Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 249

Sat, 17 Dec 2011

• 1. Re: Bar Mitzvah Doraisa? (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus > Authority of Australia (Harry Weiss)
• 3. Re: Halachic Policy Guidelines of the Kashrus Authority of Australia (Chana Luntz)
• 4. OU bitul policy (martin brody)
• 5. Re: OU bitul policy (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: OU bitul policy (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Vegetable Peeler: Clarification (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Hamakom yinachem eschem (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: OU bitul policy (martin brody)
• 12. Parshas Vayeishev: Rav Shimon Schwab - Why Was Yosef Always Busy Combing His Hair? (Prof. Levine)
• 13. the theme of sefer bereishit (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 14. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Zev Sero)
• 15. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: Cellphones and Driving: A Halachik Perspective by R. Yosef Kanefsky (Zev Sero)

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 04:13:40PM -0800, martin brody wrote:
:> But I was wondering... Turning 12 or 13 depends on a chazaqah to
:> approximate the age at which I child would grow 2 saaros...

:> Wouldn't this be an easier reason for saying that bar mitzvah isn't
:> a personal chag? One is merely celebrating reaching a chazaqah, not
:> the primary shiur.

: See Gen 34:25.. Each man took his sword. Levi was 13.See  Rashi on Pirke
: Avot 5:21 and Nazir 29b(V'Rebbi Yosi B'Rebbi Yehudah)

I was paraphrasing Rava on Niddah 46a and 48b. It is generally called
"chazaqah deRava".

There are two machloqesin: whether the chazaqah of age is only lechumerah
or also can be relied on lequlah, and whether the chazaqah is deOraisa
or deRabbanan.

Also, I don't think the RYbRY in Nazir is about when someone becomes
a gadol. According to the 2nd and the final (3rd) understandings of
the machloqes, RYbRY says that vows deOraisa have to do with when the
child can understand what he is saying, not on becoming an adult. Rebbe
says it depends on adulthood, and therefore he requires 2 saaros. There
is no indication we hold like RYbRY over Rebbe, and even if we did --
he is not talking about determining who is a gadol.

I don't have access to Rashi on Avos but Encyc Talmudit ("bar mitzvah")
says he links 13 to the pasur you cited. So does the Bartenura. Machzor
Vitri on "Ben 13 lemitzvos" says "demiben 13 hu meivi sa'aros bezaqein
hatzchton."

OT3H, the Rosh kelal 16 #1 says it's halakhah leMoshe miSinai, like other
shiurim. The Maharal (shu"t #51) and Birkei Yosef OCh 54) say likewise.

I think these latter two shitos are tlaking about the shiur for the
chazaqah (recall, some say the chazaqah is deOraisa), not a din mipenei
atzmah. Otherwise, how do we understand chazaqah deRaba?

I know that lehalakhah, we don't ask a geir qatan to confirm his geirus
on his birthday because we need 2 saaros, not age.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

> From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
> I have mentioned before that I once asked the OU (in the person of
> "the webbe rebbe") about raw cashews.  The answer I got was that there
> are potential problems, but that these are so uncommon that I needn't
> worry about them, and may buy raw cashews from any source without a
> hechsher.  However if I do see an OU hechsher on them then I can know
> that they have checked it out and the problems (at least the ones they're
> aware of) do not exist.
>
> In the terms of this discussion, all raw cashews are "approved" by the OU,
> i.e. they have told me that I can consume them in good conscience, but
> they are not certified, and thus it is possible (though unlikely) that
> klapei shmaya galya that they are treif, or at least contain a bli`as
> issur that is batel.  This is the sort of thing that would appear on the
> LBD or KA lists.  Whereas "certified" is the next level where the OU
> positively asserts that this particular packet of nuts is kosher; and
> to say that they must verify that it really is so, and they can't rely
> on bittul.

You brought down the OU basis for giving formal certifications for items
on their list of type of items that do not required certification.  This
includes raw cashews as you say and even water.

You mentioned their line about the advantage of having certification  The
interesting things is if you buy another items that has items on that list
of "not requiring certification"  as an ingredient they will allow
products without certification.

