Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 356

Thursday, February 10 2000

• Re[2]: Beano
• re: Video cameras
• [none]
• Viedo Cameras
• Re: FW: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• RE: Video cameras
• RE: Video cameras
• Gezel Akum, Seridei Esh and the Suppression of Historical Evidence
• Seride Esh, Meiri
• RE opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim" (was "3 quest ions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)")
• Re: publishing letters - issur?
• limiting posts (editing posts)

do you want others (or Hashem) to scrutivinze YOUR parnosso?)  Would you be 
willing to subject yourself to haveing to justify what YOU earn?

I know I would NOT!

d'sani li lo avid lechavri.

As a matter of principle I leave OTHER people's parnoos up to Hashem.

It ain't easy, but I think it falls udner the rubric of lo sachmod.

I don't know about preying on people, in this society caveat emptor applies.

As long as there is no fraud of deception involved.

I'd rather be machmir on supporting others in their parnosso; that's a chumro 
I've learned to live with, and I PRAY they would help me out if I needed such 
assitance.

Kol Yisreol arivin.  Dou think that supporting colgate-palmolive or proctor 
Gamble is a higher good than supporting Adwe?

I thought is was a mitzvo so do busines with Talmidei chachomim and shomrei 
shabbos.  Am I missing something?

If these business are indeed over-charging, why not write to them in the spirit 
of Hocheiach tochiach instead of boycotting them in favor of doing business with
some facesless corporation?

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Beano 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    2/10/2000 10:02 AM


On Thu, 10 Feb 2000 08:34:25 -0500 <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com> writes:

<<Better they learn in Kollel?>>

	Maybe.

	There's always the option of working for a living,  whether in a 
business that does not prey   

(1.  Don't pun this one!!!     
 2.  I use the word,  as strong as it sounds,  because a more appropriate
one does not come to mind right now.)

on ignorant temimim in an attempt to separate them from their hard earned 
money under the pretense that product X with a hechsher is so much more 
kosher than product X which doesn't NEED a hechsher, or for an honest 
wage.  

Gershon

Some people may not be aware that Yeshivat Aish Hatorah operates the Kotel
Kam (http://www.kotelkam.com/). This is a video camera which is near the
Kotel, and 24/7 you can see what's going on there. If you register for the
website (which is free) you can even point the camera in whatever direction
you want, and zoom in for closeups. On a Friday afternoon in the US, you can
watch the crowds gather for Mincha and Kabalas Shabbos, and disperse after
Shabbos Maariv.

To my mind, any heterim which might apply to the security cameras in an
apartment building would not apply to the Kotel Kam. Heterim based on Aino
Miskavayn would also not apply, since many of the people there do know about
the Kotel Kam, and Aish Hatorah surely does not intend for them to never
visit the Kotel on Shabbos again!

So I figured that they would be a good source of information regarding the
use of video cameras on Shabbos. As it turns out, others beat me to it, and
this question was already answered in their "Ask The Rabbi" archives, at
http://aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=kam&f=tqak&offset=1 which says:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The Western Wall camera is kept running on Shabbos.

The reason for this is:

1) Nobody is doing anything on Shabbos to operate the camera. It sits in a
locked box in the Aish HaTorah building and runs automatically. It's like
turning your light on Friday afternoon, and leaving it on throughout
Shabbos. No problem.

2) But isn't it still a problem for the people at the Wall who are being
photographed? The camera takes a digital picture, and the color of the
clothes one is wearing affects the compression and the transmission time of
the picture. If one is wearing a multi-colored plaid suit in the picture,
then the compression is less and the internet transmission would be longer
(compared to a black or white suit which would have more compression and
shorter transmission). Therefore doesn't the person in the picture affect
how much work the computer does?

That is also no problem. A person's movement activates nothing; the camera
merely takes still shots - receiving the rays of light reflected off the
person every fraction of a second.

By the way, this does not apply to sound recordings. In that case, a
person's speech (an action done by ME) hits the microphone and causes
microscopic sparks to be formed as it is transformed into electronic
signals. As such it is prohibited to make a sound recording on Shabbos.

There is another basic distinction between a person activating the
microphone to speak to a large audience, or someone who simply passes an
activated camera nonchalantly. On Shabbat, we are obligated to refrain from
"Malechet Machshevet" - a premeditated action (Talmud - (Baba Kama 26b).

