Avodah Mailing List

Volume 23: Number 16

Mon, 12 Feb 2007

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 14:25:54 -0500
Re: [Avodah] early bird specials and ribbis

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, February 8, 2007 8:37 am, R Zev Sero wrote:

> :> It would seem that it such cases your chiluq would boil down to
> :> an issur on the lashon. Writing:
> :>     Admission: $20, $10 for early birds who sign up by Feb 15th
> :> would be mutar, but writing:
> :>     Admission: $10, $20 for late sign-up after Feb 15th
> :> (or the more common, "at the door") would be assur?

> : Yes, the lashon should match the reality, that they're offering
> : a discount for early payment, not a penalty for late payment.

> But it's kind of arbitrary whether you view the base price as X
> and a discount to Y for early payers or a base price of Y with a
> penalty bringing it up to X for late ones.

The first distinction to be drawn is when the payment is legally
due.  At what point can the recipient sue the payer in BD, demanding
immediate payment?  Once that point has arrived, if the money hasn't
yet been paid it's a debt, and any money that is paid to secure his
agreement to postpone collection is ribbis.  But if that point hasn't
yet arrived, if he's not yet entitled to the money at all, then he is
allowed to offer the payer an inducement to pay early.

That's ikkar hadin.  The next problem is that if the payment is made
*too* early, then it's not obvious that it's early payment for goods
or services to be given or performed later, and what it looks like
is a loan from the payer to the recipient, which the recipient later
pays in kind, with his goods or services, at a lower rate than he
would have given to anyone else.  If this were the reality it would
be ribbis; since it's not the reality, it's not ribbis, but it's
still forbidden because it looks like ribbis.  So there must be some
way for the observer to link the payment to the future transfer of
goods or performance of services.

One example is the early payment of wages: if the work begins
immediately, then it's obvious that the payment was related to the
work, and not simply a loan.   It seems to me that submitting an
application or reservation form is a similar act that visibly
links the payment to the thing for which it is paid.  Some cheques
come with a space to write the purpose of the payment, and it seems
to me that filling that in would also be sufficient to link them.

And of course if it's the norm to pay at that time, then it's also
obvious to the observer that the payment is linked.  The problem
with paying wages before the work even begins is that while it's
normal to give an employee an advance on his wages, it's not at all
normal to give such an advance to a *future* employee, who hasn't
even started working for you, so it appears to be something other
than it is.

> So, you argued two chiluqim, that I can tell:
> 1- Norm.
> 2- Whether the later payer is covering a real cost due to his lateness.

That wasn't an argument, it was an afterthought, a question I threw out
after making my point.  Once the dinner has started, payment is clearly
due, and any delay is completely down to the forbearance and good will
of the shul.  I said that it therefore seems obvious that charging for
such forbearance is forbidden.  But then I asked whether it is quite
that obvious.  Perhaps it's OK, if the surcharge is reasonably related
to the actual cost of collection, rather than to the opportunity cost
or "float" of the sum to be collected.

> Let's talk of a case where the norm is ill defined. Many dinner
> attendees pay for their rubber chicken beforehand, others at the
> door, and many shul members or parents at a school function get
> billed later.

But at what point do they legally owe the money?  If they reserve
and then cancel, do they still have to pay?  If not, then they
don't owe the money yet, and the shul's allowed to induce them to
pay early.

> : If they misdescribe what they are doing, that could be a problem.
> : The lashon on mechirat chametz, otzar bet din, etc., must also
> : be correct, or it could be a problem.
> And my point is that in many situations, both leshonos are equally
> valid descriptions of reality.

In such cases, why shouldn't we look to the lashon to define the


> Is the shul's loss due to paying an accountant to keep track of your
> bill or meals they must overbuy to allow you the option of just
> showing up any more valid a motivation than the shul's loss due to
> not collecting interest from the bank?

Yes, because it's not schar hamtanat hama'ot.  It's just covering
their out of pocket expenses.  Here's another example: IIRC, the
borrower must go to the lender to pay.  Eved loveh le'ish malveh,
and paying a debt is a mitzvah.  Now suppose I owe you money, and
I ask you to come to my home in Brooklyn to collect it, and offer
to pay for your taxi fare.  Would this be ribbis?  I don't think so.
I'm not paying for the privilege of holding on to your money longer
than I should, but for your extra expense and trouble in collecting,
which you aren't legally obligated to incur.  You could have demanded
that I come to you in NJ.  Instead, you were nice enough to come to
me, why should you be out of pocket for that?  Now suppose you do
come, and I discover that I haven't got the money after all; so
I ask you to come back next week, and offer to pay again for that
taxi.  Once again, the payment isn't for the extra week, but for
the extra trip.  It would be the same if I asked for two weeks,
or for two days.  And it would be the same whether the loan was
for $100 or $1000.

Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Go to top.

Message: 2
From: Zev Sero <zev@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:30:25 -0500
Re: [Avodah] early bird specials and ribbis

David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Zev Sero" <zev@sero.name>

>> It's an open mishna on BM 65a.  "One may add to rent but not to
>> a sale price".  The gemara explains that this is because rent is
>> not due until the end of the period, whereas the price of a sale
>> is due as soon as the property transfers.

> This is not a good analogy.  The mishna is cited l'halacha in YD 176:6, 
> where it is applied both to rent and to wages, but only if the renting 
> or working begins immediately (see Taz ad. loc.).  Now look two halachos 
> down at 176:8 which prohibits a discount for early payment of wages if 
> the work does not begin immediately.

The reason for that is that while it's normal to advance wages to an
employee, it's not normal to do so to someone who isn't yet an employee
but has merely agreed to become one at some future time.  Therefore the
transaction *appears* like a loan, and the subsequent employment as a
way of paying the loan.  The problem is not with the reality, which both
parties know, but with the appearance.

