Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 074

Friday, December 21 2001

• Re: TIDE and TuM
• Re: Out of Context! Rambam and REED
• Re: On Learning Tefillah
• Re: Out of context
• Re: R' Akiva Miller's Question
• Halachic Methodology
• Re: Bimheirah biyameinu
• Re: Torah Temima
• Re: The Torah Temimah
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Torah Temimah
• Re: halacha methodology
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Re: Torah Temimah
• RE: Hashem 'Imakhem
• Rights and Entitlements
• Re: Sarah w/o womb
• Re: Dr. Eliezer Berkowitz and the Abrogation of the Shulchan Aruch
• Re: halacha methodology
• "Umach shmoy vezichroy..."
• TORAH TEMIMAH
• Re: Torah Temimah
• Re: TORAH TEMIMAH

On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 04:08:08PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
>: Bottom line RYBS had aun underlying search for a unitary ratoinal reason,
>: instead of seeing things as flowing out of series of minute decisoins
>: nad parallels taken on by kehillos over time. This need for reason is
>: remiscent of Frankl's eaarch for meaning...

In a message dated 12/19/01 12:01:57pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> It is also very Brisk. Paskening based on theory rather than from precedent
> of kehillos. Building that theory from common underlying principles that
> are uniform across multiple inyanim.

Indeed it is Brisk. I heave embrace Brisk in the area of lamdus, but I
have always felt inthe area of Psak they have been wiling to radically
deaprt with precdent w/o adressing the underlying svaras behind the
accepted minhag. This to me steps over the line. IMHO you may not
disregard the post-Talmudic poskim's great consensu w/o and re-construct
Halachah from the TB w/o a strong imperative to do so.

IIRC One of our Chaveirim concurred with me off-list that we ONLY ignore
Post-Talmudic precdent in the cases of dire need...

OTOH, I have no problem with re-consturctin pshat in the realm of
parshanus, and IMOH Brisk is a valid approach.

Just to be consistent I would not overturn Halachah on the basis of newly
discovered manuscripts either. Halachah ought to evolve WITHIN the system
and not overturned by "end-aorund" factors, be they svar, archaeology etc.

See the Aruch Hashulchan - ORach Chaim 4:19 IT is possible to sya Al
netilas Yadaim and so is masham from the Rashba but how the Rosh and
the Tur paskened EXPLICITLY al neikiyus yadaim and How can we override
their words?

IOW, The AH did not buy the Rosh/Tur Svara, but he was unwilling to
revise an explicit psak on a mashma'us.

And I'll bet if he DID override it, he would have addressed their svara
first and not just over-ride it by presuming that his own svara was
somehow superior.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

RYGB wrote:
>The quote is not, to the best of my knowledge, precise, rather a colloquial 
>synopsis of the Rambam in the Hakdomo to Zera'im.

In another post:
>Quite the Rambam in context - check it out, in the standard Vilna Shas 55b 
>at the end of Berachos, first column.

Kaffih ed., vol. 1 pp. 23-24

In yet another post:
>Ha'me'ayein yivchar... But I continue to maintain that the CI/REED/
>Volozhin model is a natural ramification of the Rambam/YS philosophy.

I see RYGB's point. The Rambam says that the entire world was created
for the Chacham. Others were created to facilitate the Chacham.

This seems to directly translate into Rav Dessler's principle. So what
if the average or even above average student does not succeed to the best
of his ability? The system has facilitated the rise of the Chacham which,
according to the Rambam, is the point of everything in this world.

This elitism of the Rambam seems to be consistent throughout his earlier
and later writings. It does not mean that we have to follow it. It just
means that Rav Dessler was basing himself on the Rambam's elitism.

Gil Student

R Avi Berger [Micha's father] wrote:
>With all that is going on in Eretz Yisroel, with Am Yisroel and with our 
>friends here, don't you with you could do something? Let's use our gift of 
>leadership to pilot a program to develop communication with HQBH.