The great Rabbi Moshe Feinstein gives four reasons for prohibiting the
intentional use of a microphone on Shabbat (Igrot Moshe - Orach Chaim 3:55).
Hearing aids for the deaf are permitted (Igrot Moshe - Orach Chaim 3:55).
Similarly, it is permissible to have a camera or tape recorder that records
a person praying at the Wall.

These issues have been checked out with the leading halachic authorities of
our generation.

By the way, I think sunset on Friday is the most beautiful time of the week
at the Wall. So by being in an earlier time zone, you do have the unique
opportunity to tune in early on Friday. Of course, I appreciate your caution
about not viewing the Wall when it is Shabbos for you in LA. We would
certainly not want to be the cause of any Jew infringing on the sanctity of
his Shabbos!

Happy viewing - and please come visit us in Jerusalem. (There's nothing like
the real thing!)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My comments: This brings back very strong memories of discussions about
deleting Hashem's Name from a computer screen. People were arguing back and
forth, until someone mentioned that the screen is constantly refreshed, and
no actual erasure ever occurs, and that seemed to be the decisive argument,
ending the discussion. (Although I'm still not convinced that this logic
works for an LCD screen.)

Similarly, Aish Hatorah has given a clear distinction between a microphone
(old-style ones, at least) and a video camera. A microphone has a constant
current running through it, which is directly affected by the changes in the
voice. In contrast, a video camera first scans from left-to-right at the top
of its view, and then scans the next line down, and so on to the bottom of
the view. Then it looks at the top line again, which may or may not have
changed since last time, but in any case it does not record actual *motion*,
but it merely records whether or not a color is there at this discrete
moment.

I think an argument against cameras could still be made, because if I had
not been here, then that pixel would have been black, but because I am here,
the pixel is lit up, and so I am perhaps responsible for lighting it. On the
other hand, even this is far more passive than previous posts on the topic
have suggested.

Akiva Miller

Subject: Re: opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re "onim v'omrim

	In the 2 places in Chumash (that I can think of) where forms
of "anu v'am'ru" occur, it doesn't mean "answered and said" but rather
as I think Artscroll translates it "said loudly" - Dev. 21:7 (egla
arufa - who could the ziknei ha'ir be answering to?) and Dev. 26:5
(bikkurim - "v'anisa v'amarta").  The trope separates the two words in
21:7 (tipcha esnachta) but joins them in 26:5 (kadma v'azla).

	Off-topic: could someone provide a source for the issur
(mentioned in passing a few weeks ago) of tzitzis touching bare skin
of a makom m'chuseh (e.g. thigh)?  It seems odd that a tashmish mitzva
could not touch such a place whereas a tashmish kedusha (tefilin shel
yad) must touch such a place (upper arm) by gezeras hakasuv.

	Kol tuv. -Herschel Ainspan (ainspan@watson.ibm.com)

It is quite possible (even likely) that I missed it, but I don't recall
seeing the issue of 'autofocusing' features mentioned in this discussion.
Is this relevant?

