Avodah Mailing List

Volume 13 : Number 029

Monday, May 31 2004

• Re: water controversy
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: Music during Sefira
• RE: sheitels and AZ
• RE: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• burning AZ
• lav lhanos
• kal vechomer
• Re:Kal v"chomer
• VIDC
• rov
• Re: water controversy
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100
• Re: VIDC [Voss Iz Der Chilluk] #11, MC vo. 1 p. 100
• Godol Me'Rav-Rabbi, Godol Me'rabbi-Rabbon, Godol Me'rabbon-Sh'mo
• Electricity on YomTov
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: sheitels and AZ
• Re: lav lhanos
• RE: Electricity on YomTov
• Re: sheitels and AZ

R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< The Brisker Rav holds that one should make the
tefillin as square as modern technology allows. The fact that it is more
square than those of early generations doesn't matter. It is possible
that this same argument applies the use of magnifying glasses to see
bugs in water. >>>

Did he say one <<< should >>> make the tefilin as square as possible,
or that one *has* to?

In other words, suppose the technology would show the tefillin to be
non-square, even though they looked square. Would he say the tefilin
were pasul? If so, then we can extend it to the bugs in water. But if
such squareness is only a preference, then not.

Akiva Miller

In Avodah V13 #28 dated 5/28/04 [R David Riceman]:
> 4. Why don't I make a birchas hamitzva on getting dressed?

You don't make a birchas hamitzva, but you do make a bracha, malbish
arumim, which thanks Hashem for giving you the means to avoid a lo
ta'aseh of walking around naked.

We actually get dressed for two reasons, because it is a mitzva not to
be naked and because as humans, we feel shame at being naked. We are
grateful to Hashem for having the means to cover our shame. Now, it may
be argued that this sense of shame is only the result of a sin--and is
associated with death, which entered the world at the same time as the
sense of shame, and for the same reason--because Adam and Chava messed
up and distanced themselves from Hashem.

The Torah seems to assume that women feel a similar sense of shame
at having their hair uncovered, and might feel a similar gratitude to
Hashem for providing us the wherewithal to cover our hair. If there is
any bracha to go with covering hair, I suppose it is that same bracha,
malbish arumim.

Nowadays we do not feel ashamed of having our hair uncovered and many of
us would be very happy not to have to do so anymore. But that very lack
of shame may be similar to the lack of shame so many women in our culture
feel about showing their midriffs and other formerly-covered body parts.

This lack of shame, needless to say, does not betoken a restoration
of G-dliness similar to the state of Adam and Chava before the cheit.
Rather it seems to betoken a fall into a state closer to that of the
unconscious animals who are so far from G-dliness that they are all body,
no soul, and therefore feel no self-consciousness about their bodies.

If we were more sensitive to spirituality, I suppose, we WOULD
instinctively feel embarrassed at the idea of walking around with our
hair showing. I don't want to sound frummer than I am: the truth is that
I am one who would be happier if I did not have to cover my hair at all.
But I recognize some chisaron in myself for feeling that way.

To segue to the related question, why we don't make a bracha when putting
on a wig or hat, I must say that it seems obvious to me that covering
hair is a lo ta'aseh. There is no positive mitzva to wear a wig, or to
wear any particular thing on your head. The mitzva is only not to leave
it uncovered.

There is also no particular time when this mitzva MUST be performed,
and that's another reason not to say a bracha. The mitzva applies when
you are in a place where you might be seen by others, but there is no
particular time when you have a positive chiyuv to go outside and be
seen. You could be home alone with the baby all day long and never have
to cover your hair that day at all.

Another point has been raised about a beautiful wig being noy mitzva
or hiddur mitzva. To me this seems laughable, but I am at a loss to
articulate why it seems so. The hiddur mitzva is being extra careful
not to let any of your own hair show. The extra beauty of a wig that
makes you look as much as possible like you are not covering your hair
at all--where is the hiddur mitzva in that? Absurd.

