Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 058

Sunday, June 10 2001

• Re: Yiud
• Re: Reward, punishment, hashgachah and teva
• Re: Yiud
• Re: kedushei ketana
• rape vs yibum
• Re: rape vs yibum
• Halicha bekeri, et al
• Whose fault is it anyway ?
• Re: Yiud
• Re: Whose fault is it anyway ?
• Yated article, vehachai yiten el libo
• Copyright (was Re: kedushei ketana)
• Re: Copyright (was Re: kedushei ketana)
• G-d and suffering

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>I also do not understand the couple of posts that try to explain the
>ethics of these dinim by focussing on the time and place the Torah was
>given. The Torah is just as true now, it wasn't given for the bayis
>rishon community alone.

But some halachas may be applicable or appropriate in only certain times
and places (clearly this is true of places, eg halachas in relation
to eretz yisroel are only applicable to eretz yisroel and to the beis
hamikdash in the beis hamikdash, but similarly for time - halachas vis
a vis destroying amalek are only applicable if amalek is identifiable,
the mitzvah of techeles is only applicable if we can identify the
creature from which it is produced). And there are some halachas that
were applicable but expired once the first beis hamikdash was founded
(eg the permissibility of building bamas).

If we acknowledge that socio-economic situations change, then if anything
would we not logically expect a Torah that caters for all situations to
have halachas that were necessary in one time and place but which will
naturally and of necessity fall into disuse in other socio-economic
situations - kiddushei ketana being a classic - in that it would seem
to have been required by the needs of the society during beis rishon,
it was no longer needed during the times of chazal, who came out strongly
against it being practiced in their environment, was again needed during
the times (and in the place of) the tosphosim, but which again is not
needed today (and in fact is never practiced, and there is, if I recall,
a takana against it in modern Israel).

Regards
Chana

If one goes through the shakla and taria in kiddushin on 39b, one gets the 
sense that the baalei hatalmud agonized over this issue as much as we do and 
also had trouble with reconciling the different approaches

Shabbat shalom
Joel

On 8 Jun 01, at 0:16, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
> If we acknowledge that socio-economic situations change, then if anything
> would we not logically expect a Torah that caters for all situations to
> have halachas that were necessary in one time and place but which will
> naturally and of necessity fall into disuse in other socio-economic
> situations - kiddushei ketana being a classic...

I'm not sure I would attribute the status of Kedushei Ktana today to 
socio-economics. I think that, like Yibum, it's more a question of 
purity of intentions. I don't think we can rely on a father today 
having only his daughter's best interests in mind, the way they did 
in other eras. I would argue then that it's not that the halacha is 
inapplicable to our era, it's that because of yeridas ha'doros, we are 
not capable of practicing the halacha properly. 

--- 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.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Wed, Jun 06, 2001 at 02:42:54PM -0700, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I disagree. It isn't just the worldview that is problematic. It is a
: common sense view of right and wrong which I am unable to reconcile it to.

I would say the same of genocide, yet there is Amaleik. Common sense may
not be a reliable guideline.

That said, just yesterday came up the topic of copyrighting in halachah.
The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment,
it is impossible that the Torah is less moral. He therefore assigns ownership
of ideas to their creator. And since, in halachah, ownership is eternal 
(barring proactively making a kinyan), he paskened that copyrights are
lehalachah also eternal.

Note that he isn't claiming dina dimalchusah. There are grounds for that
too, and even for turning that dina dimalchusah ownership into a halachic
eternal ownership. But that's for a discussion of the halachos of copyright.

I just want to note the SuM's assumption, and the importance he assigns
moral rights identified by the surrounding culture.

And yet copyrite would be ubichokoseihem lo seileichu... Sorry, I couldn't
resist. But there is relevence, because we're talking about following
their idea of ethical.



On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:15:50AM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: I'm not sure I would attribute the status of Kedushei Ktana today to 
: socio-economics. I think that, like Yibum, it's more a question of 
: purity of intentions....

Kedushei katana is different also because it's a right, not a chiyuv.
I do not see pesak or gezeirah assuring a father from using that right
the same as assuring the performance of a chiyuv de'Oraisa.

Although a gezeirah can do so bisheiv vi'al ta'aseh, assuming all the
other loopholes are met.