>Development implies learning. I would like to propose a chaburah/
>chavrusah program directed towards the greater understanding of tefilah, 
>its meaning and purpose. We will then have a better sense of what we want 
>to communicate to HQBH, HIS response, and an unserstanding that will help 
>us elevate our conversation with HQBH to a more meaningful, purposeful, and 
>enjoyable experience.

Might I suggest a weekly sheet on tefillah rather than the standard
parsha sheet. It can be filled with short commentaries/insights on
davening of which, hopefully, at least some will stick in our minds and
help us channel our thoughts during davening. I certainly don't have
time to put it together. But there are so many people writing parsha
sheets, maybe we can convince one to change his/her topic? It could
be as easy as taking out an Otzar HaTefillos and maybe one or two other
commentaries and going through, week by week, the various tefillos and
pointing out/translating important ideas.

Gil Student

In a message dated 12/10/01 9:47:18pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Perhaps the Rambam holds that the world is created only for the few wise
> people -- and anyone can be one. (Which is why I removed the word smart
> from the criterion.)

How about the Rambam would hold that the world is created for
anyone/everyone to become wise, albeit so far only the ver yfew have
succeeded

In American Tradition the meaning of "All men are Create equal" is not
a fact of ho people are mamash created but rather an indicator of the
ideal of eqaul opportunity

simlarly, The Rambam's view of bria (misvara and not from sources)
might be that the Briah is an equal opportunity for anyone to achieve
wosdom {Da'as es Hashem}.

Q: is the Rambam's dei'a = Gnosis?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

In a message dated 12/11/01 3:35:47pm EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> The CI stated, in R' Schlesinger's presence, that it was not possible
> for the State to survive more than ten years. Of course, the CI did
> not survive that long, so it was not possible for him, in any event, to
> adjust a course that may well have been set with that reckoning in mind.

> I believe that all subsequent evolution may be traced along these lines.

Just a historical parallel.
Eisenhower headed the Nato forces circa 1948. He was convinced that Communism 
would not last 10 years and therefore took a more passive stance than others 
did during the Cold War.  Well, the Cold War lasted 40 years and not 10, and 
in retrospect Ike had seriously underestimated the staying power of the ever 
imploding Communist Regime....

I would speculate that had the CI seen the spiritual revival of 1967, he 
might have been more sanguine about the State.  Where is the Ruach of 1967 
anyway?

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

I wrote:
>At Footnote 71 here there is, among other references, a reference to >the
>long Shach at the end of YD 442 where there is an extensive discussion
>of how the klallim of safek de-oreita etc. are used. My understanding

The reference to the Shach was a typo. I meant YD 242.
IIUC this discusses on how Pesak works when there is a Safek that cannot be 
resolved.

In a message dated 12/12/01 4:48:38pm EST, Chana@KolSassoon.net writes:
> It is not clear to me whether that chiyuv (ie of kares)
> kicks in if the reason you did not bring the korban pesach is because
> you failed to go to mikvah and hence were not tahor due to your own
> (in)action or whether the kares is only applicable if you fail to bring
> the korban pesach when you happen to be in a tahor state.

Bepashtus Chevra Kadisha is pattur from KP...

A woman who is Tamei because she is unsure of when ot go to the Mikveh
is bepashtus Tamei and ptura from KP.

I don't know if someone was bemeizid metamei themselves what the din is.
AIUI people MAY bemeizid travel lederech rechoka in order to aovid a
chiyyuv KP.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
<A HREF="RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com">RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com</A>

There is a series of three articles on the TT in the journal published
by Rav Landa of Bnei Brak. I do not remember the title (and issue)
of this journal (I saw it in a shul), but its editor is Rav Tobias.

The series includes an article by R. Yehoshua Mondshein, showing that many
Mekor Baruch stories about the Tzemach Tzedek (and Chabad in general) are
inconsistent with reliable sources and known facts. Also a two-parsha
excerpt of notes on the TT by "gadol echad Miyrushalayim", which gives
sources and corrections. Perhaps some of our Israeli members know the
name of the journal and how to get it.

