<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">In regard to my posting:<div><br></div><div>I stand corrected and appreciate ZS's correction: "*Beis* Shammai and *Beis* Hillel. This is not one of the three known</div>disputes between Hillel and Shammai."<div><br></div><div>I am aware that the three known disputes between H. & S. are niddah, chalah and mikveh (Mishna Eduyot 1:1-3)</div><div><br></div><div>For those who may have not understood what I meant, I should have said <b>BEIS</b> Shammai and <b>BEIS</b> Hillel. What this correction brings to mind is Psalm 8:5.</div><div><i>Ma enosh ke siz'k'renu uven adam...</i>, etc. Somewhere I recall seeing a commentary that though e-<i>nosh </i>denotes man as mortal and frail (and probably is </div><div>etymologically derived from Enosh, Adam's grandson, nevertheless, the word MAN technically refers only to Adam Harishon since he was the FIRST MAN, </div><div>per se and we are all the <b>Children</b> (or <b>Sons</b>) of man. [As we are either ploni BEN ploni or BAS ploni]. </div><div><br></div><div>rich wolberg</div><div>(son of man)</div></body></html>