Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’ve elected to ignore you (I do have that right, do I not? It is a right I intend to again exercise after this incursion) considering you chose to falsely categorize me as a chareidi in order to attribute false motivations in your diatribes against chareidim. Nowhere have I categorized myself as such, yet you simply declared me that so you can attack them as a whole. That in addition to assuming that I didn’t author or have permission from him to reuse. I won’t address whether or not that is the case considering your iniquitous motivations.
MDG: In that very same post you reference, PuhLease also wrote:
“My wife and I could not afford camp. Right now, we cannot afford more than the bare minimum of groceries”
Yet, above, she writes she has a Ph.D, a successful career and “lives quite well”. So in the span of 3 years, he/she went from a poor married man to a rich single girl. I say this is all a put on.
PL: I don’t participate in any forums other than here on yeshivaworld. Please don’t be so paranoid.
“I will never return to Yiddishkeit” doesn’t constitute “willing to be open”.
I was raised in a neglectful home
This played a part in your becoming a mechallel shabbos, even if you won’t admit as much.
I have an education (Ph.d)
This, too, played a big role in your disobeying Jewish law.
live quite well
Didn’t you write a long time ago (while still married) that you couldn’t afford basic necessities?
Second of all, I did make the choice to become not frum. It was a choice, pure and simple, and one that I made with complete and total clarity after weighing all my options
Did you weigh the fact that you will burn for it?
I would like I state with clarity however, that to compare someone becoming not frum and someone committing suicide are two completely different things. The American Psychological Society (of which I am a member) does not condone suicide because they feel that suicide, while debated amongst psychological professionals as ethical or otherwise, should be one’s choice only if it is a full informed decision. Since one is unable to make that determination because one is never aware of what actually occurs after death, one is physically or emotionally able to make a fully comprehensive informed decision about the finality of the decision of suicide.
And one is able to determine what hell is like in the afterlife?
BPM: I’ve always wondered what the purpose of that No Standing zone on 50 and 16 was for. It says it is for “NYP”. Any idea (and why over there)?
It is no different whether a Yid in Eretz Yisroel lives in a State called Israel or in a State called Palestine as long as their is peace. The main thing to daven for is that there be peace.
One good thing is that Clinton and Carter was worse than him.
Sam2: How about you define this “MO” that you think is so problematic?
The questions will remain, after you determine “the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO”, aren’t these beliefs shared by those who do not describe themselves as MO? And isn’t it true that what one group considers MO, another group who also consider themselves MO will call “beyond the pale” (such as Edah)? And why is it that these beliefs generate a new substrata of orthodoxy? If I hold that one may daven Minchah after Shkiyah, for instance, does it make sense for me to call myself a “different type of Orthodoxy”? Modern Orthodoxy is nothing but a label. It is used by different people at will to describe so large a range of beliefs and actions that there are MO who consider beyond the pale the beliefs and actions of others who are called MO.
The reason for this confusion is because, unlike Chasidim, Conservatives, Maskilim, Briskers, and other “movements” stemming from Judaism (some legitimate and some not), MO was never officially created. Rather, it began as simply people violating accepted standards of Orthodoxy, and then, when these low standards became the norm within certain communities, they decided to self-proclaim themselves MO, giving the illusion that their indiscretions are instead some kind of set of beliefs. There were no rabbis that decided “OK, we are creating Modern Orthodoxy. These are our teachings…” the way all the other movements were created. Just the opposite. After certain behaviors became excepted in certain communities, those communities said “Well, I guess we’re just Modern Orthodox!”. And anyone can do that to justify any type of behavior, we have so many diff groups and definitions and people claiming the title for themselves.
The only coherent explanation of Modern Orthodoxy comes form Rav Soloveitchik in his Five Addresses, which is, in a nutshell, we must compromise our standards in America because traditional Torah standards will not survive here. Only Yeshiva University type Judaism will survive and all else will die out. Which means the integration into secularity must be done to the extent that we must in order to survive. Obviously, the whole idea was a mistake.