Did anyone else notice how close this conversation is to the debate over
the reason for korbanos offered in the Moreh? However, no one suggests
that the Rambam thought that since the reason he gives was local to one
mileau that there wouldn't be korbanos in bayis shelishi.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Yibum can be performed without the wife's consent, I think, according to
all tanaim. Abba Shaul is discussing motivation. If a husband has kavanna
l'mitzva, he is koneh even without consent of the wife. Of course,
as previously mentioned by several writers, this is not the preferred
method of yibum.

Shlomo Goldstein

On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:34:40AM +0300, S. Goldstein wrote:
: Yibum can be performed without the wife's consent, I think, according to
: all tanaim. Abba Shaul is discussing motivation...

Yes, and Abba Shaul would rule out the motivation of a rapist.

-mi

Regarding recent discussions--

Following Rambam's interpretation of "keri": 1) Why is "keri" mentioned
starting only after the second series of disasters listed in Bechukotai,
but not after the first? 2) How could Israel time after time misperceive
repeated and clearly unprecedented catastrophes, coming one after the
other, as natural events and not as a message from G-d?

See attached [appended -mi] parshat Bechukotai from my "New
Interpretations on the Parsha," published this month by Ktav.

Following the discussion of Chazon Ish and other authorities' views on
Sheirut Leumi: Sefer haChinuch's (495-6) writes that Lo Tasur appllies
to the rulings of the great scholar(s) of every generation, brought also
by Chayei Adam 127:1. However, Sefer haChinuch's source is not clear,
and Rambam, Ramban et al do not seem to agree with him. Shu"t Bnei Banim,
vol. 2, no. 23 (5).

With Torah blessings
Yehuda Henkin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. BECHUKOTAI

Vayikra 26:3-5,15-17

[Hebrew deleted due to technological limitations. -mi]

    If you follow my decrees and keep my commandments and fulfill them,
    I will punctually give you rain, the land will yield its harvest
    and the cultivated trees will bear their fruit. Your threshing will
    extend until the grape harvest and the grape harvest will extend
    until sowing. You will eat your fill, and live securely in your
    land.... But if you despise my decrees and loathe my statutes so as
    not to fulfill all my commandments, violating my covenant... I will
    do this to you, too: I will appoint panic, consumption and fever
    over you, that destroy hope and grieve the soul. You will sow your
    seed for nothing, because your foes will eat it. I will set my face
    against you and you will be routed by your foes; your enemies will
    rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is chasing you.

Q. Why is this reading traditionally referred to as the tochechah,
"the rebuke"? We read of both rewards and punishments.

A. For one thing, the list of punishments is three times longer than the
section on rewards. The Torah assumes a state of national wellbeing,
and addresses itself at length to those to whom retribution for sins
seems far away. By contrast, Jews in distress need little prompting to
focus on relief.

In addition, the rewards are an integral part of the rebuke. The wages
of sin seem even worse, contrasted with the benefits of doing right.

The key word in the tochechah is keri, repeated no fewer than seven
times. [1] G-d warns, "If you walk keri with me, and refuse to listen
to me..." (Vayikra 26:21); "If you will not be chastened by me through
these, but walk keri with me..." (v. 27), and so on.

What does keri mean? It comes from the word mikreh, "happening." Rambam
explains that Israel walks keri with G-d if it views His punishments
as chance occurrences. [2] Oblivious to G-d's intended message, Israel
continues to sin.

This explains why keri is first mentioned only in the middle of the
tochechah. It begins, "If you will not heed me and observe all of these
commandments..." (26:14). A list of punishments follows, and G-d warns,
"If in spite of these you will not heed me, I will continue to chastise
you, sevenfold, for your sins" (v. 18). A second series of disas --
ters ensues, and only then does G-d mention keri for the first time:
"If you walk keri with me and refuse to listen to me...." Why wasn't
keri mentioned after the first group of punishments?

When disasters first occur, Israel takes note of them, but reserves
judgement. That is not yet keri. [3]

Only when catastrophe follows catastrophe do its leaders and sages,
princes and eminent scholars, formally consider: is G-d trying to tell
us something?

They reach a solemn conclusion: no! G-d is not sending us a message.
The calamities cannot be divine punishments, because they do not fit
our understanding of certain texts. [4] They do not support what we have
learned from our teachers. They do not match our conception of our own
righteousness. When the community and its leaders arrive at a reasoned
refusal to recognize what G-d is doing, that is when G-d becomes really
angry.

