to his own likeness and that some
members of his family have registered some displeasure on this issue.

kol tuv and genar hatimah tovah,

Eli Clark

--- Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> > We (in our Daf Yomi Minyan - mostly Misnagdim, davening in a
> Chabad Shul)
> > have come to do almost precisely this, based on the
> conglomeration of the
> > streamlining of selichos as practiced by Skokie yeshiva combined
> with the
> > Minhag Chabad to diminish the amount of 13 Middos recited.
> > 
> Rav Soloveitchik felt that the piyutim were an excuse for reciting
> the 13 middot which are the most important.

> 
This ties in with the fact that R. Soloveitchik made sure to say the
13 middot a total of 26 times over Yom Kippur.  Somehow, the
machzorim dropped many of the repetitions of the 13 middot.

GCT,
Moshe
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Gershon Dubin wrote:

> Does anyone know the origin of the custom to repeat the insertions
> "zochreinu lechaim", "mi chamocha"  etc. when the sh"tz repeats Shemone
> Esreh? 
> 
> Gershon
> 

No, but I do know that the GRO was opposed (cited in Ma'ashe Rav) and that
the Yekkes are as well (noted in the current issue of Ha'Ma'ayan).

YGB

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

I sent the following 2 hours ago from mfeldman@cm-p.com, but it
doesn't seem to have made it onto Avodah so I'm reposting it.
----------------

Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com> wrote:
> Micah answered one of my questions but not the other.
> 
> He states about Blanket Mechilah
> 
> >It's possible to regret a sour relationship in general without
> remembering
> >each instance that made it sour. It's also possible to 
> regret the way we
> >interact with all the faceless people on the net without
remembering
> each
> >person we insulted.
> 
> 
> Agreed. But his next statemet
> 
> >(Note also that we have a liturgical vidui listing categories of
> chata'im,
> >we do not insist that vidui must consist of specific acts of 
> violation.)
> 
> bothers me because CONFESSION ***DOES*** require specificity
> (Rambam Repentance 1 based on the verse "..please forgive this
> nation who made a golden god)
> 
> This also answers Eli who cites the Tefillah Zaccah. I have alot of
> problems with the whole Yom Kippur Viddui because of this Rambam
> 
> Confession is suppose to be specific on something you 
> did...the purpose
> of all the acrostics (Ashamnu..) is to go over things YOU MIGHT
HAVE 
> done...but the actual confession must be done personally...I don't
see
> how you can be Yotzai with our current davening)

I would distinguish between asking mechilah and vidui.  Asking
mechilah deals with undoing the *damage* you caused to your fellow. 
(See Al Ha'tshuvah p. 50.)  Vidui is about resuscitating your
*relationship* with Hashem; this is why we say "tavo *l'fanecha*
tefilateinu" (ibid pp. 50 ff.).

If the damage can be undone through a blanket mechilah, then you've
accomplished your goal.  But, as for your relationship with Hashem,
you must review in detail each sin.  See Al Ha'tshuvah pp. 149 ff.,
and especially p. 157 (first full paragraph), describing this idea
beautifully--a person has distanced himself from Hashem through a
sin, and a person should encompass in his vidui "kol gilgulei
machsh'votav v'achzvotav, chaviyotav hansoarot..."; "hakarat ha'chet
is nothing but an acknowledgement of the distance which a person has
distanced himself from Hashem...."

I question though whether blanket mechilah is always enough.  Al
Ha'tshuvah pp. 49-50 points out (based on Rambam Hil. Tshuva 2:5)
that often it makes sense to publicize the fact that you regret sins
bein adam la'chaveiro because "when a person fights with his friend
or speaks rechilut or is motzi shem ra about him, it is not enough to
regret it or even to ask him mechilah privately, since it is
necessary to purify his friend's name."

Since I publicly sinned against Eli Clark on the Avodah list
(specifically in using somewhat harsh language in a long posting on
May 17, dealing with Sho'ah, Crusades and R. Meiselman; also in some
postings leading up to that post), I would like to apologize to Eli
and ask him mechilah for getting so worked up about our disagreement.
 I also grant him mechilah.

Kol tuv and gmar chatimah tova,
Moshe


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com

"Clark, Eli" wrote:

> Regarding the major controversies in which the Hafetz Hayyim's view was
> solicited, you write:
>
> >The major controversies were - to the best of my
> >understanding  - not readily categorized as halachic issues nor did they
> >involve high levels of learning.
>
> I don't know enough to make such a categorical statement.  But the
> example you raise -- regarding the learning of Russian in yeshiva -- may
> certainly be categorized as a halakhic issue (just as the general
> question of secular studies is often evaluated in terms of the halakhic
> concerns of bittul Torah and protection from harmful influences).  In
> any case, no matter how big a tzaddik he was, I find it hard to believe
> that so many gedolim in Halakhah and learning would be persuaded by an
> appeal rooted in non-halakhic argumentation.
>

The Chofetz Chaim did not deny that [I didn't post the full story] learning
Russian is not inherently prohibited - the question was whether the consequences
might be more harmful than not learning.  I don't see how this is classified as
halacha. The issue of secular studies is also less a question of halacha than
hashkofa. It is an evaluation of whether a particular activity is more harmful
than beneficial to society or a subset of society. This is similar to the issue
of women's prayer groups. Or whether one should leave Europe for America or
Israel etc etc.
Furthermore the Chofetz Chaim's moral authority was not something which people
were willing to go against. I also believe he was also the oldest member (72
years old) of the group  Rav Chaim Ozer was then 47 years old Rav Meir Simcha
about 68. Rav Chaim Brisker was 57 years old. Obviously Rav Meir Simcha and Rav
Chaim Ozer disagreed with his conclusion but they couldn't convince the rest to
disregard his position. The dispute ultimately was between Rav Meir Simcha and
the Chofetz Chaim. The Baba Sali was also someone that people didn't want to go
against - regardless of whether they held he was right or wrong.

> On a side point:
>
> >Rabbi Shurkin told that the
> >standard picture we have of the Chofetz Chaim comes from the passport photo.
> >The Chofetz Chaim ripped it up after the conference and the picture was made
> >based on the scraps of that photo - and thus is not a completely accurate
> >likeness.
>
> It was my understanding that the current popular image of the Hafetz
> Hayyim in fact bears no resemblance to his own likeness and that some
> members of his family have registered some displeasure on this issue.

Rav Michel Shurkin's father was a close talmid of the Chofetz Chaim and was one
of those privileged to be involved in his tahara. The above is what he had heard
from his father. His father said the standard picture is 70-80% accurate.

 gemar chasima tova

      Daniel Eidensohn

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


[ 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         ]