I will grant you that a “Modern Orthodox bungalow colony” that has established mixed swimming (should such a thing exist; which I actually doubt) is not really Orthodox.
It is prevalent and well-known this is what it means. Read the ads in the Jewish Press classifieds around April – June and call the ones advertised as a MO bungalow colony. It almost virtually always is a code-word for mixed swimming (and other bad things, but mixed swimming is a common denominator.) I could name names of popular colonies, but will refrain. Why do they call themselves a “MO bungalow colony” and not a Chareidi bungalow colony?
the Sefer Hachinuch is not a majority opinion among Rishonim
Many of the MO positions are very far from being majority opinions. Are you equally vocal in opposition to those? If you want to follow another legitimate opinion, that is your prerogative. And when we follow the Sefer HaChinuch on Tochacha, that is our prerogative.
the Amora Rava said (don’t have the source in front of me at the moment) that it is less of a transgression to be with a sofek eshes ish than to embarrass someone in public. The Rif, Rabeinu Yonah, several of the baalei Tosfos clearly disagree with the Chinuch, and even the Rambam, while he doesn’t include it as yehareg v’al yaavor, sees embarrassing someone in public as shfichas domim.
That is all completely irrelevant to the discussion of giving tochacha. The Halacha is also that it is strictly forbidden — according to ALL shittos — to kill someone. Yet, under certain circumstances, we can kill someone who violated Shabbos or committed blasphemy or a number of other reasons. Similarly, when we are mandated to embarrass someone with tochacha (i.e. as the SHC describes), it has no relation to the prohibition of embarrassing someone, much as Beis Din killing someone has no relation to the prohibition of Thou Shall Not Kill.
and it is even broadly in the context of rebbe talmid or talmid rebbe
The Halchic obligation to give tochacha, when appropriate, applies to every Jew regarding every other Jew. It is not limited to or between a rebbe/talmid relationship.
If you ask “What is MO and is it the preferable mode of Judaism?”, you are missing the point. Are the tenets of MO appropriate for you, or your family, or within your Rov’s direction to you? THAT is the question that is appropriate. If it isn’t preferable for you, fine, I won’t argue. But if you are arrogating the right to interpret Torah for others in defiance of their own halachic guidance, you are again falling into the trap of haughtiness.
You completely missed the point. Reread my first post. I specifically wrote: “If Modern Orthodoxy would be a Kiruv stage for people who aren’t yet ready for real Torah life, that would be fine.”
The Modern Orthodox predicted the demise of everyone except themselves. This is clear in the Five Addresses of Rabbi Soloveichik. Others espoused that too. It was common MO rhetoric in the 60’s. In the 80’s however, we had the same MO rabbis denouncing what they referred to as “Ultra Orthodox Triumphalism”. Something didn’t work out the way they thought it would. Rabbi Yeruchem Gorelick ZT’L was asked what induced him to go work in YU. He said (in Yiddish), “Rabbi Soloveichik convinced me that the future of Torah in America depends on YU.” Then he slapped his head, as if to say “What was I thinking?”
The questions will remain, after you determine “the range of beliefs held by people who describe themselves MO”, aren’t these beliefs shared by those who do not describe themselves as MO? And isn’t it true that what one group considers MO, another group who also consider themselves MO will call “beyond the pale” (such as Edah)? And why is it that these beliefs generate a new substrata of orthodoxy? If I hold that one may daven Minchah after Shkiyah, for instance, does it make sense for me to call myself a “different type of Orthodoxy”? Modern Orthodoxy is nothing but a label. It is used by different people at will to describe so large a range of beliefs and actions that there are MO who consider beyond the pale the beliefs and actions of others who are called MO.