-- Eric Simon

In Avodah 4#355, AEStein replied:
> I think you're missing R' Henkin's point: it is the phrasing that is
important.  By way of example, it *is* sensible to group "onu" with "zeh
kaili" rather than with "v'amru"....According to R' Henkin, it sounds like
this: "This is my G-d" we answered (pause).................and we said
"Hashem yimloch l'olam v'ed." I think R' Henkin's way is logical.  Grouping
the two verbs, IMHO and R' Henkin's opinion, does not sound right. <
Actually, I'm not missing your point (on behalf of Rav Henkin) at all.
With your permission, I would respond two ways:
-1- Your explanation, indeed, is logical, as we have "zeh Kaili" before the
"onu" and "Hashaim yimloch" after "v'omru."  However, this
one-verb-per-posuk[-fragment] doesn't extend to the "kulam k'echad"
situation.  If you want to hypothesize that "Rav Henkin's way" is more
conversational (a point also implied by MBerger's response in the same
digest), please feel free, but do also keep in mind that such a hypothesis
does not mean that his way is "the right way."  (BTW, I'll bring
possibly-conflicting nussach-based evidence re grouping "onu" with "zeh
Kaili" below, and, while I personally group 'em that way myself, I still
feel it's incorrect to label this way as "the right way"; I *don't* group
"onim" with "kulam k'echad" and, based on what I've written in a previous
message and in my next point, I see no reason to agree with such a
grouping, much less its "right way" labeling.)
-2- More importantly, the authors of these segments of the daily prayer
services did not invent the "onu v'omru" tuple any more than they invented
the p'sukim.  Off the top of my head, I can think of a few examples (all in
Saifer D'vorim -- see 21:7, 25:8, 27:14, 27:15) in TaNaCh and feel
confident in positing that these two verbs were meant by said authors to be
spoken together (with the result that we may need to resolve the relative
lack of conversational flow that you noted in some other manner -- at the
least, we should consider the possibility...).  Does this mean that "Rav
Henkin's way" is per se wrong?  I certainly wouldn't say that...but I
object to your describing it as "right."
> So, returning to "kulam k'echad", it *does* makes more sense to group
"onim" with the "kulam k'echad" rather than with the subsequent phrase
"v'omrim b'yir'ah". Unless one is davening nusach sefard; then it would be
"onim b'aimah" (pause) "v'omrim b'yir'ah".  <
But, you see, "[u]nless...nusach sefard" was part of my previous message's
point.  Given the various nus'cha'os, I believe we (i.e. you) are not
justified in insisting that "onim" be grouped with "kulam k'echad," as your
conversational-flow point doesn't extend either to the girsa of s'far'd'im
or to the nusach I noted Baer as finding in Machzor Roma.  (Note to GDubin
re his recent response: I see no problem [and you're free to disagree] with
"..., k'dushah, kulam k'echad, onim v'omrim..." [i.e. no verb attached to
"kulam k'echad"] for the reasons I have enunciated [(a) supported by the
variant girso'os (b) supported by use of "onu v'omru" in TaNaCh], even
though it's (as noted by Baer) relatively awkward...and it's our collective
job to nitpick our way to the truth, so no apologies are required!  BTW,
the same Machzor Roma is gorais, "...u'vin'imah *uvik*dusha..." which
ameliorates the awkwardness that doesn't at all exist in the "...u'vin'imah
k'doshah..." girsa brought by Avudraham.)  As for the "zeh Kaili" segment,
I brought Baer's Siddur Avodas Yisroel with me to the office (not wanting
to rely on my notoriously-incomplete memory) in order to quote to you and
the list the nus'cha'os that also exist for it:
         "'Ro'u bonecha': As CHaZaL said in the M'chilta, 'A maidservant
witnessed by the Yam what the n'vi'im never did.'  The s'faradim are
gorais, 'Ro'u bonecha al hayam <i.e. they have a girsa which more closely
reflects the M'chilta --MP> kulam hodu v'himlichu v'o'm'ru <i.e. "zeh Kaili
onu" is altogether missing --MP>; Rav Bachyai in P' B'shalach is gorais,
'Malchus'cho Hashaim ro'u bonecha bokai'a yam lifnai Moshe zeh Kaili onu
hodu v'himlichu <Q for the list: how do you want to break that verbal
*triple* up? :->'; and a variant, ancient nusach is '...lifnai Moshe zeh
Tzur yish'ainu potzu feh v'o'm'ru <a girsa that I'm familiar with due to
the lail-YT service...would you group "potzu feh" with "zeh Tzur
yish'ainu," too, or do you see a different flow with this girsa than the
"zeh Kaili onu" one? --MP>'...."

In summation, I want to thank AEStein for his heartfelt comments and
unintentional "the right way" spur in my side to review the sources behind
the words, and I hope that I haven't presented my points in too convoluted
a fashion.  I know I've learned from the exchange & hope y'all have, too!
and please continue to reply on any elements that aren't yet clear
(although I think I've covered all the issues that existed in my mind).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

> microphone connected to a digital recorder. You are actually causing
> circuits to open and close,

but nothing is *really* opening or closing -- the physical circuit doesn't
change at all.

Akiva



A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

> Assuming the problem is "boneh" (whatever the CI meant by
> that; makeh bipatish,
> maybe?) would it apply to activity within chips, where
> everything is going on
> microscopically?

But *nothing* is happening microscopically, at least nothing mechanical or
chemical.

Electronics work at an atomic level.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I have still not read the Sedei Hemed, because I do not understand what
mitzvah ha-ba'ah be=averah has to do with printing letters.  The
publication of the letters was not an attempt to fulfill a mitzvah.  The
halakhic issue is whether the publication of the letters itself violates
an issur.  If one wishes to speak homiletically about the ends not
justifying the means, then I do not see why you need to cite the Sedei
Hemed.

