Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 016

Tuesday, October 1 2002

• Yishtabach
• Novorodok, Slabodka, and RYBS
• Re: Oseh hashalom
• RE: "Egalitarian" minyanim
• RE: Why teach the other opinions
• NAARA (ktiv chaser)
• Re: Traveling on sukkot
• Re: kiddush-havdala candle
• Nananuim
• Re: Birchat kohanim/hoshanot/ naanuim
• singing after reading of ends of each of first days of creation, etc.
• Re: Novorodok, Slabodka, and RYBS
• Re: Novorodok, Slabodka, and RYBS
• Iggeros Chazon Ish
• Re: Iggeros Chazon Ish
• Pesachim 9:10
• Bitter Charoses
• Re: Bowing during the Avodas Yom Kippur
• Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Re: Re: Chol HaMoed Sukkos Eating bread in an airplane
• Garbage Removal on Simchas Torah
• Re: Garbage Removal on Simchas Torah
• Re: Garbage Removal on Simchas Torah
• Re: Garbage Removal on Simchas Torah

I looked over Yom Tov into the Yishtabach issue, and found the that
many versions of the berocho do not include the word "gevurah" - which,
indeed, is seemingly out of place in a list of praises and blessings -
why would we want to focus on Hashem's gevurah?! Our version (it seems
later one) that has it is clearly meant to make up the thirteen (not
including berachos v'hodo'os) or fifteen (including those two) terms to
make up the thirteen middos ho'rachamim or the fifteen ma'alos as the
case may be. Doubtless when inserted, it was inserted next to gedulah to
twin the terms, as they complement one another. All this (and more!) is
based on the Otzar ha'Teillos siddur, an essential tool for every Jewish
home, from which, this Yom Tov, I learned a fascinating machlokes as to
the meaning of "negda-na" in "Ma Ashiv" in Hallel as well.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

(Hope that title was sufficiently provocative! <grin>)

I thought of another way of framing the split in derekh between Novorodok
(N) and Slabodka (S), based on RYBS's Lonely Man of Faith.

S teaches Adam I's mussar: the notion that man must advance and produce,
of human potential and creativity.

N is the mussar of retreat (in RYBS's sense), of recoiling, of seeing
the puniness of man when compared to the Infinite Who created him and
to Whom he hopes to relate.

What's interesting to me about this formulation is that it implies that
N and S are not to stand alone; that one ought be seeking a means of
living within the tension of the dialectic rather than choosing between
the approaches.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Siddur Otzar haT'filos says that the original nusah was oseh hashalom 
year-round.  -Herschel Ainspan

> I wonder if R. Akiva would tell us which minyanim he was referring to.

I could... but I won't.

I'd rather keep the discussion on a "theoretical" level -- and avoid
pointing fingers at groups in order to decide if they are or are not
within the pale of orthodoxy.

Akiva

> So too for egalitarian minyanim. If they don't have anyone supporting
> them, then forgetaboutit. But if they do have some support, no matter
> how flimsy, then how is it different than Mayim Acharonim?

The "support" would have to come from somewhere higher than the local
congregational rabbi, wouldn't it?

Akiva

In three instances in Chumash (story with Rivka in Bereshit
24:14,16,28,66; story with Dina in Bereshit 34:3,12; and story of Motzi
Shem Ra and of Ones in Devarim 22;15, 16, 21, 23, 24, 26,27, 28, and 29),
the word NAARA is spelled NAAR. Whereas in Devarim it specifically states
(NAARA KRI) and mefarshim such as the Baal haTurim state :"ktiv chaser
alef, she'halcha k'naar; lachen hotzi aleha shem ra", there is nothing
mentioned why with Rivka and Dina the word is spelled chaser.

I'm aware that R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch and the Mandelkorn concordance
state that the two words (b'yemei kedem) were interchangable. Is anyone
aware of an alternative pshat ?