My mother amu'sh has always covered [ALL] her hair with a turban or hat,
never a wig, and to me, that is still the gold standard of hiddur mitzva.
My sister follows my mother's example. The fact that I do wear a sheitel
myself indicates not a rise, but a fall, in madreiga. My only comfort
is that I am all thumbs, and my sheitel always looks like a sheitel.

If it looked better I'd have a crisis of conscience. In fact, it has
ALWAYS seemed strange to me that I could wear another human's hair to
cover my own human hair. Talk about ignoring the spirit of the law.
I only stopped wearing synthetics when it became (paradixically)
exceedingly difficult to find synthetic wigs in Miami. Now I'm sorry I
ever bought a human hair wig, even though my own wig is not of Indian
origin. And yes, I'm still wearing it.

 -Toby Katz
=============

> 2. A kal v'chomer that if one can not dance, one can not listen to
> music.

Why is it a kal vachomer? Why is music a priori more issur than dancing
at a simcha?

EMT

> Nowadays we do not feel ashamed of having our hair uncovered and many
> of us would be very happy not to have to do so anymore. But that very
> lack of shame may be similar to the lack of shame so many women in our
> culture feel about showing their midriffs and other formerly-covered
> body parts.

I don't think the comparison is apt. Are unmarried women "supposed to
instinctively feel embarrassed at the idea of walking around with their
hair showing?"

> If we were more sensitive to spirituality, I suppose, we WOULD
> instinctively feel embarrassed at the idea of walking around with
> our hair showing.

It doesn't seem to me to be about sensitivity to spirituality, despite
how flattering that might seem to many.

Avi Burstein

RYGB wrote 
>Shu" Chelkas Yaakov Inyanim Shonim #13 cites evidence that the principle
>of mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu (MLLN) applies even where there is hano'as
>ha'guf. 

The mechaber in SA OH 586:5 says one who is madir hanaa from a shofar
may hear tkiot from that shofar if someone else blows it. The Mishna
Brura sk 22 says the person himself should not blow the shofar, since
many people get pleasure from blowing the shofar,
VEHANNAT HAGUF LEKA LESHRUYAY BISHVIL TAAMA 
DMITZVOT LAV LEHANOT NITNU. 

>I also don't see why there should be any chilluk between this
>and a sandal shel chalitzah shel AZ that the Ein Yitzchok 2:EH62 is
>metzaded to be mattir.

We're talking about tikrovet AZ, not AZ. The Rambam (Yibum ve-Chalitza
4:20) says that a sandal of tikrovet AZ is pasul lechalitza even
bdiavad. (This is a gmara meforeshet Yevamot 103b). So too SA EH 169:23.

Saul Mashbaum

>>However, the Rambam paskens that that is all only Bedieved. Lechatchilo
>>it is certainly ossur to use.

>>Hu hadin benidon didon.

>LAN"D once one has spent hundreds or thousands of $$'s on a sheitel, it
>is a matter of b'di'eved.

How do you understand the Rambam? Does the shaker here have another set
of arba minim, or does he refrain from using the AZ even though this
will mean the loss of his mitzva?

Does the Rambam mean 'bedieved after you've spent thousands on a beautiful
set of AZ arba minim', or bedieved after you've shaken?

Akiva

At 04:23 PM 5/29/2004, you wrote:
>> LAN"D once one has spent hundreds or thousands of $$'s on a sheitel, it
>> is a matter of b'di'eved.

>How do you understand the Rambam? Does the shaker here have another set
>of arba minim, or does he refrain from using the AZ even though this
>will mean the loss of his mitzva?

>Does the Rambam mean 'bedieved after you've spent thousands on a beautiful
>set of AZ arba minim', or bedieved after you've shaken?

Either one.

[Email #2. -mi]

At 05:06 PM 5/29/2004, Saul Mashbaum wrote:
>RYGB wrote
>> Shu" Chelkas Yaakov Inyanim Shonim #13 cites evidence that the principle
>> of mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu (MLLN) applies even where there is hano'as
>> ha'guf.

>The mechaber in SA OH 586:5 says one who is madir hanaa from a shofar
>may hear tkiot from that shofar if someone else blows it. The
>Mishna Brura sk 22 says the person himself should not blow the
>shofar, since many people get pleasure from blowing the shofar,
>VEHANNAT HAGUF LEKA LESHRUYAY BISHVIL TAAMA
>DMITZVOT LAV LEHANOT NITNU.