If you buy ice cream which contains cashews it will have the OU on the
label, even though there may be no certification on those cashews.

The fact is they are not just relying on straight bittul, but miut sheayno
matzuy.

> : RMB wrote:
> : > The product isn't inspected, the ingredient isn't listed. So how do we
> : > know it's there? I thought the whole point of this line of reasoning
is that
> : > we don't have to inspect, we don't have to know, since we also have
> bitul.

I replied:

> : Nobody approves a product without asking the manufacturer for a full
> list of the ingredients...

And RMB further replied:

> I'm not sure what to say, since I already posted to the list a quote
> from
> a Kosher Authority - Australia web page which says that they do. See
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol28/v28n247.shtml#13>, or the original
> page
> <http://www.ka.org.au/index.php/Halachic_Policy/The_Kashrut_Aut
> hority_a
> nd_Kashrut_in_Australia.html>
> the part that reads
> > a. If there is a definitely non-kosher ingredient then the product
> will
> > not be listed regardless of the ability to nullify....

So they are asking for a full list of ingredients.  However, while the
kosher authority of Australia may say that if there is definitely a non
kosher ingredient then it will not list the product, it is not a policy that
needs to bind all approving authorities.  As we have seen, other authorities
can take the view that, even where they know that the whey used in the
product contains traces of animal rennet, it is batel and therefore the
product is kosher.  Although this still rather depends on what is meant by
traces of rennet - and whether or not one regards rennet in a Mars Bar as a
definite ingredient, or just a possible ingredient, (ie does every portion
of whey definitely contain some trace of rennet?).


> > b. If there is uncertainty as to the nature of an ingredient or if
> > it's sub-components have not been able to be thoroughly investigated
> --
> > provided that there is a reasonable likelihood that it is of kosher
> origin
> > and in the worst case scenario the ingredient would anyway be batel -
> -
> > the final product will be approved ( but never certified)."

So if they know there is whey as an ingredient, and they know that there is
a reasonable likelihood that whey is produced as a by product of a
cheesemaking process that uses vegetarian rennet, but it might be that it is
produced as a by product of a cheesemaking process that uses animal rennet,
then they will approve it.  Or if they are not able to determine whether
this particular portion of whey contains traces of rennet.  But otherwise
they will not.  That is their personal policy.

> Aren't they asserting that they only rely on bitul when the thing being
> mevutal is not definitely a problem anyway?

Yes, I think they are, but that is not necessarily a view that has to be
taken by all authorities.  After all, what you have here is a double
leniency, ie it is a safek whether it is there, and if it is there, then it
is nullified anyway.  That is already a pretty stringent position.  But the
concept of an approved product does not need the approving authority to go
to this level of stringency, and not all authorities do.  Nor does the
analysis provided by the Kashrus Authority of Australia need one to go to
that level, even if that is what they themselves choose to do.  So when you
are discussing the distinction between approved and certified products,
while the analysis of the distinction made by the Kashrus Authority of
Australia may be useful, it is not appropriate to jump to the conclusion
that everybody therefore only approves products they would approve based on
their rules.

> 
> Since RZS mentioned "approved" products even in the US and Israel,
> unflavored (possibly only if not dark) beer is a famous example.
> Whisky.

Precisely.  Far more dubious halachically than anything we have come near to
discussing.

> The Star-K web site also has the traditional types of tea, including
> Earl
> Gray (which includes oil of bergomot and therfore I thiought it more of
> a
> chiddush) as not needing a hekhsher. Ended up not mattering to me,
> since
> by the time I got this answer from them, they started certifying a good
> and cheap importer anyway.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

"  Whereas "certified" is the next level where the OU
positively asserts that this particular packet of nuts is kosher; and
to say that they must verify that it really is so, and they can't rely
on bittul.
Zev Sero  "

They could, but choose not to.
As an aside, I believe Rav Moshe instructed them not to take money to
certify a product that contains bittul.


-- 
Martin Brody
310 474 1856
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111215/6fb0231b/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/12/2011 4:16 PM, martin brody wrote:
>> No, they could not, because it would be tantamount to bittul issur
>> lechatchila.

> If it is already in there, it's Bdievad (however that's spelled!)