Thanks.
Josh

On 27 Sep 2002 at 9:58, Shinnar, Meir wrote:
> 1) In the gmara and rishonim, there is no limitation of this ptur for
> business (the closest is in rashi, succa 26:1, who mentions that
> during the year one travels on business, the tora did not require him
> to abstain from traveling - a very reasonable reading is that business
> travel is  a dugma bealma

I question whether in the times of the Gemara or the Rishonim there 
was any such thing as pleasure travel. People travelled for parnassa 
or to emigrate and not for much else. 

> 2)  Travel and vacation is considered something necessary for their
> well being, no less than any other need such as parnasa.   This is
> enshrined in halacha - see sa oc 536:1 9 (and mishna brura) where ...

The Tur is gores "Mi she'tzarich lirkov l'tzorech ha'moed." 

The Beis Yosef - which is cited by the MB there - brings the Rosh 
(Moed Katan 1:19) who says that it's talking about a person who is 
used to riding and not to walking who needs to go somewhere l'tzorech 
ha'moed. I question how this turns pleasure travel into tzorech 
ha'moed. 

See also above re: pleasure travel in the times of the Gemara and the 
Rishonim. 

> 3) The notion of tiyul is also part of the mitzva of vesamachta
> behagecha  - see sima 416:1 and rama, that ...

The fact that the same Hebrew word is used ("l'tayel") does not mean 
that the Rama - or the Trumas haDeshen whom he cites - has anything 
in mind beyond an extension of my backyard. 

> 4)The main source for being machmir is rav moshe feinstein - who
> distinguishes between pleasure and business - he argues is a milta
> ditemiha, without a remez in the talmudim ...

That's not what Rav Moshe said. Rav Moshe required a tzorech -
not necessarily limited to business. In this regard, I think Rav
Lichtenstein's words are instructive:

"A Jew must be saturated with an ambition and longing for mitzvot and
not, God forbid, view them as a burden he is inescapably stuck with
that he tries to cast off at the first opportunity. This point is at
the root of the trait of "zerizut" (acting with enthusiasm and energy),
rooted in the obligation not just to serve God, but to serve him with
joy and exhilaration. Rabbi Eliezer's statement, "If one's prayer is a
fixed obligation it is not a supplication," is explained by Rav Oshaya
as "One whose prayer is a burden to him." Of course this has special
meaning in its home context, relating to prayer, but the concept at its
root applies to all mitzvot."

[snip]

"However, the question itself, especially when asked by Israeli youth
groups that stand for education in service of Hashem and fear of God - and
that no small number of benei Torah are involved in - is problematic. For
decades I was in the Diaspora in places where the mitzva of sukka was
not considered an "easy mitzva," and I was never asked about using the
traveler's exemption when one is far from a sukka during the day. Did
it ever enter the mind of a busines[sman] that strives to scrupulously
fulfill mitzvot and, in the course of his business, finds himself in
New York's skyscrapers, to eat his lunch in his office because there is
no sukka in his vicinity? Did a student who views himself as rooted in
Torah and fear of God and finds himself forced to spend a long day in a
university library ever think of eating in a cafeteria because the campus
did not have a sukka? Is it possible that in Israel, where the mitzva of
sukka is both easier and more inclusive - a mitzva that even many that
are not generally observant still relate to in one way or another -
is it possible that here benei Torah should avoid keeping this mitzva
in its fullness?"

> 5) One source that is used by those who are machmir is the rama, who
> requires merchants who go to the surrounding farms to collect debts to
> go home every night- first, see below what I bring from the aruch
> hashulchan. Rav Aviner argues first that the rama's language is that
> "yachmiru al atzman" and that yesh lehakel - meikkar hadin it is
> mutar.  

But yesh l'hakel for what? Because I feel like it???? 

> Furthermore, it is not similar, because he can do his work and
> go home, as at night he is not collecting debts - however, for a
> tiyyul, that will destroy the entire tiyyul.

