Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 108

Thursday, February 7 2002

• re: chalav hakompanies
• Re: CY/ChC
• Re: Chalav Yisrael
• Re: Chalav Yisrael
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• [none]
• Re: Rambam: Hakdama
• Re: Segulos
• Re: Puppy Love
• Kesav Ashuris
• Isha psulah ladun
• Re: Isha psulah ladun
• Re: minhag and bet din
• Re: minhag and bet din
• Re: halakhic methodology - Mayyim Acharonim
• Re: halakhic methodology - Mayyim Acharonim
• re: CY/ChC
• Rambam Story
• Limud Yomi
• Re: reproducibility
• Re: Checks, etc.

Because of two weeks of lack of e-mail access, followed by a week of
lack of time, I have not , and undoubtedly will not, read the postings
of the past three weeks. If what I write has been mentioned, I apologize
in advance.

My understanding is that the question of what is called "chalav stam"
or "chaleiv hacompanies" is not a question of ma'achalos assuros vs.
g'zeirah, nispashet, or the requirement of more care than normal kashrus.

Those on both sides of the issue agree that chaleiv akum is prohibited
in the same sense that bishul akum and stam yeynam are, and that even if
a chemical test existed which could positively identify milk as being
unadulterated cow's milk, it would still be assur if its milking was
not witnessed by a Jew.

Rather, the question is: the g'mara itself states that Yisrael ro'ehu is
not a sine qua non, and that if the Yisrael is so situated that the akum
knows he could be seen were he to adulterate, the milk is permitted even
though in fact he was not seen, because of mirtas.  Does this exception
relate only to the fear of being spotted by a Jew, or does it apply to
any situation of mirtas, specifically of the USDA?  Those who are mattir
accept the latter, and thus consider chaleiv hacompanies to be chaleiv
Yisrael. Hence, where the counterpart of the USDA does not exist, they
will not partake of commercial milk.

Elazar M. Teitz

On 5 Feb 2002 at 18:00, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
> I am a little confused. If RMF held ChC was l'chatchila mutar why did
> RDF say that when one has a choice one should choose CY.
> Furthermore, a chaveir of mine once asked RDF if there is any adifus
> to keeping chalav yisroel and RDF told him there was no adifus.

Different psakim for different people depending on where they're 
holding. We've seen that one before. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

In a message dated 1/29/02 12:15:53pm EST, Gil Student gil_student@hotmail.com
writes:
> There are plenty of minhagim (even among Chasidim) that 
> rest on much less than the minhag to drink chalav akum when there is no 
> chashash of a ta'aroves issur.  See Darchei Teshuvah 115:6 for a long list 
> of poskim on both sides.

Illustration:

When I attended Ner Yisroel 1966-68 AFAIK ONLY the local Hassidim wer
makpid on CY. And even then one of them was noheig heter on butter... IIRC
the Gmara itself makes a distinction, BUT the poskim who are machmir
(including Chayei Adam and Kitzur) cite that ther was ziyyuf of butter
in E. Europe by mixing in lard.

But then again, that might have been a "general" Kashrus problem and
not a gzeira problem

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 1/30/02 12:31:33pm EST, Gil Student gil_student@hotmail.com
writes:
> Why can't immigrants follow one of the few clear minhagei hamakom?  I think 
> all will agree that until relatively recently, everyone in America but 
> yechidei segulah drank stam chalav.

Minhag America was Sephardic from about 1654 until circa 1810-1820

If you will the Minhag of America IS to ignore local custom and do
consider the individual's right over the community's will! --smile--

At a recent Friday night "tish" one yekke {native of the old world}
lamented:
In Eurpoe they worshipped the Khal and the Tzibbur, etc.
In America they worship the individual.