Alternatively, the interpreters exaggerate trivial transgressions,
while denying that there is anything fundamentally wrong with their
saintly communities. Disasters are made keri when we ascribe them to
minor faults, and deny the existence of major ones.

Keri also works in the opposite direction. When G-d bestows His largesse
on us in a way that generations of Jews did not live to see, and we
explain it away... this, too, is walking keri with G-d. [5]

Catastrophe and ecstasy both come from G-d. Jeremiah said, "Don't the bad
and the good [both] come from the mouth of the Supreme?" (Lamentations
3:38). We must walk, not keri with G-d but faithfully before Him, as
G-d said to Abraham, "Walk before me and be complete" (Bereishit 17:2).

--

Notes

1. Vayikra 26:21,23-24, 27-28,40-41.

2. Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Ta'anit 1:3; Moreh Nevuchim 3:36.

3. Inattention or suspended judgement is not keri, but refusal to
understand... and especially active misrepresentation, is; cf. Vayikra
26:40, "b'ma'alam asher ma'alu bi." For a similar use of me'ilah, see
Devarim 32:51, where Moses failed to ascribe a miracle to G-d. See below,
Ha'azinu, pp. 172-174.

4. See "Targum Yonatan" to Vayikra 26:40, "b'shukreihon d'shakru
b'memrai," "the falsifications they falsified in My words" i.e., in
the Torah.

5. This explains the unique stress on the Sabbatical year found in the
tochechah, see Vayikra 26:34-35. Failure to acknowledge G-d's goodness
in giving us the land of Israel—non-observance of shemitta (see previous
parsha, Behar)—leads to failure to recognize the pun- ishments that will
ensue. See Equality Lost, pp. 139-143.

On Thu, 7 Jun 2001 09:15:59 -0400 gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Ramban, Sha'ar HeGemul, Kol Kisvei HaRamban vol. 2 pp. 280-281
>     "If one sees a righteous person suffering in his righteousness, one 
> should initially attribute this to the few sins that he committed."

Could you please quote the Ramban in his original Lashon Kodesh. From
your translation one could conclude that the Ramban meant 1) the
righteous person suffers as punishment for the few sins he did, i.e.
leaving him with a clean slate for Olam HaBa; or 2) the one who sees
the righteous person suffer should attribute the fact that he had
to witness such suffering to the few sins that he (the witness) had
committed, a-la Kol HaRo'eh Sotah B'Kilkulah Yazir Atzmo Min HaYayin,
since the message gleaned from witnessing the Sotah was intended for him
specifically. Neither of these two interpretations supports your premise
that the Ramban was suggesting blaming one's suffering on the aveiros
of others. Or have I misunderstood and all you were saying is that the
Ramban means we have the right to assume that Yisurin are inflicted on
others for THEIR aveiros? What was the Hava Amina? Is that not the
basic premise of S'char V'Onesh?

Stuart Goldstein

[Offline] Carl Sherer wrote:
> I'm not sure I would attribute the status of Kedushei Ktana today to 
> socio-economics. I think that, like Yibum, it's more a question of purity of
> intentions. 

Tosafos in Kiddushin says explicitly that it is due to socio-economic 
conditions.

Gil

Stuart Goldstein wrote:

> Could you please quote the Ramban in his original Lashon Kodesh. 

Ramban, Sha'ar HeGemul, Kol Kisvei HaRamban vol. 2 pp. 280-281

"Ra'uy lechol ba'al mikreh ufega leha'amin ki mikreihu vetzaraso al
avono ufisho veyashuv al hanoda bahem bis'shuvah ve'al lo hoda lo velo
zachur bahem yisvadeh min hastam. Ve'im yireh tzadik oved betzidko yihyeh
meyaches zeh techilah el miyut aveiros she'asah."

> From your translation one could conclude that the Ramban meant 1) the 
> righteous person suffers as punishment for the few sins he did, i.e. leaving 
> him with a clean slate for Olam HaBa; 

That was my understanding.

> Neither of these two interpretations supports your premise that the Ramban
> was suggesting blaming one's suffering on the aveiros of others. Or have I
> misunderstood and all you were saying is that the Ramban means we have the
> right to assume that Yisurin are inflicted on others for THEIR aveiros ? 