So do a different tiyul that doesn't require an overnight stay. Or 
build a Succah. Sorry - maybe my upbringing was deficient because I 
was not in Bnei Akiva, but I totally and utterly fail to see the 
holiness in a tiyul that justifies - let alone requires - being 
mevatel the mitzva of sitting in a Succah. 

> 6)  Mishna brura 640: sk 9, talks about eyno nimna milinsoa leeyze
> inyan umaniach et beto vehu hadin lesukka - the criteria is leeyze
> inyan.

I HIGHLY doubt that's what the Mishna Brura had in mind. I think what 
he had in mind was more like what Rav Moshe had in mind. 

> (I suggest that the fact that this didn't pass the "smelll test", as
> phrased by RCS, is that many today have a lower estimation of the
> value of vacation, and don't conceive of it as a dvar mitzva)

Today???? Where do you find sources anywhere that turn vacation into 
a mitzva? The whole notion of having 2-4 weeks a year of "vacation" 
is entirely a western notion. There's no mitzva involved in it. 

-- 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.

On Areivim there was a discussion over what to do on Yom Tov motza'ei
Shabbos for an avukah for kiddush/havdalah.  I remind the velt that using an
avukah for havdalah is "only" a mitzvah min hamuvchar and not an obligation
(SA OC 288:2).  I would not start inventing new minhagim in order to be
yotzei the mitzvah min hamuvchar.

Gil Student

Richard Wolpoe RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com:
> AISI, the Shatz should do just one, i.e.  the first one.  The point is to 
> shake ONLY on Hodu Lashem's and Ana Hashem's.  I have no clue how the Yomar 
> Na passuk got included for the Shatz. 

See Rama 651:8.

Jay Spero

In Avodah V10 #15, RRWolpoe wrote:
> AISI, the Shatz should do just one, i.e.  the first one.  The point is to 
> shake ONLY on Hodu Lashem's and Ana Hashem's.

Sounds like you're taking the relevant mishna quite literally, but one 
could argue _too_ literally.

> I have no clue how the Yomar Na passuk got included for the Shatz.

A thought, if not a clue: along the lines of "congregation responds to
Chazzan" (which we previously touched upon in this forum), the SHaTZ
should be not just saying but also doing everything that his cong. will
respond to. That would explain why (as in KAJ, which I noted earlier)
the SHaTZ does na'anuim four times. Frankly, the only way I can explain
his doing na'anuim two times (a custom to which I was introduced when
I started my newly-married bayis in Elizabeth) is that the total# of
na'anuim in Hallel should be six (the #directions we wave in) instead
of eight.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

I have noticed a custom in some congregations to stop and sing briefly
after 'vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echod', yom sheini, shelishi, etc.,
on Simchas Torah.

A few questions about this -

1) How widespread is this practice ? I assume it is not universal -
doesn't sound like something that would be done in kehillos like KAJ, e.g.

2) What is the reason for it ?

3) Any written mekoros for it ?

4) What connection does singing about maaseh bereishis it have to do
with simchas Torah (celebration of finishing of the Torah) ?

5) Why is there no question of a hefsek with such a practice ?

6) Why is such singing not done (as well or alternatively) on Shabbos
parshas Bereishis ?

Also - related question - why does the tzibbur (in such places) recite
'vayehi erev vayehi voker yom echod', etc., before the baal kriah,
rather than just listening to him lein it, as with the rest of the
leining (the same question could be asked of same / similar practice
during kriah on a taanis tzibbur, e.g. 13 middos horachamim, as well) ?

Mordechai

In a message dated 9/30/02 2:01:29pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> What's interesting to me about this formulation is that it implies that
> N and S are not to stand alone; that one ought be seeking a means of
> living within the tension of the dialectic rather than choosing between
> the approaches.
 
Which IIRC was exactly R'YBS's approach, but I'm not sure that N and S
would agree with your statement.

KT
Joel Rich

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:38:42PM -0400, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
: In a message dated 9/30/02 2:01:29pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
: > What's interesting to me about this formulation is that it implies that
: > N and S are not to stand alone; that one ought be seeking a means of
: > living within the tension of the dialectic rather than choosing between
: > the approaches.