The reason for this confusion is because, unlike Chasidim, Conservatives, Maskilim, Briskers, and other “movements” stemming from Judaism (some legitimate and some not), MO was never officially created. Rather, it began as simply people violating accepted standards of Orthodoxy, and then, when these low standards became the norm within certain communities, they decided to self-proclaim themselves MO, giving the illusion that their indiscretions are instead some kind of set of beliefs. There were no rabbis that decided “OK, we are creating Modern Orthodoxy. These are our teachings…” the way all the other movements were created. Just the opposite. After certain behaviors became excepted in certain communities, those communities said “Well, I guess we’re just Modern Orthodox!”. And anyone can do that to justify any type of behavior, we have so many diff groups and definitions and people claiming the title for themselves.
The only coherent explanation of Modern Orthodoxy comes form Rav Soloveitchik in his Five Addresses, which is, in a nutshell, we must compromise our standards in America because traditional Torah standards will not survive here. Only Yeshiva University type Judaism will survive and all else will die out. Which means the integration into secularity must be done to the extent that we must in order to survive. Obviously, the whole idea was a mistake.
The battle against YU by the Yeshiva world is not, nor was it, a simple issue of Halachic or Hashkafic disagreement which can be dismissed as routine if accompanied with the obligatory respect for the opposing view, as per ailu v’ailu etc. Not so. Rather, YU was viewed as a deviant, dangerous, and anti-Torah entity that doesn’t deserve the respect of a legitimate Torah position, even a mistaken one. Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L, and Rav Schneur ZT’L after him, would under no circumstances even walk into YU. Rav Elchonon Wasserman ZT’L also, when he came to America in the ’30s, was invited to speak in YU, and he refused to even walk in to the place. Of course, this is all very offensive to the students of YU, and I understand that. But if we’re going to understand what the issues are, then, we need to be honest and put the positions on the table, whether we like them or not. And here are the issues:
The difference between the inadequacies at YU versus the inadequacies in Yeshivos, is that YU made their inadequacies into philosophical positions thereby not merely doing wrong, but changing the definition of wrong. To do wrong is a violation of the Torah, and yes, many types of Jews do that. But to make wrong into right is to change the Torah, either explicitly or implicitly. YU has done. That amounts to a new, deviant movement within Judaism, and that is the problem with YU. The good, the bad, the gray areas – are all considered part and parcel of the official YU position.
Nowhere else will you find the “President” of a Bais HaMedrash constantly representing (and creating) the Torah positions of the institution without reviewing every single word of his speeches with the official Rosh Yeshiva. In YU, Dr. Lamm, though he was merely President, and not Rosh Yeshiva, had full right to get up and speak to the world about the official policies and positions of YU, even though the Roshei Yeshiva may not have agreed with him. Nowhere does a lay leader become a setter of policy for a Yeshiva.
The fact that the President of “Yeshiva” University can get up and refer to Bnei Torah as “cavemen” because they do not go to college, and the fact that anti-Torah activities do take place there regardless of whether the “talmidim” go against the Rebbeim or not, means that the institute as a whole must be opposed. The fact that in some classrooms you will not hear the heresy of chutzpah against the Torah does not negate the corruption of the institution as a whole. Because it is a business – as opposed to other Yeshivas who have a business element which does not set policy for the Yeshiva but merely the administrative offices – you can have people like Lamm, or Rackman, or even worse spouting all kinds of drivel in the name of Torah. And you can have an Avi Weiss and others like him teaching under its auspices.
Everyone is obligated per halacha to give tochacha when necessary.
The requirements to give Tochachah are:
1) You have to first assess that there is at least a reasonable possibility of the person listening to you. (Sometimes there are Halachic ways of assessing this.)
2) You have to give the Tochachah in a non-aggressive manner, and never in front of people.
3) You have to make the person understand that the only reason you are giving him the Tochachah is because you care about him, and it is for his good, so that he can get Olam Habah.
It also says in Sefer HaChinuch perek 239 that you should give someone tochacha privately and in a nice way; but if they don’t listen to you, then you should embarrass them in public so that they will do teshuvah.