Perhaps that is how/why cosntructs such as "Catholic Israel" worked more
or less in Europe but fail in America.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

At 08:59 PM 2/4/02 -0500, RaphaelIsaacs@aol.com wrote:
>You're saying "good"!
>But I'm not asking the Brisker Rov.  It's not his chiddush, it's his 
>observation.
>I'm asking a "High-Level discussion group that deals with Halacha and 
>hashkafa and how the two relate to each other".

Let's have fun:

The Brisker Rav does not hold of the tzad of the chakira cited by the
Asvon d'Orysa that Rabbonon cannot be gozeir on a cheftza to give it a
chalos shem issur b'etzem. If they can do that, they can also, it follows
institute a chalos shem cheftza shel mitzva on a dver mitzva d'rabbonon.
This applies, in the Brisker Rav's view, even to verbal mitzvos, as the BR
there notes that there is a "Cheftza shel Torah" l'inyon Birchas ha'Toah.

Me'meilah, efshar lomar that in a gezeirah d'rabbonon there is a chalos
shem cheftza shel mitzva created, but not in the case of a minhag
d'rabbonon - and that is why there is no brocho, as brochos are only on
cheftzos of mitzvos.

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

R. Micha Berger writes [on Areivim], "I have two kesubos. RDL [R' Dovid
Lifshitz] zt"l was mesupaq about how to spell my wife's name. Her first
name, "Ya'aqovah" is not Tanachi, but the feminization of one. So, does it
get spelled in kesiv malei as a non-Tanachi name, or as Yaaqov + hei?" To
this, he added, "Major oops. I have zero kesubos. I gave one to my wife,
and also gave her an invalid contract. I don't know which is which."

Afar ani tachos kapos raglav shel RDL, but I find this psak
incomprehensible. If a k'subah has no posul witnesses, is not pre-dated,
and contains no internal inconsistencies, why should a misspelling of
the name of a principal, in a manner which leaves no doubt as to who
was intended, render it posul? A k'subah, after all, unlike a get,
is a shtar rayah, not a shtar l'kiyum hadavar. It is the kinyan sudar
which makes the obligation; the k'subah only serves to prove what that
obligation was, and that it was made in the proper manner.

While there are several cases of safek in which two gittin are given,
I am unaware of any such case dealing with k'subah, shtar chov, shtar
m'chirah, etc. Indeed, one of the standard forms of a shtar m'chiras
chametz includes a phrase empowering the rav to clarify any doubts about,
or errors in, the names of those who are parties to the sale or in the
objects being sold. Obviously, those mistakes do not disqualify the
shtar. Why is a k'subah any different?

L'chatchilah, a get should not be written in Iyar, because of the
question as to whether it should be written with one yod or two.
Has anyone heard a suggestion that a marriage not take place on Lag
BaOmer because of the problem of what to write in the k'subah?

In general, there is a trend to make a k'subah into something it isn't.
Specifically: (1) the framing and hanging of the k'subah in the marital
home, as though it were some form of hiddur mitzvah, when in fact it is
a business document which should be under the wife's exclusive control;
(2) the insistence by some for eidei m'sirah for the k'subah, which
accomplishes nothing (the possession of the shtar by the wife serves as
proof that she is entitled to what it states, even if it was given beino
l'veinah), and was unheard of until the last few years; (3) the ready
market for a certain Israeli charlatan, who professes to solve marital
problems by replacing "defective" k'subos. (1) treats a k'subah as though
it were an esrog. (2) treats it like a get. (3) treats it like a m'zuzah.

Rather than one k'subah and one invalid contract, Mrs. Berger has two
valid k'subos, in one of which her name is misspelled. I daresay that
this does not cause any consternation for RMB.

Elazar M. Teitz

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 11:14:41PM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: >But I'm not asking the Brisker Rov.  It's not his chiddush, it's his 
: >observation.

: The Brisker Rav does not hold of the tzad of the chakira cited by the
: Asvon d'Orysa that Rabbonon cannot be gozeir on a cheftza to give it a
: chalos shem issur b'etzem...