Yes, you misunderstood me.

> What was the Hava Amina ? Is that not the basic premise of S'char V'Onesh ?

The hava amina is that we cannot assume that people are suffering
for their sins. We should assume that it is just a natural occurence
i.e. mikreh.

Gil Student

Vehachai Yeetain El Leebo
Rabbi Pinchos Lipschutz

...

Over in Eretz Yisroel, Chaifa residents breathe a sigh of relief because
it didn't happen to them. Chadera is all of 30 minutes down the coastal
highway, and Netanya is a whole 15 minutes further south. Whew.

Until the bomb attack on leil Shabbos, people in Tel Aviv were certain
they weren't even on the same planet as the rest of the country. Now
they are turning on the radio every half an hour like every other Israeli.

The reaction of Yerushalayim residents is by far the most
interesting. Those who don't live in Gilo or have never heard the sound
of an exploding car bomb feel pretty secure.

Meanwhile, Gilo residents who don't live in the problematic streets
facing Beit Jalla thank G-d that they bought their homes where they
did. Gilo residents who do live in the problematic streets, but whose
windows don't face Beit Jalla, put earplugs on when the fireworks begin
and are upset over the plunging value of their real estate.

Gilo residents whose windows do face Beit Jalla, but whose apartment has
already been bulletproofed, now are only slightly inconvenienced by the
pinging of bullets and the occasional screams emanating from apartments
that still have plain glass. Only residents with plain glass whose windows
face Beit Jalla are doing a lot of sincere introspection these days.

Have you ever sat on the plane to Eretz Yisroel when a world map is
displayed on the screen. There is a red line stretching form New York
to Tel Aviv with a small plane [with you on it] making it's way ever so
slowly along that red line as it flies those thousands of miles from
here to there. How many miles is Tel Aviv really from New York? How
distant are we really from Eretz Yisroel? How far is Brooklyn from Gilo?

Stop and think about it for a moment. Does it really make a difference
where calamity strikes? As long as Jews are involved, geographic
differences are totally meaningless. We are one people, one nation of
Hashem, a single body.

Making believe that this is not happening to us is like trying to ignore
a toothache-you may manage to take your mind off it for a few moments,
but unless you take care of it, it's going to get progressively worse.

The Rambam discusses this concept in Hilchos Taanis: "There is a
positive commandment in the Torah to cry out, and to blow the chatzotzros
[trumpets] for all tragedies that befall the communityÉThis is one of
the ways to inspire TeshuvaÉFor when tragedy occurs and the response is
to cry out, and to blow, then everyone realizes that it is misdeeds that
have caused the problem.

"This very crying out can actually remedy the problem. However, if they
don't cry out, and don't blow [the chatzotzros] and instead assume that
what has happened is a part of the natural course of events, then this
is actually a form of cruelty that causes people to persist in their
misguided ways. This, in turn, can only lead to more tragedies" (Rambam,
Hilchos Taanis 1:1-3).

To dispel any misunderstandings, it is important to emphasize that
this article is not about the security crisis in Eretz Yisroel. No,
this article is not about Israel. It's about complacency in the face of
tragedy. It's about what to do when you hear about awful news.

The Rambam depicts one who apathetically attributes a calamity to natural
causes as, derech achzorious, the path of cruelty.

Rav Yecheskel Levenstein explains the Rambam's language. The noun used
to describe a desensitized, cruel person, is achzor. He explains that
two words combine to form this word, ach and zor.

The cruel man whose heart has no place for another person's suffering,
hears the most heartbreaking story and remains unmoved. He says to himself
"yes it's terrible BUT [ach] it has nothing to do with me, it happened
to a stranger [zor]." Therein lies the root of all cruelty and apathy-it
happened to a stranger.

There is a part of us that yearns to feel secure and safe from any
danger. We want to be able to say "shalom alei nafshi," I, at least,
am not threatened. Tzoros only happen to people whose names I don't know
in places only faintly familiar to me.

This little security blanket that we clutch as desperately as a young
child in unfamiliar surroundings, is wearing thin.