As far as your other points: Nobody is questioning the fact that there are people who would be willing to be MO or not religious at all. The issue is, What is MO and is it the preferable mode of Judaism? The fact that it is, to some, the only version, or the maximum, that they are willing to accept does not address the issue at hand. If Modern Orthodoxy would be a Kiruv stage for people who aren’t yet ready for real Torah life, that would be fine. The problem is that they consider themselves not a b’dieved, but a l’chatchilah – a full fledged legitimate lifestyle. They often even make claims of being superior to Torah Judaism. That is the problem – compromises sometimes have to be made for individuals who are on their way up. But to take those compromises and make believe they are not compromises at all, thereby fooling people who WOULD be able to go higher that they need not, or worse, that they are already the highest, is a terrible crime. While it is true that on an individual, private, level, we are allowed to even proactively cause someone to sin if by doing so we will have prevented him form committing a greater sin, nevertheless, we may never, ever institutionalize those sins, making a b’dieved into a l’chatchilah, making the exception into the rule.
The reason why it would be a mistake to view MO as merely responding to the times as opposed to making compromises, is because when a response involves lowering standards it becomes, by definition, a compromise. MO has incorporated their inadequacies into Orthodoxy – they officially allow, encourage, and even support things that are wrong. They changed the definition of wrong and right. The difference between traditional Orthodoxy and MO in regard to meeting the times is NOT a difference of quantity. It is the difference between keeping exceptional cases as exceptions versus making them into the rule.
The problem with Modern Orthodoxy is not what their Jews do, but what their Judaism says. Jews are imperfect – we know that and accept it – but Judaism is perfect, and unchangeable. We do not make over G-d in our own image.
MSS: You’ve got to be kidding. I cited Rav Ahron’s published opinion in Mishnas Rabi Aharon on the previous page of this thread:
Rav Aharon and Rav Schneur (like Rav Elchonon hy’d) would under no circumstances walk into YU. At the funeral of a close friend of Rav Schneur that was taking place there, he had his driver circle the building until the procession came outside, at which point he joined.
This was already discussed:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/eating-on-the-street
Rav Aharon Kotler ZTV’L, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
MDG: I noticed that. But those are the figures on the Israeli government (Central Bureau of Statistics) website. I assume they have an ‘other’ category. Perhaps things like non-halachic Jews or Teimanim, Romaniotes, Italkim, etc. and the like fall into that category.
besalel: I don’t know where the JMP pulls out that number other than thin air, but the statistics I presented you come directly from the Israeli Census and from scholarly studies by demographers at Bar Ilan University. The current breakdown is 80/20 Ashkenazic/Sefardic.
Furthermore, 50% of Sefardim converted to Christianity during the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions 500 years ago. That seriously stunted Sefardic growth — resulting in over 500 years of lost Sefardic generations. And even today most Sefardim, like most Ashkenazim, are not religious. This, in large part, is a result of the zionist secularization programs and mostly occurred since the founding of the State of Israel.
besalel: Neither Pollard nor Rubashkin have completed their unfair sentence. Both should be freed immediately.
besalel: According to studies and research conducted by Daniel J. Elazar, Political Scientist and demographer at Bar Ilan University and founder of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, in 1931 Ashkenazim accounted for 92% of the Jewish population and today account for 80%, while Sephardim/Mizrachi today constitute approximately twenty percent of world Jewry.
There are 5.8 million Jews in all of Israel according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (and that’s including their overcounting with non-halachic Jews.) Of those 3 million are Ashkenazim and 1.8 million are Sephardim/Mizrachim according to the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. And a majority of Sephardim live in Israel. The overwhelmingly vast vast majority of Jews outside Israel are Ashkenazim. The only other countries with notable Sephardic populations are France with 300,000 Sephardim and the U.S. with 200,000. After that it is 50k in Argentina and 20k in Turkey. There is between 9-11.2 million worldwide Ashkenazim, with 5-6 million in the US alone.
dhl144: Talking during davening is a crime against everyone else in shul being disturbed. It isn’t just a person sinning that only affects himself.
CRuzer: It is a different issue for guys, who it can be more beneficial too due to the potentially greater ability of Limud Torah in E”Y.