: Me'meilah, efshar lomar that in a gezeirah d'rabbonon there is a chalos
: shem cheftza shel mitzva created, but not in the case of a minhag
: d'rabbonon - and that is why there is no brocho, as brochos are only on
: cheftzos of mitzvos.

Li nir'eh the question is on the tzvui referred to in "asher kideshanu
bemitzvosav vetzivanu". The chiluq therefore becomes that a takkanah
involves a qiyum of "kichol asher yorucha" while a minhag does not.

(If a minhag does not imply hora'ah, one doesn't need to be a musmach
to establish one?)

Rather looking at whether or not they set out to create a "cheftzah
shel mitzvah", I was going to say the question is whether or not beis
din promulgated the idea with the intent of it being hora'ah.

Both chiluqim (assuming they are different) are still Brisker. We brought
categories, but what does it tell us in relation to our avodah? What
does it mean to require something and not call it hora'ah? (Does this
touch on our old "da'as Torah" discussion? There too the person seeks
non-hora'ah from a rav.) It's only here that I think there is a chiluq
between our chiluqim, but I have no idea what.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

At 04:05 PM 2/6/02 -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
>Areivim is warming up to the topic of segulos again, as in LH or no
>Kiddush as the cause for no Shidduch, and the converse proposition.
>
>I just finished listening to Hawking's "A Brief History of Time." Mildly
>interesting, but b'nogei'ah l'nidon didan, one might think of a shidduch
>as the spiritual equivalent of the scientific concept of the "wormhole"
>in space-time. V'duk.

Whoops - typo - in the second paragraph, line two, that should be "seguloh" 
- *not* shidduch.

I would also add that dogs are generally seen as being overly hungry.

For example, Gittin 56a says that Kalba Savua got his name because people
would enter his house hungray like a dog and leave satiated.

Bava Basra 8a has R' Yonasan ben Amram asking Rebbe to feed him like a
dog or raven.

Kiddushin 40b says that someone who eats in the marketplace is like a dog.

Gil Student

R. Gil: <Is there any indication that ancient near-Eastern cultures used
an alphabet similar to Kesav Ashuris? Ugarit and Akkadia did not. Do we
have anything from Assyria or Babylonia that corresponds to it?>

[And if not, why is it called *Ashuris*? -mi]

What we call k'sav Ashuri was brought back by Ezra and the returnees from
Golus Bovel, which is why it is called Ashuri, to distinguish it from the
k'sav used in EY before the golus, called k'sav 'Ivri or k'sav libbunai.
There is no evidence that anyonw in EY used it before shivas Tziyon. It
is certainly not the ancient Assyrian writing, which was cuneiform,
not alphabetic at all. But the lingua france at the time of the Golus
throughout the middle East, from Egypt to Bovel, was ReichsAramaisch
(federal Aramaic). We have hundred of documents in this official Aramaic,
from Jews and gentiles, and the alphabet is almost identical to what Hazal
would call k'sav asssuri. Just get a copy of the Elephantine Papyri from
the local library, and you will be able to read the script after a little
effort (although the Aramaic itself would be a little difficult for most).
Similarly the insciption in Aramaic on the tomb of haMelekh 'Uzziyyahu,
who was buried outside the walls as a m'tzora', is in Aramaic and written
in a k'sav that is fairly recognizable.

Halakhically, the Yerushalmi apparently holds that way, since it says that
the tet and the 'ayin in the luhot b'nes hayu 'omdin, which corresponds
to the Hebrew script used in the time of the Bayis Rishon. However,
the Bavli says that it was the mem and samekh, corresponding to K'sav
Asshuri. In that case, we would have to say what the g'moro says about
the final forms of the letters MNTzPK: that they originally existed,
but were forgotten and then reinstituted. Similarly, the K'sav Asshuri
would have had to have been forgotten and then reinstituted. The Rambam
in his t'shuvos, however, has a different spin: noting that everything
from the time of the Bayis Rishon is written in k'sav 'Ivri, he says that
K'sav Asshuri was used, but only for Sifrei Torah, T'fillin, Mezuzos,
etc. All coins and royal inscriptions and inscriptions on tombs are
osur to write in k'sav Asshuri, which is reserved for STaM, so it was
written in a different script. His opinion is brought by the SA, that
K'sav Asshuri should be reserved for STaM, which would aser most secular
books and newspapers and even s'forim.