I don't get it - is the CY not allowed to argue on the MB? I was citing
the CY, not the MB.

In any event, I do not think there is any hano'as ha'guf in yemos ha'chama
from wearing a sheitel.

>> I also don't see why there should be any chilluk between this
>> and a sandal shel chalitzah shel AZ that the Ein Yitzchok 2:EH62 is
>> metzaded to be mattir.

>We're talking about tikrovet AZ, not AZ. The Rambam (Yibum ve-Chalitza 4:20)
>says that a sandal of tikrovet AZ is pasul lechalitza even bdiavad. (This 
>is a gmara meforeshet Yevamot 103b). So too SA EH 169:23.

Not relevant. There it is a specific din because eino asui l'halech ba (see 
the end of the halacha in the Rambam), so that it is ois-sandal. There is 
no parallel here.

YGB 

On Fri, 28 May 2004 13:22:17 -0500, Avodah wrote:
> R' Eli Turkel wrote <<< According to one of our local newspapers R.
> Chaim Kanevsky ... participated in a wig burning and recited a 
> beracha  (without shem u-malchut).>>>

> Okay, so he left out the Shem. But what words DID he use? "Al
> Kiddush HaShem"? "Al Biur Avodah Zara"? Anyone know?

Al biur avodah zara

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/30/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

RDR:
>Yad Melachi (#397) whether MLLN is only bdi'avad, or also permitted
>l'chit'chilllah.

Please quote.  Normally the Gemara says don't do this, but bdieved you are
yotze. (as per RABlum's Rambam).

kol Tuv, Shlomo

I have always found the kal vechomer very weak on straight logic grounds.
The typical arument goes like A has property X. B has some chumra with
respect to A and so certainly has the din X.

This a purely formalistic argument that does not account for the specific
case. Frequently it is obvious that A has property X because there is
a connection between them. In no way does that mean that B should have
the chumra to which it has no connection.

-- 
Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/27/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

There is a long discussion in Meshech Chochma parshas shoftim. I am
quoting from memory, will bl'n look it up and cite,. He discussed if
kal v'chomer is a method of logic or a technical tool. He proves the
latter from the fact that a kal vchomer to prohibit one own's wife is
seriously considered, as he brings.

M. Levin

RYGB:
>The Shev Shmaitsa 1:1 writes that even though we hold safek orlah
>in Chu"l is permissible, nevertheless, if there is a rov l'issur we
>follow the rov, as that is not considered a safek. He cites Tosafos BB
>24a as evidence,

>This seems difficult, as at the end of the first perek of Kiddushin we
>learn that kol ha'meikel b'orlah, even though when it comes to EY if he
>is a yachid k'neged rabbim we reject his position, we can rely on him
>in Chu"l - but according to the SS why do we not follow the rov poskim
>even when it comes to Chu"l.

RYGB seems to say that if we hold not like SS, then any safek orlah
in chu"l is muttar, so too halacha kdivrei hameikil mtaam safek. Yet,
vadai orlah btaaruvos is only batel one in two hundred (SA YD 294:22).
So we see that not every safek, (nor even every rov lhatir) is mutar
concerning orlas chutz laaretz.

Rather we must answer, along the lines of RGS, that halacha kdivrei
hameikil is a rule in psak and is not mtaam safek. See Tos. Shabbos 139a
d"h lishlach that severely limits this klal. If it were mtaam safek,
the Tos. would not make any sense.

The SS can be correct that rov orla l'issur is assur even in chu"l.
And taaruvos needs a very big rov (200:1) to permit it. This last din
is drabbanan and not a stira to the Torah din of rov(nor is it such a
good raaya against the question because the question could be modified
to relate only to din Torah, yet I hope it adds clarity.)