RYGB writes:

>See the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry on CDRG. It is based more on theft than
>on LH. And, thus, it is at least rudimentarily analogous to theft of
>intellectual property. So, continued use is tantamount to continued theft.

The problem with the "rudimentary analogy" to the theft of intellectual
property is that, in Halakhah, there is no such thing as theft of
intellectual property.  I just completed an article on halakhah and
copyright and, with the exception of the Shoel u-Meshiv, the Aharonim
agree that there is no halakhic ba'alut over intellectual property.
This is especially true about divrei Torah.  A number of Aharonim hold
that an author of hiddushim or hearot has first rights to publish his
own material, but even they agree that if the author does not choose to
publish them, anyone can.  There is also a big debate over the rights of
yoreshim, but that is not relevant in our case.

Moreover, even if there were a concept of gezel regarding intellectual
property, it could apply only to living people.  There is no concept of
ba'alut in Halakhah after death.  (Actually, I think the same is true in
Anglo-American law.)  So if the Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom indeed relates
to gezel, then there would seem to be a complete heter to publish
letters after the death of the writer.

>It pains me to have caused you sadness, particularly in Adar, but I hope you
>will find some solace in agreeably disagreeing with me.

Not just solace -- genuine hana'ah!

>If that was the entire thrust of the essay - we knew that.

Precisely.  But reading the letters definitely makes the knowledge more
vivid.  Also I am not sure if everyone knew that.  Do we all know that
R. Weinberg wrote his dissertation under a Christian scholar?  That the
two of them published an article together in the Hebrew Union College
Annual?  That he wrote positive articles about Ahad Ha-Am and
Berdichevsky?  Just because the information is there does not mean that
everyone has absorbed it.

>> Third, R. Weinberg's moral qualms regarding certain halakhot were
>> expressed in other forums as well, as I recall, including published
>> articles.  I believe this was documented in the following issue of the
>> TuM Journal.

>It was? I found the documentation distinctly lacking. I felt it was a
>concerted effort to dredge up more "dirt" that was *not* known or meant to
>meant to be known.

Okay, some history:  Before WWI, R. Weinberg wrote an essay in a Hebrew
journal journal discussing halakhot that seem to discriminate against
Gentiles.  In 1936 he collected this essay with others and published
them in a book entitled Li-Frakim.  The book was republished in abridged
form in Israel in 1967.  You should be able to find it in many good
Jewish institutional libraries.

One person's dirt is another person's compliment.

>You see, the TuM essay was successful! People who know very little more
>about the SE now assume he was much more of a TuMnik than an associate of
>the CI or R' Dessler. Nothing, of course, could be further from the truth
>(well, I guess that's an exaggeration, but we do like hyperbole).

Well, you seem to assume that there is a setirah between being a TuMnik
and being an associate of the Hazon Ish and R. Dessler.  Why should that
be true?

>Many fine people had Ph.D.'s and were adamantly opposed to TuM. Rabbi Dr.
>Joseph Breuer comes to mind.

True but irrelevant.  The Seridei Esh was a strong advocate of blending
traditional Genara learning with modern academic methods, which was
anathema to R. Breuer and other Hirschians.  This too is well documented
in a lecture printed in LiFrakim and translated into English by list
member Shalom Carmy in Tradition (Summer 1989).

>As a former member of Bnei Akiva (Shevet Re'ut) who gave a pe'ulah on this
>teshuva of the SE long ago, let me note that his heter was given to a far
>more right wing youth group, and that ardent BAniks find it wholly
>inadequate and far too RW for those prurposes.

All true.  But one will not find a similar heter in the Minhat Yitzhak.

>Again, as documented by the new RD Joseph Breuer bio, the Agudath Israel
>youth group in Washington Heights (not, again, exactly, a bastion of TuM,
>despite its neighbor across the neighborhood) was mixed, by special
>dispensation to the Yekkes, well into the Sixties.

I am not sure what this proves, but it is interesting.

>As to his hashkofo, who knows to whom it was closer? He was an ardent
>Mussarist - not exactly standard for a TuMnik, and, when you open a SE and
>see teshuvos that begin with "yedid nafshi" and other honorifics addressed
>to people named Gifter, Breish, Lopian and Hurwitz (the last now one of the
>Dayanim of the Eida Charedis) - one has some idea with whom he felt most
>associated.