Daniel Schiffman

The notion that the TT was not viewed as always reliable has
been circulating in Yeshivische circles( even within YU) for many
years. Nevertheless, the TT, The Malbim and Netziv represent the
response of Easrern European Jewry to the challenges of Haskalla ,
etc which are simply ignored or condemned in many seforim of their
contemporaries. There is a well known story that someone mentioned to
RYBDS that the Nussach haBracha was Mkadesh Yisrael and that HaZamanim
was a printer's mistake. RYBS completely rejected such a notion

Steve Brizel
Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I heard R A Feldman give his opinion of the Torah Temimah. He feels there
> is a chiyuv to let people know that the seifer is not as valuable as it
> looks....
> Anyone else hear someone of note question the TT's (the sefer, not the
> person) merit?

As a matter of fact, I have.  It is interesting that R.A.Feldman said this at 
Ner Israel.  I spent about 7 yrs there, and it seems to be well known there, 
and I have heard from a couple of RaMim that the sefer is faulty in a number 
of ways, including bad peshatim and strong evidence of plagarism, down to the 
spelling errors of the original sefarim he was copying from.  I would not be 
surprised if R'A.Feldman first heard of this appraisal  when learning at NIRC.

Raffy

(1) There is an article (read: critique) on the Torah Temimah in a recent
issue of Tradition.

(2) I have a copy of the Meshivas Nafesh (Nefesh?) written by a Rabbi
Feldman (not the one you cite, but perhaps related) - with a haskama
from the Mehaber TT himself - which is a set of mareh mekomos as well
as a *lot* of corrections.

(3) In the new Siddur Ezor Eliyahu (Nusah ha-Gra), they make mention
of the Barukh SheAmar (=TT) and take him to task for inventing (wrong)
ideas yesh me-ayin.

(4) I recall seeing some criticism of TT in Rav Kasher's Torah
Shelema. While I don't remember the places, this should not be surprising
considering that their goals were similar in nature, but the products
are seemingly vastly different, both qualitatively and quantitaively.

(5) Apparently in some RW yeshivos, TT is not allowed because of some
of his comments, in particular his view on the relevance of Issur Ribbis
in contemporary society.

-Larry

RRW>Coudl be I am loking into this
> Ch M 25 does deal wit hissur v'heter, and I withdraw my questoin on that
> point
> However Ch M 5 also deals with a bedieved - Dayan sheta'ah....

Clearly monetary issues is also lchathila to argue on precedent, just
like issur v'heter.

RRW>I also know MANY Conservative rabbis who feel that ONLY the Gmara
> is binding.

hal'vai there should be even one

RRW>FWIW, the Aruch Hashulchan CH M 25 claims that bthe Ba'alei SA are
> binding; I'm no sure he means more than SA/Rema or not IOW is Shach
> included etc.

I think you are looking at sif katan 13 regarding "kim li"; see instead
sif katan 2, especially at the end that "darka shel Torah" is for a
chacham to CONTRADICT post-Shas precedent.

RRW>if Ravina and Rav Ashi are indeed sof hor'a'h how come Tosafos
> endeavors to ratoinalize Minhaggim that counter the simple meaning of
> the text?

A: Because minhag IS correct and that IS pshat in the Gemara. Really
minhag is a much broader discussion. Till now we were discussing Shut
precedent.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 03:09:16PM -0500, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
:                               It is interesting that R.A.Feldman said this at 
: Ner Israel.  I spent about 7 yrs there, and it seems to be well known there, 
: and I have heard from a couple of RaMim that the sefer is faulty in a number 
: of ways...                                                    I would not be 
: surprised if R'A.Feldman first heard of this appraisal when learning at NIRC.

I would. His affiliation with NIRC is only a few months old.