: Which IIRC was exactly R'YBS's approach, but I'm not sure that N and S
: would agree with your statement.

I agree and disagree.

Yes, RYBS proposed that the ideal is living with the dialectic.

I think, though, that he didn't address whether N's and S's variants of
mussar were on either side of the dialectic and therefore included in
what it means to live with the dialectic. That's my proposed chiddush,
taking RYBS's notion of the dialectic and applying it to a world where
the ideal is the Ba'al Mussar, not the Brisker Ish haHalachah. It ought
not be given RYBS's weight.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

I saw over Yom Tov that R' Binyamin Zilber writes in his Shu"t Oz Nidberu
3:72 (dated IIRC to 5731) not to trust that what is written in the Iggeros
Chazon Ish was necessarily the Chazon Ish's real opinion.  He cited proofs
including a personal example.

Gil Student

Carl wrote:
> Does he say in particular which ones not to trust? 

No.

Gil Student

A friend of mine and I were studying and we ran across Pesachim 9:10, which 
explains what happens when two korbon pesachs of two groups were confused, 
etc.  At the end it says: "v'shel chameish chavuroso shel chamisha chamisha 
v'shel asarah asarah."

Why does he need two examples (5 and 10)?  (In fact, why does he need any 
examples, rather "and so for larger groups"?  Or, if this question is 
answered, why "5" and "10" rather than other numbers?)

-- Sholom

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 11:20:15AM -0400, Stein, Aryeh wrote:
:               (Another would have to be the charoses that I get every
: year from Telshe; tasting it certainly reminds me of the bitter avdus
: that our forefathers endured in Mitzrayim.....)

I once wrote a little vort on why we, Sepharadim and Teimanim have
minhagim for sweet charoses. After all, it is supposed to look like
a symbol of avdus, and yet taste like cheirus?

(Note that the gemara assumes there is vinager in charoses.)

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/charoses.html>. Here's an excerpt:
> Matza presents a similar ambiguity. We open Magid by describing matza
> as "the bread of suffering which we ate in Egypt". Yet, later on, when
> we repeat Rabban Gamliel's three things that must be said to fulfil
> the obligation of the seder, we say we eat matza "because there was
> not enough [time] for our ancestors dough to rise".
...
> Mitzvah too operates on two levels. Servitude, simple obedience to
> G-d. Freedom, doing what is in our best interest. And here is where
> the two ideas we've been looking at converge.
...
> We also have a key to understanding the apparently oxymoronic symbolism
> of charoses. It doesn't represent the bitter servitude of Par'oh,
> but the sweet, voluntary yoke of heaven. We eat is with maror, which
> does represent the bitter slavery, and give it the appearance of that
> servitude to bring to mind the contrast.

> Charoses, like being a "servant of the Holy One" has a surface layer,
> an appearance of the mortar of slavery. But experientially, it's very
> different. "Na'aseh viNishmah" -- only by doing can we hear the beauty,
> the depth, of the Torah. 

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
micha@aishdas.org            excessive anxiety....  Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org       'The Almighty is my source of salvation;  I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905          trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

I wrote:
> > I also saw something strange: the ba'al mussaf, a Vizhnitzer 'hoosid, did
> > not crouch when doing his hishta'havayah, but rather layed down flat, a
> > more literal form of pishut yadayim veraglayim. Textually, he seems
> > right, because the technical term is pishut yadayim veraglayim, however,
> > culturally and mimetically, we are used to crouching. Anybody know
> > meqorot that discuss this alternate form of hishta'havayah and the
> > relative merit of each?

RJB replied:
> ISTR an extensive discussion of nefilat apayim in SA Yoreh Deah where it
> talks about Hilchot Avodah Zarah, paralleled by the discussion in Orach
> Chaim by Tachanun, particularly in MB.

What does ISTR stand for? Never seen before.

