☕ DaasYochid ☕

Chayav’s parents still don’t know. 🙂

As far as I know, he’s not even a poisek.

Are you referring to Rav Pesach Eliyahu Falk?

http://www.hebrewbooks.org/21547

Oomis,

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the numbers issue (more girls than boys) is a big enough problem, and boys being finicky and not getting married exacerbates the problem. I agree totally.

Do we not have enough things to say are untzniusdig, that we have to pick on such naarishkeit as this?

So does that mean that once the quota of untzniudig things is filled, there are no more objections allowed?

As with all things of this nature, if you don’t like it, DON’T DO IT.

Some people like to object, in the CR, to things they find untzniusdig or otherwise objectionable. “As with all things of this nature, if you don’t like it, DON’T DO IT. “

if it were not for txting, i would have NO social life.

That’s a great reason not to text.

I thought that when eclipse left,

and all of us were so bereft,

it would be the end,

of limericks penned,

and no more identity theft.

Her spirit, it seems though, did awaken,

the coffee room was not forsaken.

There now is a sequel,

eclipse with Equal,

unless for a ride we were taken.

In that case, he may feel that it’s wrong *for him*.

Would you agree that in that case it wouldn’t be “hiding in shame”?

That seems to state it is forbidden to put it on your 10 year old son’s MP3 player, since the son isn’t the “renter” and thus he is “others”. IOW, only the original renter can use it on his iPod. Very restrictive indeed.

Since he is “someich al shulchan aviv”, it’s actually the father’s mp3 player.

Furthermore, I’m not sure they are correct about “civil law”‘s view of this “rental”.

Nor am I. But to the best of my knowledge, civil law prohibits copying even for personal use, so it is consistent with fair use, and I don’t know if civil law cares about the lomdus behind a transaction, since the effect is the same as a sale.

But is that because he’s hiding in shame (because “eating out” is wrong), or is it because he just wants a nice, quiet night out without being disturbed?

I think there’s a third option as well; see my earlier post, reason #3.

Why? –> Kasha

IMO, Why? –> shaila (usually).

OK, the conversation here was mostly about those CDs with a rentel agreement, but the majarity of CDs dont have that rentel agreement it just says do not copy, what about those CDs? can I copy those for myself? If according to halacha I can is it still unmentchlich to do so?

In my opinion, no problem of mentchlichkeit. Whether it would still be a problem of g’neiva would depend on whether or not there is a t’nai, what the intent of the t’nai is, and whether the t’nai itself works (machlokes haposkim). Obviously, if it were to be technical g’neiva, it wouldn’t be mentchlichkeit either! One could then argue whether it’s mentchlichkeit on the part of the producer. To be dan them l’caf z’chus, I would point out that they have lost many sales to illegal copying and are therefore quite frustrated, and that some people have availed themselves of the loophole pointed out by Niazik to obtain huge hard drives full of hundreds of albums of music without paying for them.

DY are you saying in talmudic times, if someone would sell an ox and on the horn of the ox it would say that this ox is not sold but merely rented . do you think his unspoken term will be acknowledged?

If it was noticed by the “buyer”, yes.

p.s. CAN aderet demand i return the tape ?

No, similar to the way a leasing company cannot demand the car back before the term is up.

also a socher is mechuyav i on ones . am i liable for any damages to pay cash?

You would be, except that they specifically exempt you. (See below.)

p.p.s dy are you bakant with the sugya of “devorim shebilev”?

There are several reasons that “einom d’vorim” doesn’t apply here.

1) It’s not b’lev, as I explained earlier, and I don’t think you responded.

2) That sugya is dealing with retracting the sale; this case is dealing with a different transaction structure than normal i.e. rental vs. sale.

3)In that case, the possibility of applying a change has its upside and downside i.e. regaining property vs. loss of money. In this case, keeping the status quo (as originaly printed on the jacket) is completely to the benefit of Aderet.

4) The reason we assume that “einom d’vorim” is because the seller may have changed his mind for the sake of the money. The The R’ma (207 4) brings a “yesh omrim” (I don’t know who, if anyone, argues) that the rule of “d’vorim sheb’lev einom d’vorim” doesn’t apply to a matana (because there is no money involved – S”ma). In our case, the money remains the same; as was noted several times in this thread, they don’t charge any less for this long term rental than if it were a sale.

You could have argued that even an express stipulation has no bearing by “m’talt’lin” (R”ma 207 3), in which case argument 1) would not be valid, but 2), 3), and 4) would.

I think the question is not whats writen on the cover but whats written on the sales receipt, thats where a rentel agreement should be and there it says “sales receipt”.

Why? I would think that the prevailing agreement would be 1) what is stipulated before, not after the transaction, and 2) What is to the benefit of the one defining the transaction (in this case, Aderet, who prefers a rental.

FYI:

This is the English “nusach” used on many CDs:

ones made from buckwheat otay!!!!

Goq, you little rascal!

Wait, I just re-read Mr. 80’s post; that guy has a lower than average IQ, clearly not The Wolf.

One of my biggest turn offs – Bad table manners

Then you should work on it 🙂

I always check my spells. Double, double, toil and trouble . . .

Witch ones do you check?

DY b’michlas kvod toruschu…..

I hope you’re being facetious 🙂

I dont hear any chiluk bet. a stipulation prior to the transaction to friends which is void . to unspoken terms during the transaction. Fact of the matter is all terms must be out spoken b’shas mechirah. They can expect you to read jackets and shmackets but halacha requires all terms to be mentioned during a transaction.