No, it isn't.  That's the difference between the "approved" and
"certified" models.  If the goy is seeking our certification before
he manufactures the product, then he is making it for our benefit,
and giving him the OK to mix it is the same as mixing it ourselves.
Whereas if he is making it for his own purposes, and is merely doing
us a favour by disclosing to us after the event what he put in it,
then it's bediavad.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                 may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On 15/12/2011 2:39 PM, martin brody wrote:
> They could, but choose not to.

No, they could not, because it would be tantamount to bittul issur
lechatchila.

R' Rothenstein,

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 09:43:55PM CST, R Naftali Rothstein wrote:
: based on the MB ruling that you can take some ochel with the pesoles, and
: then it's not borer, you are right that it would not be borer. However,
: the reason I believe, that this is reasoning is not accepted so much
: with regards to a peeler is that not in every case and not with every
: peeler does a part of the ochel actually come off with it....

Is this a statement about the metzi'us of peeling or about the definition
of okhel vs pesoles?

Eg, there is no way to peel a potato or apple without removing /some/
of the "meat". And the "peel" of a carrot is arbitrarily thin. I don't
agree with this estimation of the metzi'us. And if this were the problem,
then wouldn't we be told to simply make sure to peel thickly?

OTOH, since the "peel" of a carrot is arbitrarily thin, I could see
arguing that the limit of the pesoles isn't defined until it is peeled.
This would mean that by definition whatever you remove is pesoles,
not okhel.

FWIW, using a peeler on Shabbos is one of those things "everyone" (in
my parents' neck of the shomer shabbos world) did in my youth that is
now found to be assur.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:33:11AM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: The neshama has just been cut off from his ability to do mitzvos,
: and from his ability to communicate to loved ones, and from many other
: activities. Regardless of how wonderful his new life might be, it seems
: obvious to me that he would experience some degree of pain and sadness at
: being deprived of these things, and would need some period of transition
: to get used to his new life. This is the comfort that we'd be asking
: Hashem to provide to him.

R' Aryeh Kaplan wrote in "If You Were G-d" the following description of
death <http://www.innernet.org.il/article.php?aid=79>. His description of
the kaf haqela is related to what RAM wrote here, but significantly different:

    ... When a man dies, he enters a new world of awareness. He exists
    as a disembodied soul and yet is aware of what is happening in
    the physical world. Gradually, he learns to focus on any physical
    event he wishes. At first this is a frightening experience. You
    know that you are dead. You can see your body lying there, with
    your friends and relatives standing around crying over you. We are
    taught that immediately after death, the soul is in a great state
    of confusion.(19)

    What is the main source of its attention? What draws its focus more
    than anything else?

    We are taught that it is the body. Most people identify themselves
    with their bodies, as we have discussed earlier. It is difficult
    for a soul to break this thought habit, and therefore, for the
    first few days, the soul is literally obsessed with its previous
    body. This is alluded to in the verse (Job 14:22), "And his soul
    mourns for him."(20)

    This is especially true before the body is buried.(21) The soul
    wonders what will happen to the body. It finds it to be both
    fascinating and frightening to watch its own body's funeral
    arrangements and preparation for burial.

    Of course, this is one of the reasons why Judaism teaches us that we
    must have the utmost respect for human remains. We can imagine how
    painful it is for a soul to see its recent body cast around like an
    animal carcass. The Torah therefore forbids this.

    This is also related to the question of autopsies. We can imagine how
    a soul would feel when seeing its body lying on the autopsy table,
    being dissected and examined.

    The disembodied soul spends much of its time learning how to focus. It
    is now seeing without physical eyes, using some process which we
    do not even have the vocabulary to describe. The Kabballists call
    this frightening process Kaf HaKela -- it is like being thrown with
    a sling from one end of the world to another.(22) It is alluded to
    in the verse (1 Sam. 25:29), "The soul of my master shall be bound
    up in the bundle of life with the Lord your God, and the souls of
    your enemies shall He sling out, as from the hollow of a sling." The
    soul perceives things flashing into focus from all over, and is in
    a state of total confusion and disorientation.