-mi

At 09:35 PM 12/20/01 +0000, Micha Berger wrote:
>I would. His affiliation with NIRC is only a few months old.

Huh?
Isn't he an alumnus?

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

R' Rich W wrote <<The imperative to give shalom is based upon Hashem
Imachem and Yevarechah Hashem - neither form we use today>>

Again we see limitation to "our" small closed group. Many Sefaradim,
before they make the initial b'rakha when getting an aliya, call out
"Hashem 'Imakhem" and the kahal answers "Y'varekh'kha Hashem". Also in
Bnei Akiva circles the terms are sometimes used a a greeting.

k"t
David

[The following is built from two scjm posts. The first provides emotional
context and content. In either case, please make allowances for the
difference in target audience. Two perople thought the chevrah would be
interested. -mi]

(My apologies in advance if this ends up coming across as maudlin.
I had to write it to someone.)

10 years ago today, the 4th of Tevet, my wife came home from a class
offered by the local chevrah kaddishah (Volunteer Burial Society) aimed
at getting recruits. She walked over to the carriage to get Aliza Kayla,
our three month old baby. I was sleeping off some antihistimines. Until
Siggy's frantic screams woke me up. The baby was blue. Siggy tried CPR,
the EMTs tried (half-heartedly, they knew it was too late), no help.

My thoughts that night: Pain. Fear for Siggy's sanity. We sat in a
side-room at the ER, a couple of blocks from my home. My wife laid
down at one point and just stared at a point beyond the wall. For
hours. Thank G-d we had three other children (now 9) for me to focus
her on. Shock. More pain.

I called my parents while the EMTs were working on her. My voice,
not my words, had them across the city and in the hospital in half the
usual time.

Eventually, the same women from the chevrah kaddishah showed up. (But
burial had to wait a few days for a court battle.) Thre cops wanted to
know why we did not have this baby on an apnea monitor if we had a history
of apnea with an older son. Rafi is ours via adoption; Kayli was not.

I do not recall how or when, but we got home. The neighbors had taken the
carriage and put it in the cellar. The crib and baby clothes put away,
mirrors were already covered. Our /remaining/ children (which is how I
distinctly recall thinking of it) were up watching Cinderella on video
despite it being a few hours before dawn.

We held them, cried, and got everyone to bed.

My thoughts the next morning were more coherent. Our LOR and a local
lawyer dealt with the court issues with my parents, I was kept out of
the loop. They ended up doing a tissue sample to rule out some congenital
issue. (Which would be halachically okay, there could be other children
at risk.) I still think they checked for malicious suffocation, but I
can't prove that -- and everyone is so out to protect me they would lie
either way.

One overriding thought that day, through burial, and well past shiv'ah,
was "Why me?"

I think this is when I formed a position you have heard me mouth off
about numerous times, my disdain for the psychology of entitlement.

It hit me that "Why me?" presumes that I had a right to expect otherwise.
My grandfather's generation would not. Yet in the blink of a historical
eye, the death of my daughter became the abnormality. In truth, it is
the survival of our other 9 that is the miracle. Entitlement means that
our blessings are taken for granted rather than counted, it is due course
after all.

We need to break out of the sense that we /ought/ to have good things.
It leads to being an ingrate.

I wrote something similar after Shifra's fall down a cliff last summer.
The greater miracle was not that she fully recovered from her injuries.
Rather, think of the Divine Protection offered all those children who
did not have a close call that day! How many of us remember to thank
G-d when nothing goes almost-wrong?

As I have often argued, I think the sense entitlement is a danger of
the rights-based society that we live in. We view the world in terms of
what rights it grants us. We have no *right* to healthy children -- they
are a gift we ought be thanking G-d (and our doctors, teachers, etc...)
for continually.

During shiv'ah, people said goodbye with the traditional formula: May
the Omnipresent have mercy on you amongst all the others mourners of
Zion and Jerusalem. Many, of not most, then added in English, Yiddish,
or a mixture of the two: and you shall know from no more pain.

