;.l1,6,60,66,1,0,10,75,192,2,15,20,25,127,10,0,
APOLOGIA PRO CHUTZPA SUA (sa)

	Although I do not pretend to orthodoxy, and do not takehalacha, much less rabbinic judgements, as necessarily binding; I 
 would here be guided by what I've heard to be the halachicprinciple that "the teachings of a rabbi belong to all Israel" (incontrast to his personal property, which belongs to his heirs).  It would take that to mean:  in real time; if you're thirsty, andI give you a truckload of water in a few years, it's less helpthat it might have been. 
	So I cannot see that any have the right to withhold teachingsfrom circulation (except in very limited real-time pending assuredpublication of a specific work on which one is working on a moreor less daily basis), and do not see that descendents constitutean exception.
	There is a question of compensation for value-added; onefinds it on analysis to be a bit more complex that might casuallybe imagined.  (Cf. my memo =goldrush).   Not only the teacher, butalso those who host a teaching, transcribe it, and input thattranscription have a certain claim for compensation.

	As for editting, I have argued, with my notion of a 'sourcetrail', that the first responsibilty of an editor, especiallygiven facilitation by electronic data-storage/access,  is to makethe original accessible to the reader; that means identifying thesource of what one has presented in editted form, and ensuringthat that source remains accessible to those who wish to study it.	I'd see much more need for an Annotater than for an editor;R. Shlomo's teaching presupposed and repackaged in more or lesspopular form (depending on his audience; eg the teachings at theWitts' were quite advanced) the entire body of Jewish religiousthought.  Those members of his chevre who received smicha from himshould be qualified as Annotators.

	As for the physical form of the presentation of a teaching,that is an ornament of this world, and teachings reside in and"come down" from the eternal world, as a user's guide to gettingthrough this one.  It is said that one ought to glorify a mitzva,but never at the cost of delaying its timely performance, nor ofdepriving others of the opportunity to do it.   The greatestteachings may be found on scraps of parchment in a storeroom, andno-one thinks a whit the less the of the teaching nor teacherthereby. 
	Most of us who can afford to buy books, and that excludesmany of the best students in the chevre, do so, at least I do, toadmire on the shelf and savour as an acquisition, rather than toread; when one is immersed in a book, one forgets the physicalform of the book, and even of one's surroundings. 
	My opinion at the moment is that there are two appropriateforms for R. Shlomo's teaching:  audio tapes, and disc.  I seebooks as a secondary form.  Audio tapes convey the immediacy, andthe subtlety of R. Shlomo's oral presentation -- he often shows amasterful dramatic command of his voice (a by-product is thatvolume often sinks quite low, making them hard to transcribe withsimple equipment).   Consolidation of all available verbatimtranscripts on disc would enable one to efficiently accessalternate versions and complementary teachings, as well as detouraround the vanities of editors.  
	As for videotape, I'm not sure; it's new-fangled, but a lotof folks seem to watch it.  McLuhan would have known thedrawbacks.  Videotapes are almost always presented in edittedform, and I'm not clear why -- but videotape editting is only amatter of ellipsis, not of altering words.
	As for editting, I have pretty much come to the position ofR. Joshua Witt, which is:  editting should be minimal.  As a dropout graduate student I aspired to present R. Shlomo's teachings inproper academic English; now, having worked a bit more with thatlanguage, and learned a few tricks by trial-and-error, like amonkey with a typewriter, I more and more savour R. Shlomo'sprecise use of words.
	One should recall that R. Shlomo, at least at one stage,expressed strong concern that his work not be over-editted;publication of Yael MeSinai's book, which was already going out topublishers from Modi'in in the late 80s, was put on hold for thatreason.
	I think one would find that many major thinkers were quiteconcerned that editors would obscure their teaching.  It seems tome that the trend now in the world of letters is to look toauthentic originals; projects like the colloqial English JPStranslation of the Bible (as eg in the Reform Chumash) now seem toinhere in a rather gauche world of homogenized assimilation.

 	Again, I see no liklihood that authentic publication of theseteachings will generate profit; so I see no need, even were thatheld to be part of their entitlement, to restrict such publicationwith the intent of channelling such fancied profits todescendents; as one might prudently do with a field of oil-wells. 

.p

 