Seth

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> 1- That she was a "soferet" (as in "divrei soferim") not a
> "rabbanit". That Tosafos were not necessarily proposing that her rule
> was a hora'as sha'ah, but rather that because she was a nevi'ah she is
> different in kind than a rav.
 
> This seems to be shitas Rashi in Avos 1:1, who considers Devorah amongst
> the Zeqeinim listed there.

I don't see that at all.  Rashi does not say she is different than any other
shofet.  And if Yiftach was the final halachic authority (Yiftach bedoro
k'Moshe bedoro), then so was Devorah in the same sense - that's what I 
get from that Rashi.
 
> 2- That the word "shofeit" was meant for its 2ndary meaning. IOW, that
> she was a wartime ruler, and not necessareily a judge.
 
> The Rashba on Shevu'os (pereq 4) writes "delo shofetes mamash, elah
> minaheges keshofetim shashafetu es Yisrael".

What do any of these sources say to the Targum's translation of "shofetet"
as "dayna", contra the translation of "shofet" as "negid" in Perek 2?
You still haven't answered this. And if earlier eras are "better" than
later eras, it would seem they should deal with it as well - if the Targum
says she was a law-judge, I don't see why, other than as an effect of some
medieval ruling (first reported by Tosfos) that women can't be judges,
that the rishonim feel they must jump through hoops to defend Devorah's
stated actions in the Navi. The Targum says she *is* a precedent.

Do the Geonim say anything about this? Haamek She'eila anyone?

I'm not saying that anyone lesser than RMF or the Gra (both of whom seem
to have taken issue with Rishonim on occasion, and been accepted in so
doing) could say today that women can be judges. I just want to see/find
out *when* the rule came about.

   - jon baker    jjbaker@panix.com     <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker> -

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 05:29:12PM -0500, Jonathan Baker wrote:
:> 1- That she was a "soferet" (as in "divrei soferim") not a
:> "rabbanit". That Tosafos were not necessarily proposing that her rule
:> was a hora'as sha'ah, but rather that because she was a nevi'ah she is
:> different in kind than a rav.

:> This seems to be shitas Rashi in Avos 1:1, who considers Devorah amongst
:> the Zeqeinim listed there.

: I don't see that at all.  Rashi does not say she is different than any other
: shofet.  And if Yiftach was the final halachic authority (Yiftach bedoro
: k'Moshe bedoro), then so was Devorah in the same sense - that's what I 
: get from that Rashi.

Ein hachi nami. They all were final halachic authorities, but qua
zeqeinim. I'm suggesting that the zeqeinim, being nevi'im (a feature
Rashi mentions), are soferim not rabbanim.

This would make Devorah an example of a soferes, not a rabbanit. Which
is the peshat I'm suggesting for Tosafos: that her access to devar H'
made the class she belonged to different in kind than the semichah that
is closed to women.

:> 2- That the word "shofeit" was meant for its 2ndary meaning. IOW, that
:> she was a wartime ruler, and not necessareily a judge.

:> The Rashba on Shevu'os (pereq 4) writes "delo shofetes mamash, elah
:> minaheges keshofetim shashafetu es Yisrael".

: What do any of these sources say to the Targum's translation of "shofetet"
: as "dayna", contra the translation of "shofet" as "negid" in Perek 2?
: You still haven't answered this...

The burden isn't on me, but on the Rashba -- who explicitly says
otherwise from the Targum. I therefore assumed some answer existed
without bothering to find one. (Yet.)