In 1931 92% of Jews were Ashkenazic (based on an academic study of worldwide Jewry at the time.) It’s probably a bit less today.
uneeq,
As far as Maris Ayin, these guys going to this waterfront treif restaurant is no different than if you saw a Yid sitting down in McDonald’s drinking soda.
There is no difference between this restaurant and a McDoanld’s.
Just because a viewer should be dan lkaf zchus, does not excuse the party from maris ayin. Otherwise you could say there is no such thing as MA (obviously incorrect) since everyone should always be DLZ.
How does Gevalia (brewed) coffee compare to Taster’s Choice (or other instant) coffee?
I thought I was fairly clear. The Gemorah does not make recordings of “cultural attitudes” unless it is to teach us something today, in our modern day and time. That the Gemorah recorded it is because the Gemorah wishes to impart a lesson to us, that we can utilize in our lives today, from what it is telling us.
“daven louder.”
That has the problem of being inconsiderate to other people who are davening nearby.
No it doesn’t. Davening loud is a positive attribute that everyone should be encouraged to do.
I’ve been to shuls where everyone is, essentially, screaming out davening. It is a beautiful site to behold.
He would never do that
If he would not tell people to do the right thing, he is not a real rabbi.
Thats not his job anyway. His job is government issues
Then let his title be Chief Clerk rather than rabbi.
The is virtually nothing negative to write about the Gedolim.
This is a non-issue.
The Gemorah would not record something in the Gemorah if all it is was a local/societal/cultural issue of the day. If the Gemorah recorded it, it is to teach Klal Yisroel something that is time immemorial for us to learn from even today.
Today a United States federal judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued a Stay of Enforcement against the Bloomberg Health Department from enacting the metzitza b’peh regulation!
?????? ???? (?????? ?:??): ???? ??’ ????? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????.
Toldos Yitzchok (Bereishis 2:21): And Hashem caused man to become unconscious [when He made Chava] [associated with the creation of woman] – hints that man should make himself unconscious when he is in his house and not to be critical and fussy with his wife and household.
Feif: Whoever told that to you about Rav Dovid, is very mistaken.
Sam: HWGA is correct. He is not talking about guests. He is talking about one of the two sides of the shidduch. If they have a halachic objection to mixed seating, obviously the wedding cannot proceed with mixed seating.
Must winter start Isru Chag Succos even for us Aussies? Cause it does feel kinda warm down under.
Has Rav Savitzky or Rav Belsky assumed Rav Pam’s position in Torah Vodaas?
OneOfMany: Where did you hear that Rebbe Yehuda Hachosid only intended it for his descendants? It is likely that today the vast majority of Ashkenaz Jewry descend from him.
Sam – Why did Klal Yisroel start using a Christian religious innovation for their bible to import for use in our Torah?
Sam – Are you implying that Rebbe Yehuda Hachosid disagrees with the Gemora? And who said we pasken like the Gemora in Brochos?
Yidden pay taxes and are fully entitled to accept every penny of welfare, food stamps, medicaid and section 8 that they are technically legally entitled to. If your in-laws are your landlord, it is 100% legal to use section 8 to pay them. Able bodied persons who are not working (for any reason) are 100% legally entitled to collect welfare. And every Yid in that position should accept all the aid the government entitles them to. Just as the non-Jews do.
Just because the moon is a rock doesnt contradict the fact that it is, in some way, sentient. As it so happens, the statement about the moon is a Zohar in a few places. He says thats what it means when it says “Yetzorom Bdaas bebinah uvehaskel” – that Hashem created the luminaries including their wisdom. Rav Chaim Kanievsky also, in Kiryas Melech, goes through the Rambam in Hilchos Deos bringing sources for just about every statement there. Rav Schneur Kotler ZTL said that he remembers that Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk ZTL once said that there are people who hold Rambam was wrong, and they are totally wrong, and he (Rav Meir Simchah) would really write a sefer showing that every word of the Rambams Hilchos Deos is culled from Chazal, but the Malbim already wrote such a Sefer so he doesn’t need to. Rav Schneur continued, that nobody knew what Rav Meir Simcha was referring to by the Sefer of the Malbim until a few years ago (about 35 years ago from today) they reprinted a Sefer from the Malbim showing that the Rambam’s Hilchos Deos was all from Chazal.