My father was not happy with this ammendation. Thought it showed why
people should stick to the designed formula -- not because their sentiment
is wrong, but because when you innovare, you do not know what emotional
issues you will raise. My father hopes I feel more pain. Thank G-d, both
Siggy and I have both of our parents. Think how much greater tragedy would
be implied by the idea that we would never again sit shiv'ah. Children
ought sit shiv'ah. Far worse is when parents do. (I assume this thought
crossed his mind because it was the matter at hand.)

Speaking of my father, his overriding impression is how his entire world
changed in the few seconds it took to answer a single phone call.

Kayli had learned to giggle in response to Mommy's peek-a-boo that
day. Apparantly that was her mission in life.

Laugh with someone you love -- don't take them for granted.



[Now, for a more cerebral follow-up. -mi]

On 20 Dec 2001 18:22:13 GMT, [someone wrote on
soc.culture.jewish.moderated]:
:                             We do not need a strong world
: government, but weaker national governments, and stronger
: respect for the rights of the individuals, which are not
: the same as entitlements, but the right to be different.

Thank you for giving me an excuse to return to this theme.

No, rights are not the same as entitlements. However, a rights-based
ethic is one that naturally creates a sense of entitlement.

Halachah does imply some rights. Some examples:

Waking someone up needlessly is "gezel shinah", robbery. As sleep is 
not a commodity, apparantly people have a right to sleep that is being
taken from them.

Similarly, geneivas da'as, theft of knowledge. Lying or misleading someone
is only theft if you assume that you took away his right to know. (Such 
a right is far more limited than in American law. Lashon hara prohibits
informing people about a wide variety of truths that have no pragmatic
value to them.)

Even more broadly: charity is called tzadakah, justice. Apparantly the 
poor have a right to certain necessities, and you are "merely" providing 
what is theirs by right.

But the point is they are implied. Halachah is phrased in terms of duty.

The difference?

Speaking of "my rights" means speaking of me looking out for my own, that
no one crosses into my territory. Speaking of "my duties" means watching
out that I do not cross into theirs. It is much less self-oriented.

There is also no moral imperative. People are given domains, but no
one is obligated to provide their existance. Just the nebulous "they"
of society or "the system" or "the gov't". And so the drift into the 
entitlement mindset.

-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"

On Tue, Dec 18, 2001 at 05:08:17PM -0500, Saraneddie@aol.com] wrote:
: re: terminology 
: "aim" - clearly refers to the uterus 
: "beis velad" - the place where the fetus is housed, another synonym for
: the uterus

This i.e. that you are presenting as a given was already brought into
question on the list.

R Shaul Weinreb suggested it meant a /normal/ uterus. R Yitzchok Zirkand
presented a similar idea by suggesting (note his use of the literal
translation of "beis velad"):
> And perhaps that is why the Torah did not say Ein La "Rechem", it was
> a Rechem that could not house a Vlad, however in the B"R this is a Dochak.

Is there a maqor (pun intended) for saying that "beis velad" is
a synonym for "eim"?

-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

On Wed, Dec 19, 2001 at 11:29:07PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: What might be said, is that Masorah/Traditoin taught us via TSBP that the
: harsh literal version of the Torah was meant on an ideal theoritical Bes
: din Shel Sahmayim level but not in practical Bes Din Shel mata constructs

I prefer RSRH's variant. It's not peshat vs derash is ideal as opposed
to pragmatically implementable. Rather, peshat gives the ta'am hamitzvah
rather than the dinim.

-mi

On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 09:06:31AM +0200, S Goldstein wrote:
:> Any sources to this shita?
[That a poseik need only turn to Shas, and need not feel bound by any
precedent set since.]

: Rema in Choshen Mishpat which is a quote of the Rosh. Gra everywhere
: does this. This is the meaning of "Ravina and Rav Ashi sof horaah"

Do you have a maqor for saying this is the position of the Gra?