The tzoros are of such magnitude-the worst terror attack, the worst civil
disaster etc.-that the debris and dust they raise now falls even on the
worn blanket of the distant achzor. Any Jew whose neshoma stood at Har
Sinai must hear the veiled voice of Hakadosh Boruch Hu trying to awaken
His slumbering children.

Unfortunately, we have our own share of tragedies over here in
America. The latest one took place in Lakewood on Motzoei Shabbos, when
a precious 13-year-old Bas Yisroel passed away in the middle of the night.

Sunday afternoon thousands of shocked and shattered mourners flocked
to the levaya. The wound was fresh and deep and written on everyone'
s faces. A brilliant, vibrant girl, blessed with special intelligence
and a shining personality, was gone just like that.

The hespeidim ripped your heart to shreds. A 90 year-old zaydeh,
a gadol baTorah stood to be maspid a 13 year young granddaughter. Is
there anything more sad? A sobbing Rosh Yeshiva cries over the loss of
an extraordinary girl destined for greatness. The father, a giant in
Torah and Chesed cries bitterly over his daughter and says over the vort
she said just yesterday at the Shabbos table and how it epitomizes her
life. The pain is unbearable. You can't believe it's really happening. But
it is. Your face is drenched. Someone passes you a tissue. And to the
people next to you. The uncontrollable wailing is still ringing in
your ears.

She is the fourth young person who has died in Lakewood within a short
period of time.

What is the response in the face of such awful tragedy?

Did you ever notice that when people are menachem aveilim of young
niftarim they ask did he have a heart condition, high blood pressure or
any history of illness? Why do they ask these questions? Because they
want to re-assure themselves that it won't happen to them. That it only
happens to other people. Beshrirus libi eileich. They shed a tear or two
but when they walk out of that bais aveil, they wipe that tear away and
it doesn 't translate into any positive action or serious introspection.

The Gemorah in Shabbos (daf koof hei) teaches that Hakadosh Boruch takes
the tears shed on an adam kasher, counts them and places them in his
store house. Hakadosh Boruch Hu sofran unmeinichun b'veis genazav. A dear
friend of mine explained that HKB"H places the tears aside to see what
becomes of the person who shed them. If the tears lead to real change,
to a real commitment, to something positive, then they are valuable and
He counts them and places them b'veis genazav.

We are not prophets, and Hashem does not explain to us why things happen
the way they do. What we are is Torah-observant Jews, which means that
we believe nothing happens by accident. Every action in this world,
every joyous event, every tragedy, every catastrophe is determined by the
Ribbono Shel Olam. We are expected to fulfill our purpose in this world,
which the Mesilas Yesharim defines:

"What Chazal have taught us is that man was created only to find pleasure
in Hashem, and to benefit from the radiance of His presence, for this is
the true enjoyment and greatest pleasure of all the pleasures that can
possibly be found. And the true place of this pleasure is in Olam HabaÉ

"But, the means to achieve this object of our desires is this world,
as Chazal said: This world is a corridor before the World to Come.
And the means by which man arrives at this goal are the mitzvos that
Hashem charged us with. The place for the performance of these mitzvos
is only this world. Therefore, man was placed in this world first, so
that through these means that are his opportunities here, he can reach
the place that is prepared for him, which is the next world, to enjoy
the good that he has acquiredÉ"

The Baalei Mussar of old possesed a special gift for alerting man to
peer beneath the surface and confront his latent kochos hanefesh and
examine them to see what needs correction.

The tragedies we have been hearing about all too frequently these days
are intended as painful reminders to take better advantage of all those
"opportunities" that come our way during our brief tour through the
corridor.

On the personal level, this means that we should make it a habit to
press the pause button once in a while and get off the merry-go-round of
life. We need to take a good look at what our lives are all about and ask
ourselves regularly whether, if we keep going in the direction that we're
headed now, will we ever reach our destination? Maybe it's time to consult
the map and compass, chart the course afresh, and tack to starboard.

As the Lakewood mashgiach reminded the thousands of tearful mourners
at the Lakewood levaya we are not nevi'm, nor the children of nevi'
im and we dare not attach specific causes for specific tragedies.

But, if the recent tragedies teach us only one thing, it is not to take
the gift of life for granted. Treat each day as though it was your last,
Chazal tell us.