Well, I think that if you want to get a full picture of his hashkafah,
you have to look at everything he wrote.  Indeed, it seems that those
who objected to the article were not interested in a full picture, but
the partial picture that they were most comfortable with.  No one denies
that R. Weinberg felt close to gedolim; the hiddush is that he was able
to maintain a warm relationship with Prof. Atlas as well.  Incidentally,
though Prof. Atlas taught at HUC, I understand from M. Shapiro that he
was not what people would call a Reform Jew; he seems to have been
shomer halakhah, though his de'ot were not Orthodox.

>Words cannot describe how dubious I find REC's proposed attempts to cobine
>us that one set of selected letters to one specific inividual capture the
>hashkafic profile of that person, particulary a complex Gadol b'Yisroel.

Didn't say that and don't think it.  Indeed, the letters testify to a
complexity that, in some circles, is not considered fashionable for a
gadol.

>> On the other hand, what a person writes to an e-mail list with 100's of
>> subcribers may not be what he or she really thinks.  And I am definitely
>> not going to tell anyone here what I really think!

>Too bad. I try to.

So you say.  But how do I know that you are not just trying to be
mekarev me?

Gershon Dubin asks:

>What are you posting if not what you really think?  I am totally thrown
>by this last comment.  Please elaborate.

Ah well, obviously irony does not communicate well via e-mail.  I did
not intend to throw you.  I intended to demonstrate what I considered
the most subversive aspect of RYGB's e-mail -- the notion that we cannot
know what R. Weinberg meant in these letters, that they may be hyperbole
or an attempt at kiruv or anything other than an honest expression of
his feelings at that moment.  I call it subversive because, applying it
more broadly, it means that we can never, ever trust anyone to mean what
they say (let alone gedolim!).  You cannot be sure that I mean what I
write, and I cannot be sure that you mean what you write.  Neither of us
can be sure that R. Weinberg means what he wrote.  I think this approach
of radical skepticism is not merely unhealthy but socially destructive.

Now perhaps that is not what RYGB was suggesting.  Perhaps he simply
meant that when Gedolim write to professors at HUC, we cannot know if
they mean what they say.  But I still find that troubling.


Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Bechhofer has noted that Rav Weingort (who can most claim to be Rav
Weinberg's heir today, although I don't know the legal status) gave
permission for the letters to be published, albeit he thought that they
would b e published in a different type of forum.  Indeed, many of those
letters were already published in Marc Shapiro's PhD thesis.  Given the
fact that there was permission to publish, and that they were already
published (albeit in an obscure source),one can complain about the venue
that it was actually published in, but how does CDRG apply?  There was
permission to publish.    Furthermore, the estate of Shmuel Atlas gave
those letters to JTS to hold in their library, where they were available
to anyone who wanted to look at  them.    What is the significant
halachic difference  between giving permission to scholars to examine
them and printing in a general Jewish magazine?

(Technical question about CDRG  - who has the right to object, the
sender, recipient, or both? I thought that Shmuel Atlas would have been
the only one who could claim CDRG against the letter (once it was
received, and I doubt that he would have objected...

As the Seride Esh was one of the few major poskim who was actively
interested in Wissenschaft  (RYGB - do you disagree with that
statement?), it would seem that he would be the one least opposed to
history and getting the right data...(Rav Schwab and Rav Dr Breuer
clearly had different perspectives on history, and arguments over
Wissenschaft was one of the major disagreements between Rav Hirsch and
Rav Hildesheimer.  Wissenschaft is somewhat different than torah umadda,
but it is on the same axis... )

With regard to using the Meiri, without getting into documentation about
whether the Seride Esh published the positions in those letters in other
tshuvot, the Seride Esh did use previously  unknown rishonim in his
shut, and did not hold by the Hazon Ish's shitta about such rishonim.

Lastly, my recollection is that rav YE Henkin has also written that the
halacha today is like the Meiri.  This, therefore, was not a unique
position.  Indeed rav Weinberg, in his letter, suggests that everyone
paid lipservice to the Meiri being accepted, and that at that time,
opposition to the Meiri's position was whispered.  Perhaps the fact that
we find his position disturbing reflects on us.