Shlomo Goldstein

Gil writes
<There are two dinim in rov - bittul be-rov and haleich achar ha-rov.
When dealing with fruits in chu"l in which the majority are orlah,
we are dealing with bittul be-rov. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek.
However, when we are dealing with following poskim, we are utilizing
the concept of haleich achar ha-rov, which is not a mevarer but a course
of action to avoid paralysis. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek while
haleich achar ha-rov is not.>

If bittul be-rov determines the safek how does chozer ve-naor work?
Also according to many one needws to throw out one piece even when there
are 60 against the treifa piece.

Also are you saying that when the Sanhedrin paskens a halacha it is only
to avoid paralysis and is not mevarer the halacha? The question if one is
chayev a korban if he follows the sanhedrin would seem to be tied to this.

I once heard a derasha where the rav said that lechatchila one should be
keep every chumra possible including a disagreement between the mechaber
and Remah independent of one being Ashkenaz or Sefard. This seemed
to me very strange. However, if you say that the SA is followed only
for practical reasons and not a mevarer of the safek it makes sense -
However, it is certainly not mainstream

Eli Turkel,  turkel@post.tau.ac.il on 5/30/2004
Department of Mathematics, Tel Aviv University

>I once heard that there is a disagreement between the Brisker Rav and
>R. Moshe Feinstein about the squareness of tefillin.
>RMF holds that since the gemara approximates sqrt(2) by 1.4 we don't
>need to make our tefillin more square than that.
>The Brisker Rav holds that one should make the tefillin as square as
>modern technology allows. The fact that it is more square than those of
>early generations doesn't matter.

>It is possible that this same argument applies the use of magnifying
>glasses to see bugs in water.

Possibly, but there still has to be a shiur of some kind on the size
of the bugs. Otherwise, no water would be good for drinking because all
water contains some kind of microorganisms (like bacteria). If there is
a shiur on size, then we only use modern technology up until that limit,
and any further power of the technology becomes irrelevant.

Leonid Portnoy

Posted by: gil@aishdas.org
> There are two dinim in rov - bittul be-rov and haleich achar ha-rov. When
> dealing with fruits in chu"l in which the majority are orlah, we are
> dealing with bittul be-rov. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek. However,
> when we are dealing with following poskim, we are utilizing the concept
> of haleich achar ha-rov, which is not a mevarer but a course of action
> to avoid paralysis. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek while haleich
> achar ha-rov is not.

I absolutely agree but would like to contribute the terminology of R. YD
soloveitchik to the discussion. Even within what we call bittul b'rov,
there is true bittul and heter hanhaga. The latter explains the concept
of Chozer V'neyur. THE Rav said this when explaining the issue of bittul
brov by yovesh and the diyun in the poskim whther one is allowed to
consume the entire mixture or only as long as something is left over. He
explained that the ones that say the latter, it is heter hanhaga which
cannot be maintained if the entire mixture is being eaten up.

M. Levin

On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 05:10:06PM -0400, Gil Student wrote:
: There are two dinim in rov - bittul be-rov and haleich achar ha-rov...

I would have said there are three:
1- Bitul berov
2- Kol deparish meirubah parish
3- Achariei rabim lehatos

: dealing with fruits in chu"l in which the majority are orlah, we are
: dealing with bittul be-rov. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek...

I would say it's kol deparish, but in any case a birur. How could one
say there's bitul with a ruba deleisa leqmqan? There's no davar mutar
to be mevateil the issur in question.

: when we are dealing with following poskim, we are utilizing the concept
: of haleich achar ha-rov, which is not a mevarer but a course of action
: to avoid paralysis. Bittul be-rov is mevarer the safek while haleich
: achar ha-rov is not.

I think it's an animal of a totally different breed, more than just
avoiding paralysis. It's a law in pesaq.

 -mi

 -- 
Micha Berger             A cheerful disposition is an inestimable treasure.
micha@aishdas.org        It preserves health, promotes convalescence,
http://www.aishdas.org   and helps us cope with adversity.
Fax: (413) 403-9905         - R' SR Hirsch, "From the Wisdom of Mishlei"

R. Yitzchok Brandriss wrote [on Areivim]:
>>I am aware that, as was posted here recently, some groups pronounce the
>> Tannaitic honorific as "Ribi" rather than "Rabbi." I was always curious,
>> however, as to the basis for this pronunciation. It would seem to me that
>> the word is based on the title "rav," and is a first person possessive
>> meaning "my rav."