    One of the few things that the soul has little difficulty focusing
    on is its own body. It is a familiar pattern and some tie seems to
    remain. To some extent, it is a refuge from its disorientation.

    Of course the body begins to decompose soon after it is buried. The
    effect of watching this must be both frightening and painful. The
    Talmud teaches us, "Worms are as painful to the dead as needles in
    the flesh of the living, as it is written (Job 14:22), 'his flesh
    grieves for him.'"(23) Most commentaries write that this refers to the
    psychological anguish of the soul in seeing its earthly habitation in
    a state of decay.(24) The Kabbalists call this Chibut HaKever,(25) the
    punishment of the grave. We are taught that what happens to the body
    in the grave can be an even worse experience than the netherworld.(26)

    This varies among individuals. The more one is obsessed with one's
    body and the material world in general during his lifetime, the
    more he will be obsessed with it after death. For the man to whom
    the material was everything, this deterioration of the body is
    most painful. On the other extreme, the person who was imaged in
    the spiritual, may not care very much about the fate of his body
    at all. He finds himself very much at home in the spiritual realm
    and might quickly forget about his body entirely. This is what we
    are taught. Tzadikim are not bothered by Chibut HaKever at all,
    since they never consider their worldly body overly important.(27)

    In general, adjustment to the spiritual world depends greatly on
    one's preparation in this world. Our traditions teach us that the
    main preparation is through Torah....

    (19) Taz, Yoreh Deah 339:3. Cf. Avodah Zara 20b, Pirkei Rabbi Eliezer.

    (20) Shabbos 152a, Midrash Ne'elam, Zohar 1:122b.

    (21) Shabbos 152b, Sefer Mitzvos Gadol, Esin DeRabanan 2 (Vinitzia,
    5307) p. 246a.

    (22) Shabbos, ibid., Maharsha a.l., Zohar 1:217b, 3:185b, 222b.

    (23) Berachos 18b, Shabbos 152a.

    (24) Emunos VeDeyos 6:7, Tshuvos Rashba 369, Sefer Chasidim 1163,
    Tosfos Yom Tov 2:7, Tshuvos Sh'vus Yaakov 2:97, Zvi Hirsh Chayos on
    Shabbos 13b. Cf.  Tanchuma) VaYikra 8.

    (25) Emunos VeDeyos, ibid, Nishmas Chaim 2:24, Maaver Yavak 2:7.

    (26) Midrash Chibut HaKever in Reshis Chochmah, Shaar HaYirah 12, #3.

    (27) Emunos VeDeyos, ibid. Cf. Midrash Ne'elam, Zohar 1:123a.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Like a bird, man can reach undreamed-of
mi...@aishdas.org        heights as long as he works his wings.
http://www.aishdas.org   But if he relaxes them for but one minute,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      he plummets downward.   - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:41:52PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> So common sense says to behave safely and not to take stupid risks;
> but to turn this into a halachic proscription on specific acts is a
> great responsibility, and not something that can be done on the basis
> of a few studies.  How about just reminding people of the halacha we
> already know: "don't be an idiot"?

Given our attitude toward piquach nefesh and safeiq PN, I would think
that it take "great responsibility" NOT to point out something that
professionals in the field found to be a great risk.

> PS: See this article http://26i.mj.sl.pt (from Popular Mechanics),
> and this 2-year-old one http://26i.ml.sl.pt (from US News).  Also
> this one http://26i.mt.sl.pt (from PJ Media) about alcohol, and
> possible over-enforcement in that area.

But when in doubt, we're machmir -- in fact chamira saqanta mei'isura.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On 15/12/2011 9:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Given our attitude toward piquach nefesh and safeiq PN, I would think
> that it take "great responsibility" NOT to point out something that
> professionals in the field found to be a great risk.

"Professionals in the field" usually get their parnassah one way or
another from finding dangers, not from debunking them; I don't think
their word carries all that much weight.  One may point out what they say,
but I don't think one can turn it into a psak.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> No, it isn't.  That's the difference between the "approved" and
> "certified" models.  If the goy is seeking our certification before
> he manufactures the product, then he is making it for our benefit,
> and giving him the OK to mix it is the same as mixing it ourselves.
> Whereas if he is making it for his own purposes, and is merely doing
> us a favour by disclosing to us after the event what he put in it,
> then it's bediavad.