Imagine how a person would behave if he knew he had only one more day
to live. He would savor the company of his wife and children. He would
make an effort to be kind to people, to do chessed, to smile, to do as
many mitzvos as he could get his hands on. He would make more time for
Limud Torah.

He certainly would not want to be petty and small. He would stay away
from all types of narishkeit.

He would get out there and get involved. Do something.

If someone is in trouble, he'd be the one who comes to the rescue. He
wouldn't shut himself in his moated private castle and poke fun at
others. He'd bend down and pick up the fallen guy.

Don't be cynical. Be positive.

Don't wait for someone else to do it-be the one.

If we will all improve ourselves and channel those tears that Hakadosh
Boruch Hu is now examining into tangible acts for good, He will place them
in His beis geniza and count them up so that He will bring much closer
the day when we merit that He will wipe away all tears for all time.

Bimheirah biyumeinu amein

On 8 Jun 01, at 7:27, Micha Berger wrote:
> That said, just yesterday came up the topic of copyrighting in halachah.
> The Sho'el uMeishiv's position that if secular society saw the moral
> obligation to protect an author's creation and publisher's investment,
> it is impossible that the Torah is less moral....

Isn't there something about Chidushei Torah not being subject to 
copyright? I remember discussing that somewhere in the past. 

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 06:49:00PM +0300, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: Isn't there something about Chidushei Torah not being subject to 
: copyright? I remember discussing that somewhere in the past. 

Here's what I know about halachah and copyright law. Mostly from R' Zev
Reichman (of REITS's Kollel Elyon).

1- Dina dimalchusa issues:

According to Tosafos on Gittin, dina dimalchusah dinah is only on
taxation.

The Beis Yitzchak does rule that ddd applies here. However, RZR opined
that ddd still wouldn't apply apply to Sony Bono's law that was aimed
specifically at Disney, allowing them to extend their copyright on some
animated characters. It's not an evenly applied rule.

2- I already cited the most chamur, the Sho'el uMeishiv 1:44, who goes beyond
ddd. RZR wondered if the SuM would also recognize the French philosophy of
copyright: that the artist could sell reproduction and profit rights, but
eternally retains rights to controlling how the idea is changed. (So even
if you sell a painting, the owner is allowed to copy it, but not modify
it.) After all, this is also a secularly identified moral right. Would
it be a halachah only in France?

3- Hasagas gevul:

There is an old cheirem, invoked in many if not most haskamos for a few
centuries, against copying sefarim. (The SuM mentions it.) The cheirem
is at least as old as the publication of Tomer Devora (about a century
after it was written) -- because it's mentioned in the haskamos. That
if one copies the sefer beli reshus, or buys such a copy he is subject
to the cheirem and will lose all the berachos showered on people who
learn TOmer Devorah listed in the begining of the haskamah.

The Chasam Sofer traces the cheirem back to the Maharam Padua's edition
of the Rambam. After he invested all the time and money preparing the
plates, a non-Jewish publisher, Justinian, took those plates and printed
his own copy of the Yad, charging one gold coin less than the original.
The Rama said that anyone who bought a Justinian edition was under
cheirem, as they prevented him from recouping his loss.

Given this lashon, the CS concludes that the problem is hasagas gezul.

However, as RZR noted, hasagas gevul only applies to unfair competition,
not to give copies away as a tzadakah or a fundraiser.

This is also the conclusion of R' Moshe. R' Bleich, back when he was a talmid
at Torah Vadaas found a rare publication of a notebook of R' Chaim and had
it published as a TvD fundraiser. The original publisher found out about
it and cried "hasagas gevul". They went to R' Moshe who ruled in favor
of R' Bleich.

4- Issur geneivah:

R' Bleich himself, when writing on the subject, quotes "ein berei'ach
mishum me'ilah", and that there is no geneivah without a cheftzah.

5- Hezek

Now we're in "Micha's 2 cents" territory. Li nir'eh that even for a
tzedakah to do it, even if not hasagas gevul, you are causing hezek
to someone who would otherwise earn money.

Even if not quantifiably assur, I would want to invoke bal tishaktzu
on this one.

6- Chilul Hashem

In a case like Napster, where the case will have a kol and a trial in
the press, I would think that the risk of chillul Hashem, and therefore
*dinei nefashos*, is enough to assur it -- even in cases where the
copying would be found to be technically legal.