[R Jonathan Cohen <jcoh003@ec.auckland.ac.nz>:]
> As far as I understand Ribbi is a noun of it's own, it does not mean
> my Rav.  My Rav would be Rabbi with a patach. Are...

"rabbi" (or ribbi according to rashbetz and levitas) is not a simple
construct state of "rav". It's rather the Palestinian title for one with a
palestinian s'mikhoh, whereas "rav" is its exact Babylonian equivalent for
one with a Babylonian s'mikhoh. rav and rabbi may even be exactly the same
word with the local Babylonian Aramaic dialect dropping the last vowel
(s'mikhoh here taken to mean a hetter horo'oh from someone authorized to
give it -- with the minor difference that of course babylonian s'mikhoh
did not include a power lodun dinei q'nosos). To illustrate the assertion
that it is not a s'michus form but a separate noun one only need cite
the gaonic adage (known from r. shrirah's iggeres): "godol me'rav --
rabbi, godol me'rabbi -- rabbon, godol me'rabbon -- sh'mo".

Indeed, if it were really true that rabbi were merely a construct form
of "rav", then the effect of the construct would be to limit its' scope --
i.e. rabbi = "my" rav would then be a smaller thing than "rav" who is
not limited to myself. But this would then contradict the assertion of
the accepted adage, godol me'rav -- rabbi. QED.

Mechy Frankel
michael.frankel@osd.mil
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

I've been searching the Avodah archives and I see that this subject
hasn't been touched upon in a number of years.

I was wondering what new findings have been made on this issue if any.
Why was it once permissible to turn lights on, on YomTov and now everyone
seems to say this is asur?

Is it really asur or is it just a Humra?

What about turning them off?

What about electric items other than lights like stoves, ovens,
microwaves, etc..

Is there truly an iron clad reason to forbid or is it more like a modern
day gezera so that we don't come to do it on Shabbat?

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri

From: <T613K@aol.com>
> You don't make a birchas hamitzva, but you do make a bracha, malbish
> arumim,

That's why I specified birchas hamitzva.

> The Torah seems to assume that women feel a similar sense of shame
> at having their hair uncovered

I don't know where the Torah says this.

> If there is any bracha to go with
> covering hair, I suppose it is that same bracha, malbish arumim.

It's oteir yisrael b'sifara

David Riceman

From: "Yosef Gavriel & Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <rygb@aishdas.org>
>> I'd like to ignore the practical issues (e.g. mitzva l'abeid avoda zara)

> Ee meshum ha, lo iriya - that is a safek mitzvas aseh, asher kvar dashu bo
> rabbim in the sugya of the modern techeles.

Is there a source for this? What's the connection between techeiles and AZ?

>> 2.  Why can't I wear a four cornered garment of shatnez with tsitsis,
>> arguing mitzvos lav lehenos nitnu?

> See the cited Chelkas Yaakov that the mitzvah is on the kanfos, and
> the beged is therefore hano'oh not associated with the mitzvah. This,
> of course, does not apply to kisui rosh.

I think you're misreading him (Rabbi B kindly emailed me a copy of the
tshuva). Nonetheless, let's assume you're correct. If I understand the
construction of wigs correctly there is a substrate which holds the hair
and covers the head, and the hair itself is attached to the substrate.
Wearing the substrate would enable a woman to legally walk in the
marketplace. Mimah nafshach? If we view the beged and the tzitzis as
separate, we should also view the substrate and hair as separate and
prohibit the hair. If we view them as a unit we should have a heter
for shatnez.

If, OTOH, you wish to be mchalek I would argue that the chiluk has to
go the other way (clothing as a unit, not wig) since there's no mitzva
without the beged+tzitzis, but kisuy rosh is accomplished with the
substrate alone.

>> 3.  It's also assur to walk around naked (usually, see, e.g., Mishna Brurah
>> 2:1 for an exception), so why can't I wear any garment of shatnez using the
>> same argument?