The Gra actually says that the Bach and Taz were sof hora'ah.

And we also have acharonim who call the S"A the sof hora'ah. (See RYGB's
post on the role of S"A with nosei keilim in pesaq.)

It would seem to me that "sof hora'ah" corresponds to the commonly held
notion of halachic era. Not an absolute end of hora'ah -- for which
there can only be one -- but a significant drop off.

As for the Gra's inovations, his students consider him an anachronism --
an 18th cent rishon. Not that just anyone can provide hora'ah parallel
to that of rishonim (who turned only to the Bavli).

-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

From: Phyllostac@aol.com
> If yimach shemo is based on shem rishoim yirkav, why don't we say 'yirkav
> shemo' or similar? Why the loshon of mechiah? Yirkav, IIC, means will rot.
> Michiah has a somewhat different meaning I believe.

See the yotzer for Shabbos Zochor, (referring to Amolek)
"Umach shmoy vezichroy..."

(Which reminds me of a minhag in my yeshiva on Shabbos Zochor which
already was quite Purimdig - that just before the Chazan reached the above
'Umach shmoy", someone would announce
the name of this years Purim Rav: "Ploni Almoni - Purim Rav!"
 Chazan: "Umach shmoy vezichroy...")


From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> ZTL is the sources for saying anything nice about a Tzaddik

I think I have asked this previously, why say z'l or zt'l only on
dead tzadikim? Rashi actually says it legabei Noach whilst he was alive.

> Shem Reshaim Yirkav is the source for saying nasty things about a rasha

...and live reshoim are 'yemach shemoy'-ed no less than dead ones....

SBA
==========================
PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
             sba@iprimus.com.au
==========================

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I heard R A Feldman give his opinion of the Torah Temimah. He feels there
> is a chiyuv to let people know that the seifer is not as valuable as it
> looks...  many of the peshatim given are his and his friends and are --
> again in RAF's opinion ...- "downright silly" (an exact quote).

Can we have a selection of this 'silliness'?

> Anyone else hear someone of note question the TT's (the sefer, not the
>person) merit?

I once heard a Rav claim that many of the peshotim are 'geganvet' from
other seforim. (Why would ganveh 'silly' pshotim...!?)
However some years later I read his hakdomo where he clearly states that
some of the pshotim may be from others and he may have forgotten their
source and therefore doesn't give the due recognition.

SBA
===============================
PLEASE NOTE NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS:
             sba@iprimus.com.au
===============================

IIRC, R Hershel Shachter claimed that the TT plagiarized a lot from the
Revid Hazahav (who was the Av Beis Din in Vilna at the time of the GRA).
Anyone else remember RHS saying this? (It's been a while.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 12/20/01 9:43:20pm EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> However some years later I read his hakdomo where he clearly states that
> some of the pshotim may be from others and he may have forgotten their
> source and therefore doesn't give the due recognition.

Once a great Gadol (name furnished off-list only) gave shiurim on the
Haggadah
My feind went and said Gevaldig. Only a few days later he saw the same
aproach in the Maharal

Bepashtus AISI the Gadol saw the Maharl MANY years before, integrated
it ,and forget about havin seen it.

In music this happens frequently. Tunes float into one's consciousness
and the composer and MOST people don't conect it to an earlier tune.
But it often turns out that the tune might have been heard as a child
and resurfaced later...

FWIW, A patent attorney tried to explain to me the difference between
a PATENT and a COPYRIGHT

Patent = the own exclusive rights to the process or product EVEN when
another indpendently makes the same discovery

CopyRight = A person has al lrights of imitatoin. BUT if another comes
up with the same idea indepndently - and they can rpove they were wroking
on the idea prior to the CopyRight, they may publish.

So on the case of a Patent if you are mechavein that is STILL a no-no
BUT
In the case of a CopyRight if you are mechavein you can go on and publish
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

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


[ 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         ]