-mi

PS: While on the subject, I should point out that we obtain reshus
to include any emails that are reposted on Avodah. When asking, I
make it clear that a copy will appear in the web archive as well.

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

> From: Micha Berger [mailto:micha@aishdas.org]
>> In private email someone pointed me to Chullin 7b, "ein adam koeif
>> etzba'o...
>> So as I see it, the question is how can so many rishonim argue with
>> what is befeirush in the gemara?

> I actually used to believe not like the Rambam (partially because I
> used to think that he was a daas yachid) but now believe like Rambam
> (really Ramban) because I think that philosophically the questions on
> the non-Rambam position are overwhelming (see Rabbi Carmy's article).

Whatever philosophical formulation you adopt is not adequate to
understanding G-d's ways.

We are obligated to view all misfortunes as a call to teshuva. At the
same time the idea that every individual, at every moment, is equally
subject to direct providential attention is highly problematic and flied
in the face of many statements in Tanakh and Hazal.

The notion that one doesn't lift a finger unless it is ordained from
Above captures the belief that G-d is involved in all events: He knows
all events (this is Rambam's view as well, though Ralbag differs);
and ultimately, we are to see His hand in all occurrences.

To be sure, the literal meaning of the statement in Hazal may not do
justice to some of the problems alluded to. But a narrow interpretation
of the Rambam's position would fail to capture the full sense of divine
involvement in our lives.

The issue here is not that some rishonim are ignoring the Gemara (or
unconscionably toning down its implications). The issue is that all
formulations will fall short. All the statements in Tanakh, Hazal and
the rishonim and aharonim, are meant to help us come as close to the
truth as we can.

To again employ the analogy to human relations: We don't fully understand
what other people intend for us, even if the relationship is very close.
All attempts to formulate in a simplistic way what they want and expect
and hope for and are upset about will fall short. This does not mean that
some attempts are not better than others. It does imply that simplistic
attempts fail by definition, because they start out from an error about
the very nature of what a personal relationship is about.

The greatest of men wished to understand G-d's ways with the world
(Brakhot 7, I think). G-d said, "You can see my back but not my Face."
Moshe Rabbenu was told that you can't get a straight answer to the
fundamental question about G-d's relationship to us. One can only gain
insight in retrospect and by indirection.

> However, I am not sure how we are supposed to know how to react unless
> we have an approach to theodicy.  In his article, Rabbi Carmy used the
> Rambam's approach (I think he said "for example" when he chose the
> approach) to show how one should react.  But one needs that Rambam's
> approach before one knows how to react.  In our case also, we need to
> know why the tragedy happened in order to know how to react.


No. We need to know one thing only-- that we are obligated to turn to G-d.
That means recognizing that what is happening to us is to be seen as part
of our relationship with G-d, and not as something without any "personal"
dimension. It means that we are obligated to engage in self-examination
as part of our relationship to G-d.

We are not obligated, not are we ordinarily capable of reaching a final
conclusion about G-d's specific "intentions" about us. Of course the
process of teshuva and the elements of Torah and tefilla that accompany
it, should lead us to reorient the relationship to G-d for the better. Of
course, in the time of nevua and, to a lesser extent, Hazal, we had
direct divine guidance in teshuva that we don't readily have today.

(Note that Hazal, including R. Yohanan, offer reasons for hurban bayit
sheni. Nevertheless R. Yohanan states that the reason for the hurban
was not revealed.)

To use the human analogy once again: When my friend is hurt by me, I am
obligated to repair the personal relationship. To do so I must reflect
on where I have fallen short and caused pain and disappointment. But
I can do so without reaching a final conclusion about EXACTLY what I
have done wrong, and if I concentrate on reaching a simple answer as
if I were solving a problem in algebra, I will have missed the most
important thing-- namely that the relationship is a personal one.

(When someone sues me then, from a purely legal perspective, I do need
to know exactly what's bothering him, because if I figure that out I can
resolve the issues and get him off my back. If our conception of divine
providence is that we want to pay G-d whatever we owe Him, k'vyakhol,
and get Him off our backs, then we're no longer talking about a personal
relationship.)

[It's Friday afternoon-- May this Shabbat not be accompanied by the kind
of news that we've become accustomed to in recent weeks...]

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


[ 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         ]