If you mean “spoken” rather than written (or printed), I don’t see why that should matter.

If you are questioning whether the buyer has a valid claim if he says he was unaware that it was a rental, that’s a possibility (I don’t know if the seller has a right to expect the buyer to read the “shmacket” or not); I am assuming that the buyer saw that it’s a rental.

Your point about the store owner and distributor being three separate parties is valid, and certainly must be considered. Factually, I believe that, at least in the case of Aderet, every artist/producer has a separate agreement, but the distributor is Aderet, which ultimately owns the CDs and they distribute them to the store.

For simplicity’s sake, let’s take a case in which someone makes a transaction at Mostly Music in Boro Park which is owned by Aderet (which I think is owned by Mendy Werdyger). The “seller” is actually Aderet, and the clerk works for Aderet. The owner of Aderet is not present for every transaction, and doesn’t want to burden the clrk to specify at each transaction whther it’s a purchase or rental. He therefore notifies the consumer by printing it on the CD jacket. i see no reason why any assumption was made that he changed his mind between the time of printing and the time of sale.

When distributed to a different store, for the rental to be in affect, either the store would have to be renting it to the consumer, subleasing it to the consumer, or merely acting as an agent of the distributor. If he in fact bought it from the distributor with no conditions attached, and then sold it to the consumer, I assume the printed rental agreement would be worthless.

Regarding treifos and milk, I’ve heard that Rav Belsky is matir (but not based on bitul; I don’t know if he also agrees to bitul), and Rav Yechezkel Roth is matir based on bitul. I am also told that the CY companies are machmir, and I agree with you that this is another legitimate reason to be machmir to buy CY products..

Truthfully shadchanus is as much as one wants to give combined with how much u can afford.

I think it’s a chiyuv, based on the going rate.

since it is not mentioned in tranaction but merely stating on the jacket theus the rental is buttul.

They expect you to read and accept the terms at the time of the transaction; they didn’t merely tell their friends.

BTW dass yochid – what is your level of halacha education?

Not relevant; I don’t expect anyone to accept or reject my arguments based on anything other than their own strengths or weaknesses. For halacha l’maaseh, ask your posek.

FYI according to some’; R moshe zatzal’s kula on cholov yisroel is no longer applicable, since nowadays there are punctures which render the animal traifa , which is common in the non-cholov yisroel. the cholov yisroel farms avoid those traifa animals.

might be genaiva

also might be cholv treifa issur deoraisa ,

True; I was comparing to the theoretical heter of cholov stam assuming no issues of treifa. Besides, most poskim, according to my understanding, are meikil on that shaila (based on bittul), whereas I know of no poskim who are meikil on the rental issue.

When people brought bikurim to Yerushalaim, they stood up for them.

Why did they stand up for them? Maybe it was so as not to discourage them from making the long and difficult trip in the future? If so, that would be different than other mitzvos, which might not require standing up.

(one said to me “yasherkoach”).

What’s wrong, she should have said “yasherkoiach”?

HaShem in his great wisdom created BOTH versions of humanity. Each one with its own characteristics to succeed in productive life. We NEED both models – just the way they are. A man with masculine attributes, and a woman with feminine ones. No need to mix and match. Certainly no need to bicker and bash. To denigrate one variant over the other shows lack of appreciation of the Ribono Shel Olam. As if something ?? ????? is lacking in His creation.

If she’s too preachy (just kidding) 🙂

What is the precise basis in halacha that a purchased (not rented) CD cannot be copied (for a friend)?

If you mean without even a t’nai, that’s a tough one. Throughout the years, the gedolei hador have protected the publishers of seforim from infringement of their “copyrights”. I don’t know the firm basis for that either. There’s a teshuva from R’ Moshe prohibiting copying a recorded shiur (which is being sold), and I don’t know the firm basis for that either. I don’t think there’s any gemara that discusses “intellectual rights”. The reason that music producers had to start with the t’nai and now the rental is because some poskim were in fact matir copying, because the source for the issur is so fuzzy. Of course, the way the yetzer hora works, many people followed the minority opinion permitting copying.

DY, this was discussed by so many poskim that have said a person can many a copy for themselves.

If they said it even when the producer specifically is makpid, and has this new rental agreement, then I stand corrected, although I don’t understand why I’m wrong.

There was an interview a few years ago in Mispacha magazine in which one Jewish music personality said that he is even makpid on one copy, and claimed that R’ Elyashiv backed his right to do so. I don’t understand how in today’s day, when most people listen on mp3 players, he can reasonably expect people to only listen to the actual CD. I called his distributor (Aderet) to clarify, and the answer I got was “most producers allow one copy”. Before I got the chance to follow up, the phone was hung up.

DY, do you work for Aderet? Why are you so adamantly defending them?

No. Read my last post (which I think crossed yours in the mail). 🙂

Regarding your next point, I mentioned already that if the store and the distributor are not on the same page, the rental agreement might not work (just my theory). I also pointed out that the store owner can’t sell what he doesn’t own (without g’neiva involved).

The reason I “defend” them? Because I think there’s a real chance that copying might be g’neiva, which is, I think, something even more important to be makpid on than, say, cholov Yisroel.

I’ll again repeat, though, that most producers allow one copy to be made.

Yes, I also think it was a typo. When I become perfect, I’ll complain 🙂