> There is no positive command to walk around clothed. Were the requirement
> to cover hair merely to avoid ervah the issues would be analogous,
> but here there is a specific directive to cover the hair.

My copy of the SA says "lo seilachna benos yisrael pruos rosh bashuk
(EH 21:2)." I don't know where this "specific directive" exists.
If you would only rent your wife a sedan chair and a couple of bearers
she wouldn't need to cover her hair in the marketplace. OTOH she would
not be permitted to be naked even inside the sedan chair.

> The Gemara (Bava Kamma 101a-b, see Tosafos ad loc.; see also Pesachim
> 22b and Tosafos ad loc.) explains that in this sense orlah is unique,
> as here the Torah explicitly prohibits an intangible, visual benefit
<snip>
> I refer you also to the Y-mi in the last perek of Sukkah that kol,
> mareh and rei'ach ein bahem me'shum me'ilah...

I found my diyyuk from kisuy hadam convincing. I don't see why you
think you can draw an analogy from me'ilah. Not do I see how orlah can
possibly be more strict than AZ.

David Riceman

From: "S Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> RDR:
>> Yad Melachi (#397) whether MLLN is only bdi'avad, or also permitted
>> l'chit'chilllah.

> Please quote.

It's klalei hadinim #431 (#397 was my other citation). It reads (my
translation):

"MLLN applies only b'diavad, but l'chatchila is prohibited. This follows
from Mishneh L'Melech H. Ishus chapter 8 p. 10b, Cf. the note of the
editor [magiah] there that the Knesseth HaGdolah and his supporters
disagree. They can also be supported from Get Pashut Siman 124 Seif
Katan 1 that it applies even l'chitchillah."

Incidentally I have no idea what sefer Get Pashut is (it clearly can't
refer to the perek in Shas).

DR

<<< I was wondering what new findings have been made on this issue if any.
Why was it once permissible to turn lights on, on YomTov and now everyone
seems to say this is asur? >>>

Where is it written that it was ever allowed? Doesn't the issur have
also to do with binyan (building a circuit) as much as lighting a fire?

Avi Burstein

In a message dated 5/31/04 driceman@worldnet.att.net writes:
> >> The Torah seems to assume that women feel a similar sense of shame at
> having their hair uncovered << [--old TK]

> I don't know where the Torah says this.

The isha sota's hair was uncovered, apparently to shame her. If she
was guilty, this public embarrassment would tend to discombobulate her,
throw her off-balance and make it more likely that she would confess.
If she was innocent, she was compensated for the embarrassment she had
suffered by special brochos, children if she didn't already have any,
or more children--beautiful, healthy ones--if she did.

The very fact that she had been somewhere in private with a man in such
circumstances as to arouse her husband's suspicion was perhaps enough
to warrant public embarrassment as a consequence.

I believe the isha sota is the source of the halachik assumption
that normally, a married woman's hair was, and should be, covered.
Uncovering it in public was definitely something out of the ordinary.
See Bamidbar 5:18 "ufara es rosh ha'isha."

I suppose you could say it just means that the kohen messes up her
coiffure, inducing a really embarrassing bad hair day, but the Gemara
takes it to mean that her hair covering is removed.

Disclaimer: I have never learned Gemara and as I have said before,
whatever Torah shebe'al peh I know, I know only be'al peh. If there are
errors and lacunae in my postings, more learned readers will please let
me know.

>> If there is any bracha to go with
>> covering hair, I suppose it is that same bracha, malbish arumim. [--old 
>> TK]

> It's oteir yisrael b'sifara

I was under the impression that that bracha referred to tefillin shel
rosh.

It worried me, once, briefly, that women make that bracha even though
we do not wear tefillin. Similarly, it worried me that we say, in the
bentshing, "Nodeh lecha...al brischa shechasamta bivsoreinu."

But in both cases, I told myself, women are included because we are part
of Yisrael and get credit for having fathers, brothers, husbands and
sons who have had a bris and who wear tefillin. The only way ANYONE
can keep taryag mitzvos, after all, is by being part of the whole polity.

 -Toby Katz
=============

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


[ 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         ]