I hope the oilem is mochel for anything and everything, intentional or unintentional.
I can only try: Sigh, if you really don’t want the discussion to end, and consider it cowardly to close the discussion, I’ll grace you with a response. Though, my instinct is that even though this is an issue you feel strongly about, you will soon be contrite over your poor choice of words in this discussion. After all, was it not you who made THIS comment to folks who, too, strongly felt about an issue?
Rav Shapiro said that per RYSE the tnai itself is acceptable to be used but that RYSE never indicated that the buyer ever agreed and is therefore subject to the tnai — and that he is not, in fact. Also, all three rabbonim I have discussed (unlike Rav Belsky) do allow the individual to trust his own judgement as to whether he would or would not have purchased the CD (or other IP).
You also question my describing the majority of poskim’s position since you think I probably don’t know what the majority hold, yet a few days ago above you yourself describe a position as that of the “overwhelming majority of poskim” without any knowledge of such. Nevertheless, even putting aside the question of majority, I have repeatedly pointed out that my own Rov paskened it is permissible to copy. Yet you persist in falsely saying I am “cherry-picking”. Sticking with my own Rov’s position, the same Rov I use for ALL my shailos (when he is available), is hardly “cherry-picking”. Furthermore, even though I hadn’t identified him, I did give you two other poskim who are on-the-record that copying is permissible under the circumstances. One I provided you a maare makom in a halacha sefer and the other I provided you with a Rov you can easily contact directly.
Ksiva V’Chasima Tova
Igros Moshe, Even HaEzer 2:1
“My outlook is based only on knowledge of Torah whose ways are truth, without any influence of secular studies.”
There is a tape available in Seforim stores called “The prohibition to learn in Colleges” (Yiddish), which contains addresses by Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT’L and Rav Aharon Kotler ZT’L condemning college. Rav Moshe Feinstein ZT’L also denounced college in a Teshuva, and in a famous speech delivered to his students, published under the title “The Counsel of the Wicked” (Vaad LeHaromas Keren HaTorah, New York, 1978). There he reiterates that everyone has an obligation to become great in Torah, we should not care so much about monetary wealth, and that learning Torah is what we should be pursuing, not secular stuff. He says in America you do not need college to make a Parnassa, and we should be willing to live on little, not a lot, for the sake of Torah, and that R. Nehuray’s statement in the Gemorah (“I will forgo all skills in the world and teach my son only Torah”) of abandoning all skills in favor of Torah applies all that more today that we live in a country where you can make a parnassa without college, with no miracles needed.
But even if Moses himself told you to do something, don’t you think G-d gave you a brain to actually use it and decide if that commandment makes any sense?
“frummy in the tummy” is absolutely correct. Why listen to a commandment from Moshe Rabbeinu m’sinai if it doesn’t make sense to your own G-d given brain? Use your own brains and decide!
I’m sure tummy doesn’t wear tzitzus.
I can only try: I’m tired of hearing you ask me the same questions repeatedly with slightly changed wording and then when I respond to your repeated question to help you understand, you only shoot out that I changed what I am advising you. (I am not.) The point is dina dmalchusa is inapplicable regarding monetary issues between two non-governmental parties, per most poskim including Rav Eliashev. And you’ve not only mischaracterized what I am relating, but you’ve done so as well regarding what Rav Moshe and what Rav Shapiro said. Rav Moshe said it is a midas sdom to stop someone from copying where no sale is lost. Rav Belsky shlita takes a more chumradik position on this than most poskim, but he is not the posek hador like Rav Moshe was. (And do you use a Shabbos-clock on an AC, against Rav Moshe’s ruling? Do you drink unfiltered NYC tap water, per Rav Belsky’s ruling, which is permissive despite most poskim being non-permissive?) And Rav Eliashev did NOT give a “haskama” that printing such a tnai makes it prohibited to copy. The bottom line is that most poskim allow copying in a case where the producer takes no loss. None of the poskim mentioned so far, with the notable exception of Rav Belsky, bring a teshuva being non-permissive in a case where no loss is sustained.