Meir Shinnar

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF73EC.AB136670
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"

I wrote:
> So, returning to "kulam k'echad", it *does* makes more sense to group
"onim" with the "kulam k'echad" rather than with the subsequent phrase
"v'omrim b'yir'ah". Unless one is davening nusach sefard; then it would be
"onim b'aimah" (pause) "v'omrim b'yir'ah".  <

Michael Poppers wrote:
<snip>
>But, you see, "[u]nless...nusach sefard" was part of my previous message's
point.  Given the various nus'cha'os, I believe we (i.e. you) are not
justified in insisting that "onim" be grouped with "kulam k'echad," as your
conversational-flow point doesn't extend either to the girsa of s'far'd'im
or to the nusach I noted Baer as finding in Machzor Roma.
<snip>

======> Just to clarify:  I never "insisted" that "onim" be grouped with
"kulam k'echad" for everyone, only those who daven nusach ashkenaz (or,
given the wide variety of nuschaos, make that nusach Artscroll) (and say
"kedusha" and not "k'dosha").  I believe I made it clear that, according to
R' Henkin, there is a rule (words of davening should fit in as if it were a
conversation) that is to be applied in an appropriate manner, depending on
whatever nusach is being used.

Finally, I realize now that I should have put the words "the right way" in
quotes when I first used them.  I did not mean to imply that what R' Henkin
said was the final word on this issue.  The "spur" was indeed unintentional.

KT
Aryeh

------_=_NextPart_001_01BF73EC.AB136670
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DISO-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2650.12">
<TITLE>RE  opinion of Rav Henkin z'tz'l' re &quot;onim v'omrim&quot; =
(was &quot;3 questions (Go'al Yisrael out loud)&quot;)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>I wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; So, returning to &quot;kulam k'echad&quot;, it =
*does* makes more sense to group</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;onim&quot; with the &quot;kulam k'echad&quot; =
rather than with the subsequent phrase</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;v'omrim b'yir'ah&quot;. Unless one is davening =
nusach sefard; then it would be</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&quot;onim b'aimah&quot; (pause) &quot;v'omrim =
b'yir'ah&quot;.&nbsp; &lt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Michael Poppers wrote:</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt;But, you see, &quot;[u]nless...nusach =
sefard&quot; was part of my previous message's</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>point.&nbsp; Given the various nus'cha'os, I believe =
we (i.e. you) are not</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>justified in insisting that &quot;onim&quot; be =
grouped with &quot;kulam k'echad,&quot; as your</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>conversational-flow point doesn't extend either to =
the girsa of s'far'd'im</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>or to the nusach I noted Baer as finding in Machzor =
Roma.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&lt;snip&gt;</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D&gt; Just to clarify:&nbsp; I never =
&quot;insisted&quot; that &quot;onim&quot; be grouped with &quot;kulam =
k'echad&quot; for everyone, only those who daven nusach ashkenaz (or, =
given the wide variety of nuschaos, make that nusach Artscroll) (and =
say &quot;kedusha&quot; and not &quot;k'dosha&quot;).&nbsp; I believe I =
made it clear that, according to R' Henkin, there is a rule (words of =
davening should fit in as if it were a conversation) that is to be =
applied in an appropriate manner, depending on whatever nusach is being =
used.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Finally, I realize now that I should have put the =
words &quot;the right way&quot; in quotes when I first used them.&nbsp; =
I did not mean to imply that what R' Henkin said was the final word on =
this issue.&nbsp; The &quot;spur&quot; was indeed =
unintentional.</FONT></P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>KT</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Aryeh</FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF73EC.AB136670--

Who has no legal heirs?  The Sridei Esh or Prof. Atlas?  Is it not possible
that Prof Atas, the legal owner of the letters put them in the public domain
for Prof. Shapiro to see?


----- Original Message -----
From: Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 7:49 PM
Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?


> He has none.
>
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
> http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2000 2:52 PM
> Subject: Re: publishing letters - issur?
>
>
> > Then perhaps his legal heirs gave permission?
> >
>
>
>

One thing we also could do in terms of limiting the bandwith and seeming
pointlessness of some posts is folks can take the extra 30 seconds or so
and and block/cut/delete all but the specific pesukim in a post they are
replying to -- I just went through 3 digests which easily could have been
2 digests if not for repeated postings verbatim. 

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


[ 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         ]