Note the Rashba is a Sepharadi contemporary (1235-1310ce) of the Baalei
Tosafos. The pesaq was widespread by the time of its first report.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 2/5/02 3:53:39pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
> As an aside is it obvious that the present day minhag of 2 days of yomtov
> outside of israel was instituted by a Sanhedrin hagadol. 
> Source?

> The gemara in
> Beitzah says just they sent from EY without any indication who 
> sent. Was there still a Sanhedrin in their days?

> More generally does Beis Din ha'gadol require lishkat haGazit or just
> many people with semicha which is probably the status of the sanhedrin
> in the days of the Amoraim.

Moreover the enitre Raison d'etre diappeared when a fixed calendar
was instituted

Tangentially, any place that was "makom hamagi'in" was not subject
to YTsG.
Which means sevearl things:

1) Today even in neighboring areas YTsG might not apply if shluchin
could have made it on time (except of course RH itself!)

2) With today's communcations, it is pashut to say that the entire
world is makom she'magi'in EVEN if we went back to kiddush hachodesh al
pi r'iyah! So YTsG is truly obsolete memah nafshach - except or course
RH itself which would not afford use of modern communications on YT.

The ikkar reason today is Minhag Avoseinu Beyadeinu.


Tangentially I have suggested in other posts that the ORIGINAL Takkanah
of Hanukkah was botel at the time of the Hurban, but it was re-instituted
later.
It probably was Observed all along, but the era of the Mishnah came after
the original Takkanah was over and before the re-confirmation of the TB
in Shabbos.

IOW, it is possible that the original Takkanah of YTsG WAS Sanhedric at
one time but is kept in motion NOW due to a combination of Inertia and its
ratification by TB stating somthing like "Minhag Avoseichem Biydeichem."

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 2/5/02 3:53:39pm EST, Eli.Turkel@colorado.edu writes:
:> More generally does Beis Din ha'gadol require lishkat haGazit or just
:> many people with semicha which is probably the status of the sanhedrin
:> in the days of the Amoraim.

On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:12:48PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: Moreover the enitre Raison d'etre diappeared when a fixed calendar
: was instituted

Which was by Hillel II -- not coincidentally the av beis din who disbanded
/ presided over the self-disbanding Sanhedrin (in 358ce). He made the
calendar because it was the end of the mosad that could be meqadeish
the chodesh.

BTW, I think this case is a good argument for "hidden 2nd reason". If
not for Y"T shein shel galiyos, we wouldn't discuss the inferior nature
of our current calendar nearly as often.

(Which would explain Shavuos beyond simply lo pelug.)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 2/5/02 11:16:11am EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> The mechanism I propose - let's call it Faivel and pronounce it with a
> Galitzianer accent - is that a gezeirah would be promulgated in a way
> that is very similar to government regulations. I

I have a another method

We have a place B call it Iraq
and a place F call it France

And certain things promulgated in Iraq did not quite fly in France -
perhaps because times and places were different. Some Fellows made note
of the differences and we call them Tosafos!

And now you know - the rest of the story!
 
Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

> And certain things promulgated in Iraq did not quite fly in  France -
> perhaps because times and places were different.  Some Fellows made note of
> the differences and we  call them Tosafos!

I agree with your approach that minhag and massorah are geographically
tied. What I disagree with is that you seem to reject disagreements in
understanding previously promulgated rules, such as gezeirot. There
is a place for parallel mesorot, while there also is a place for
disagreement. As far as gezeirot particularly, I do not believe that
there is place for multiple valid massorot.

Additionally, I diagree with what I understand is your attempt to frame
gezeirot as either nitpashet or not nitpashet, without considering what
the bounds of the gezeirah are. Even if CA prohibition was accepted
universally, there is still place for multiple interpretations or
massorot, if you prefer, of what the boundaries of the gezeirah are. That
last point is my min point of contention.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

BTW, I still enjoy your posts and find them highly informative and
insightful

In Avodah 8:107, R Chaim Markowitz writes: 
<<< It's very interesting how everyone has a different take on what the
feinstien family does or does not do in regards to chalav stam.
Especially since everyone has claimed to have first hand knowledge. Well
let me just add to the confusion.... >>>

I'm not so surprised.