> Basically, IIRC, there's a mitzva not to bow on a "figured pavement",
> or a stone floor (mosaics as well, I guess).  When we bow for nefilat
> apayim, we make two distinctions to separate ourselves from the issur,
> usually two out of these three: going down on knees rather than flat,
> going down on a carpet/cloth rather than directly on the floor, turning
> the head aside rather that flat down on the floor.

I knew about the stone floor, and that, except for once during RH mussaf and 4 
times during YK mussaf we didn't even crouch on a floor not made out of 
stone, but I never knew about crouching vs. flat. Does that mean that it is 
universally accepted that pishut yadayim veraglayim in BHMQ was flat? I 
didn't know about the face either, and IIRC, I have never seen anybody turn 
the head aside. Then again, go figure when most heads are wrapped in a 
tallit, anyway.

> Was there a carpet on the bimah?  Did the hhazan turn his head aside,
> or go flat?

He had his own little carpet that had been handed out as a fundraiser by a 
yeshivah somewhere in the big black hole (the large - or infinitely small, 
since we don't even know for sure it exists except when RHM, RDF or RALL post 
- space between NY, Miami and LA ;-)), in Indiana, IIRC. Which raises the 
question of the minimum size of that carpet and where it should be situated.

He did not turn his head aside, but definitely went all flat except for arms - 
his hands were on his face.

What size should the carpet be? Should it be under the knees or under the 
head? Should it qualify as a beged, because anything less will be considered 
dirt which is batel legabei qarqa? Or is anything that we notice good enough. 
Concretely, are a bunch of tissues good enough?

A quip, I davened this RH with the netz minyan at the Bialystoker Synagogue in 
LES of Manhattan, and the long standing habit there is that, before YT, 
someone brings a NYT to shul, and during davening people pick up a page - 
definitely large enough to crouch on. Of course, that brings an additional 
problem: when somebody crouches on the front page of the business section, 
the similarity with some form of AZ is hard to shake off ;-).

Git vinter,

Arie (who was stuck with the front page of the business section during RH 
mussaf, and turned the page over because he found it distasteful to bow down 
on)
-- 
It is absurd to seek to give an account of the matter to a man 
who cannot himself give an account of anything; for insofar as
he is already like this, such a man is no better than a vegetable.
           -- Book IV of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Carl wrote:
> See IM OH 3:93.

So it's a machlokes haposkim. I don't know if I mentioned in my original
e-mail that I heard R' Feivel Cohen say it is mutar to eat at (lemashal)
Great Adventure outside of a sukkah if none is available.

I haven't looked but I am certain that I can find poskim who have been
matir this in writing. Frankly, I don't understand how RMF can say that
going on a tiyul is "ein lazeh shum tzorech" particularly for those of
us for whom Chol HaMoed is the only vacation we ever have (not that I eat
outside of a sukkah on a trip). Even for Bnei Torah who have a slightly
longer bein hazmanim ChM is largely the only time they can see nature.

But even more basically, how is this "teishvu ke'ein taduru" (which
according to Tosafos is the basis of the petur)? If I would leave my
house for a tiyul then I can leave my sukkah for a tiyul.

I have no need to be meyashev an Iggeros Moshe but I could suggest that
RMF was saying more that it is improper to eat outside of a sukkah simply
for the sake of a tiyul (similar to what RAL said on VBM).

Gil Student

On 1 Oct 2002 at 10:40, Gil Student wrote:

> Carl wrote:
> > I think the point was that there are lots of ways to go on a tiyul or
> > to "see nature" without giving up the mitzva of Succah. This is all
> > the more so in Israel, as R. Lichtenstein points out. I'll bet if you
> > asked R. Faivel Cohen whether you can decide to go to Great Adventure
> > davka on one of the days that they don't have a Succah, he'd give you
> > a nice mussar shmooze.
> 
> Exactly.  Halachah lema'aseh it is mutar but it is not necessarily
> preferable.  That isn't what you hold.  You've said that the petur of
> holchei derachim does not apply to someone on a tiyul.