All things considered, we are going in circles. So I will now honor your request to no longer currently discuss this in public here If you wish to have the last word (or two – or even three postings), the floor is all yours. I rest my case.
He was testing he fortitude to see if she could hold out under such trying circumstances . Unfortunately she didn’t pass the test, so he has declined to take her out on a second date.
The poskim on dina dmalchusa state it is limited to issues between a person and financial responsibilities (taxes) to the government. Rav Yaakov directly posted his position I mentioned on his hashkafa website; google without quotes “shapiro halacha music downloaded unpaid for”. My rav indicated it is not a halachic issur of either gezeila or dina dmalchusa. It may or may not be a problem of hasagas gvul depending on the circumstances. And if the circumstances permit it, there is no other halachic prohibition. Rav Moshe is O.C. 4:40:19.
I see, mdd. Simply dismiss Rav Shteinman as “one of those Israeli Chareidim”. Yeah, okay.
Rav Moshe writes in the Igros Moshe that it is midas sdom for the producer to be makpid on copying if it causes him no loss.
Btw, looking at Rav Belsky’s position in greater depth indicates Rav Belsky holds the issue is hasagas gvul and not halachic gezeila.
And I disagree with Menachem’s reasoning to not discuss this. You could use that reasoning to discontinue all halachic discussions here. And we are discussing the permissiveness on this issue exclusively limited to where the producer does not lose any sale. All other circumstances we all agree it is prohibited to copy.
Sam: EDITED is a famous mara d’asra of a large community. I’m sure you didn’t mean him, and you’ll even say someone to the right of him, yet without knowing who, it may as well as be him.
Please do not name names. You are begging for loshon hara.
Rav Eliashev holds dina dmalchusa does not apply to Choshen Mishpat issues. Rav Belsky apparently disagrees, and that is his right.
Yes, I’ve asked my rov, and he holds there is no issue of gezeila. And hasagas gvul is conditional, as previously explained. There is absolutely no cherry picking. And the rov asked is a close colleague of Rav Feivel, and of the same great stature. Google Contact Bais Medrash of Bayswater to reach Rav Yaakov.
I can only try, you are mistaken on various points:
1) Incorrect. The overwhelming majority of poskim who discuss intellectual property do NOT make a blanket prohibition against copying. And as I indicated above, nor is their a blanket heter to copy either.
2) Correct. On an individual basis, with the rabbonim specifying when it expires. And this was based on hasagas gvul. Not geneiva (otherwise it would have been permanent, non-expiring.) And it didn’t apply to all works, unless the rabbonim gave the sefer a specific cherem. Furthermore, it applied a temporary prohibition only to *commercial* copying-to-sell, where obviously you are taking away business from the producer who would have otherwise sold it to the customers the copyer sold it to. Hasagas gvul. It did not apply to personal copying. (Obviously there was no personal single-copying feasible in those days.)
3. No it is not “genevia”. And very few of the poskim consider it halachic geneiva. They consider hasagas gvul.
4. I explained above why dina dmalchusa is not relevant. So that only leaves hasagas gvul. And hasagas gvul ONLY is relevant if you caused a lost sale. If there was no intention of purchasing it (i.e. a $5,000 photo/video editing software), there is no hasagas gvul.
No, I did NOT intend to assert above that “intellectual property can absolutely be copied in all circumstances.” I stress only if he would not have purchased the product even if he couldn’t copy it. If I wasn’t entirely clear on that point, let me stress it again. I am asking you to respect this point even if you and some poskim may hold otherwise, as *many* poskim agree with this point. Including Rav Yaakov Shapiro, Rov of Bais Medrash of Bayswater (who can *easily* be contacted.) And if you want to “see it inside” from a halacha sefer, see Pischei Choshen, Geneivah, page 284.