What should we expect from a system that allows people to quote one
posek's halacha in the name of a different posek, in order to insure
that the audience will accept that p'sak as binding?

Akiva Miller

I heard someone give over a story that they said was from the Rambam's
writings but they could not show where...I could not find it by CD-ROM.
The story is about a leaf that was worried about what was going to
happen to the tree after it fell off in the winter., i.e. the leaf did
not follow that "Etz Chaim he" that the tree would live on and that the
leaf was the one with a limited existence. I would appreciate if someone
could tell me where I can find this written and perhaps it may not be
the Rambam as initially the speaker thought it was the Ramban.

Chaim

			     BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS
				LEARN MORE TORAH

			    Learn new areas of Torah
			     with a chevrah. Follow
			      the daily schedule.
				 Discuss sugyos
				    online.

			     The   Aishdas  Society
			     is beginning its first
			     cycle  of daily  limud
			     of   Tanach,   Kuzari,
			     and  Choshen   Mishpat
			     starting  1 Adar 5762.
			     (February  13th, 2002)

		The Aishdas Society is proud to announce that it
	       will be sponsoring a new program of daily learning
		 of material too often forsaken by Bnei Torah.

			  The chevrah will IY"H learn
		       a perek of Tanach every two days,
			    a perek of Kuzari daily,
		  and two se'ifim of Choshen Mishpat each day.

		       An online forum is being dedicated
			 to the discussion of the daily
		    limud at <http://www.aishdas.org/gforum>

		      Printouts of the daily material are
		  available at <http://www.aishdas.org/limud>.

Join us! Tell your friends! Start a daily class at your shul!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905

In v8n107, REL forwards on behalf of someone nameless:
:> It was asked how does a posek take into account one's personal tikkun
:> nishama?

: See Rambam Peirush HaMishnayos end of Makkos.  There he explains that one's
: level in Olam HaBa is determined by doing fully at least one mitzva.

: I think this means according to halacha.  I never heard anyone claim that
: one's tikkun nishama can only be reached through performance of chumros.
: Therefore a posek should be unable to interfere with tikkun neshama by
: ruling according to halacha.

OTOH, the Rambam tells you exactly what he thinks that tikkun is --
da'as of HQBH. If that da'as can come through other means, why not?
He's a rationalist, and therefore defines the route to olam haba in
very understandable terms. Mitzvos are there, as the Rambam you cite
writes, to give you opportunities to have that saving epiphany.
Ratzah HQBH lezaqos es Yisrael, lefichach He gave us many opportunities.

But if it's an epiphany, why couldn't we see it in a chumrah based in
the Torah, or even during an anatomy course?

I see nothing in the Rambam that says that olam haba is /only/ gained
through that one mitzvah, or that it must even be bedavka a mitzvah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 11:54:26AM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: This points to a very practical issue: the utter futility of trying
: to dovetail the modern law of negotiable instruments into a Talmudic
: framework...

One basic philosophical difference that came up during our weeks playing
at VIDC. (Lulei Torascha sha'shu'ai...)

Ba'alus is defined in terms of usage rights. Which is why we had problems
with the inheritance of chameitz during Pesach, or with the mechanics
of its bitul.

Usage rights isn't ownership.

We're discussing something like (not exactly identical to) the difference
between key money and an american rental.

A sho'eil has some measure of ba'alus, but a borrower doesn't own.

Related to this is the role of kinyan. Note that a kinyan sudar is
used not only to take posession, but also to assume hischayvus. (As
discussed recently WRT mechiras chameitz. I would suggest the same
WRT "ha'ishah nikneis".

Again, because posession is defined in terms of usage, the line
is blurrier than it would be in American law (as this non-lawyer
understands it).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

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


[ 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         ]