I don't hold anything - I'm not a posek. Rav Moshe held assur. 

> > But would I? If the only time I leave my house/Succah for a tiyul (as
> > you yourself said above) is on Chol HaMoed?
> 
> Maybe not you.  But I know plenty of people who go to the Bronx Zoo on a
> Sunday and bring food sandwiches with them.  Suddenly comes Chol HaMoed and
> I'm not allowed to bring sandwiches along with me (FWIW, I brought yogurt
> but not because I thought I could not bring a sandwich)?

But given the option, why not just bring the yogurt and avoid the 
issue? 

> > I think that RMF was trying to avoid the slippery slope of saying
> > that anytime one wants to go on a tiyul on Succos, they should just
> > go and forsake the mitzva.
> 
> Which is not how you hold.

See above. Note that Rav Moshe did say assur. He did so by saying 
that there is no tzorech in a tiyul (I don't have the IM in front of 
me right now, so this is from memory). I'm just speculating as to 
why.  

-- Carl

Carl M. Sherer, Adv. Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751 Fax 972-2-625-0461 eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.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.

It was a mistake to bomb the nuclear reactor in Iraq. 
[Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon P, Haaretz, December 24, 1995]

[Bounced from Areivim. Name of community with eiruv deleted to minimize
distraction. -mi]

> Carrying around garbage from nosh on Simchas Torah is pretty much the
> only time that I rely on the [XYZ] eiruv

Unless you really need the room, moving garbage on YomTov/Shabbat is
is as I understand, not allowed with or w/out an eruv as it is Mukzeh
having no further use.

On 1 Oct 2002 at 15:38, Daniel M Wells wrote:
> > Carrying around garbage from nosh on Simchas Torah is pretty much
> > the only time that I rely on the [XYZ] eiruv

> Unless you really need the room, moving garbage on YomTov/Shabbat is
> is as I understand, not allowed with or w/out an eruv as it is Mukzeh
> having no further use.

Wouldn't you be allowed to move it if it is going to smell up your 
house (geref shel re'ee)?

-- Carl

>> Unless you really need the room, moving garbage on YomTov/Shabbat is
>> is as I understand, not allowed with or w/out an eruv as it is Mukzeh
>> having no further use.

> Wouldn't you be allowed to move it if it is going to smell up your
> house (geref shel re'ee)?

There is a subtle distinction here.

If it is *already* geref shel re'ee then:

Chapter 308 Section 34

Anything that is disgusting and is in a place where people live, can be
moved as it is called a geref shel rei.

However:

Chapter 308 Section 36

You are not allowed to make a geref shel rei on purpose.

But really, we are not talking about uncovered "droppings" (remember we
have to use clean words!) from a small kid or animal.

Most people put garbage into plastic sacks that a)can be tied up in some
form of halachically legal manner thus reducing the smell and b) the
garbage can is or can be placed in a room that is not often frequented
such as the washing machine room.

On top of which, garbage containing "nosh" and even Shabbos leftovers
do not usually begin to smell until much later.

> Wouldn't you be allowed to move it if it is going to smell up your house
> (geref shel re'ee)?

Actually that is an interesting question if right now it is not smelling
up your house. Are you allowed to move mukzeh as a preemptive?

The above quotes from the MB are taken from
<http://www.shemayisrael.com/abtorah/halacha2000/jul27a.htm> (I don't
have a MB infront of me...)

Daniel

I wrote:
>Carrying around garbage from nosh on Simchas Torah is pretty much
>the only time that I rely on the Flatbush eiruv

Daniel Wells wrote:
>Unless you really need the room, moving garbage on YomTov/Shabbat
>is is as I understand, not allowed with or w/out an eruv as it is Mukzeh
>having no further use.

I apologize for being unclear. I was thinking of candy wrappers and potato
chip bags that contained food bein hashmashos and are not muktzah. And even
if they were, if you picked them up be-heter you can carry them until you
find an appropriate place to put them down.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]