I think there may be some disagreement on this. To me, the agency is
being asked to certify that a product is kosher despite the presence
of bitul. You would(I presume) agree that it is kosher , but not if
it's lechatchila. Surely R,Moshe Feinstein would know that? Why bother
to tell the OU not to do it as a matter of policy?

Martin Brody

  From http://revach.net/article.php?id=4832

"V'Hu Naar," (Vayeishev 37:2) Rashi says that this means Yosef was
acting like a Naar always fixing his hair to look nice. Rav Shimon
Schwab asks, "How could this be? Yosef was a tzaddik and the prized
child of his Holy father, Yaakov.  How could he have a weakness for
something so trivial like playing with his hair?"

Rashi again says the same thing later on when Yosef was promoted in
Potifar's house; he again starts to play with his hair and forgets
that his father is suffering because of his unexplained
disappearance. Is this the "Nazir Echav" that the Torah talks about?

Rav Schwab answers that we find the Torah also calls Shechem ben
Chamor a "Naar". Yet we know Shechem was the oldest and most
important person in the kingdom after his father. There Rav Schwab
therefore concludes, that "Naar" does not mean young, but rather
impatient like young people. It means acting on impulse without
thoroughly thinking things through. This is what Shechem was guilty of.

Yosef had two dreams that told him he would be King. The Halacha is
that a King must be freshly groomed every day as the pasuk says
(Yeshaya 33:17), "Melech B'Yafyo Techezena Einecha; A King should be
seen in his glory."  Yosef acted impatiently and on impulse when at
the young age of seventeen he already behaved as if his dreams of
Kingdom materialized. Similarly, in Potifar's house, as soon as he
was promoted and sensed an ascent to leadership, he once again jumped
too fast and  began to take an interest in his regal appearance. For
this the Torah calls him a "Naar" as he should have waited for the
right time and not jumped at the first sniff of power.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111216/78b017af/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/sacks/135403243.html according to the chief 
rabbi, it's--
 One theme appears no less than six (possibly even seven) times. Whenever 
a member of the covenantal family leaves his or her own space and enters 
the wider world of their contemporaries, they encounter a world of sexual 
free-for-all. ....Emunah means faithfulness, loyalty, fidelity, honouring 
your commitments, doing what you said you would do and acting in such a 
way as to inspire trust. It has to do with relationships, first and 
foremost with marriage.
Sex belongs, for the Torah, within the context of marriage, and it is 
marriage that comes closest to the deep resonances of the biblical idea 
of covenant

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20111216/b0f38327/attachment-0001.htm>

On 15/12/2011 9:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Given our attitude toward piquach nefesh and safeiq PN, I would think
> that it take "great responsibility" NOT to point out something that
> professionals in the field found to be a great risk.

This is what happens when you change halacha based on what biased
"professionals in the field" come up with each week:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285980/fudging-numbers-mona-charen

http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 03:41:45PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 15/12/2011 9:19 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Given our attitude toward piquach nefesh and safeiq PN, I would think
>> that it take "great responsibility" NOT to point out something that
>> professionals in the field found to be a great risk.
>
> This is what happens when you change halacha based on what biased
> "professionals in the field" come up with each week:
> http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/285980/fudging-numbers-m
> ona-charen
> http://inside.mines.edu/~dkaffine/CELLACCIDENTS.pdf

And high rates of emphysema among Jews who could have known better
decades ago, but are taught to distrust the experts.

Bottom line is that we have a chiyuv to do the best we can to keep
ourselves and others alive. And that means playing the odds, not
pointing at the people bucking general consensus because of the
minority of cases where they turn out to be right.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 17/12/2011 5:57 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Bottom line is that we have a chiyuv to do the best we can to keep
> ourselves and others alive. And that means playing the odds, not
> pointing at the people bucking general consensus because of the
> minority of cases where they turn out to be right.

What makes you think that a few studies from a handful of people who
are highly nogeia badavar is "playing the odds"?  What makes you think
they turn out to be wrong in only a minority of cases?

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 249
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."