Once the employee has started working, it is permitted to advance
wages, and for the employer to deduct from those wages a fee for early
payment, even though legally the situation is exactly the same, because
the employee is free to quit at any time, so he might never perform
the work for which he was paid.  If that were to happen, the money
would turn into a loan, and would have to be repaid.  And yet it is
permitted to do this, because its nature is obvious, and nobody will
suspect that it's really a loan.

Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas

Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "Akiva Blum" <ydamyb@actcom.net.il>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:57:53 +0200
Re: [Avodah] early bird specials and ribbis

Micha wrote:
> It would seem that it such cases your chiluq would boil down to an issur
on the lashon. Writing:
    Admission: $20, $10 for early birds who sign up by Feb 15th
would be mutar, but writing:
    Admission: $10, $20 for late sign-up after Feb 15th
(or the more common, "at the door") would be assur?<<

There is more than just the lashon working here.
When you receive goods or services, that's when you actually owe money.
Until that point, any change in price cannot be considered interest on
"having my money botul with you", you don't owe anything.
So in the admission example, since you haven't received anything until you
get inside, you owe nothing however it's expressed.


Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:39:19 +0200
[Avodah] Great Assembly produced Tanach?

Is there any source other than the Vilna Gaon that the Great Assembly 
selected which books would be included in Tanach and their place? Bava 
Basra (15a) isn't.

*Gra(Mishlei 24:23):
* *??"? (???? ??:??): ?? ??? ???'* ?? ???? ??"? ?? ?? ?????? ??"? 
???????? ????? ?"? ??? ????"? ???? ??? ?"? ???? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? 
????? ??? ???? ?"? ???? ????? ????"? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? 
??? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? 
????? ?????? ?' ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??"? ???? 
???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????"? ???? ??? ??"? ?? 
??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???' ?????? ?? ????? 
?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??"? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? 
???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? 
????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???"? ????? ????? 
????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??"? ???? ???? 

*Gra(Mishlei 25:1):
* *??"? (???? ??:?):* ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? 
??? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ???' ?? ???? ???"? ???? ?? ??????? 
??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? 
???? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???:

*Gra(Mishlei 30:1): *

 *??"? (???? ?:?):* ???? ???? ?? ??? ???' ?? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ??? 
??? ?? ?? ????? ????"? ??????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? 
????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??' ????? ???? ?????? ???? 
?? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? 
???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? 
???? ???' ??????? ???' ?? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? 
??? ??????? ???? ????? ?' ??? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ??? 
???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??' ??? ???? ???? ????? 
????? ???? ??? ?????? ?' ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? 
?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ?"? ?? 
??? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? 
????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? 
?????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?' ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??' ??????? 
?????? ???"? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???' ?"? ???? ????? ????? ???"? ????? 
?????? ??' ???? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ?' ???? ??? ??? 
??????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?':

Daniel Eidensohn

Go to top.

Message: 5
From: "Meir Shinnar" <chidekel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 20:41:08 -0500
Re: [Avodah] Pisuk raglayim

> Just to start at the beginning. We discussed pisuq raglayim back in volume 2,
> v2n157 - n160. Take a look at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n155.shtml#01>, where RYGB raises the
> question of pisuq raglayim and men, and the conversation that ensued at
> <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=P#PISUK%20RAGLAIM>, and
> the subsequent two entries in the topic index.
> (I'm surprised you don't have a conversation from 8 years ago at your
> fingertips. <grin++>)
> On Fri, February 9, 2007 8:15 am, R Meir Shinnar wrote:
> :> Pisuq ragalayim isn't a modern invention. It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur
> :> even if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
> :> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.
> : 1) The kohanim wore michansayim... From the keves, one should learn,
> : if anything, that skirts should be assur...
> Collecting a few of RYGB's points: Rav Moshe Tzuriel (mashgiach, Sha'alvim)
> argued that the kapote is superior to the jacket because it eliminates pisuq
> raglayim questions. The kohein's kusones serves a similar purpose -- except
> when running up stairs.
> : 2) Is there any classic halachic source from before the nineteenth
> : century that codifies pisuk raglayim as assur for either men or women?
> As for RMT's meqoros, RYGB adds:
> > Rabbi Tzuriel told it to me personally, but in the Beis Yechezkel vol. 1
> > p. 304 he quotes the Maharil in the Likutim and Sefer Eleh Ha'Mitzvos
> > l'R"M Chagiz.
> The Maharil would place it at 14th, not 19th cent. Whether the Chazal can be
> taken to assume such an issur lema'aseh is debatable. I would say yes, but I
> am sure you would question it.

>RYZirkind found Rashi in Pesachim 3a "lashon neqi'ah", which speaks of the
>issur of women taking harchovas haposi'os. A different problem that is
>somewhat related. But at least shifts the kohein's precedent to a question of
I have looked in the Maharil - both skimmed and by search ob bar Ilan.
 I did not find anything there.  I did find that he described short
jackets as being worn by rekim - a denigration - but not any
connection of the short jackets to the issue of pisuk raglayim -
perhaps RYGB can provide such a source. Perhaps RMT suggested a
rationale for the preference for long coats - but that is not proof
that the Maharil held that rationale.   I don't have either the Sefer
Eleh Mitzvot nor the beis yechezkel - perhaps someone can find it.
(the entire discussion cited by RGB in the name of the maharil - that
the change from long to short was problematic because of hukas hagoy -
and that short was problematic because of pisuk raglayim - and that
after a while it was ok because it was no longer hukas hagoy (in the
avodah you linked to ) - I couldn't find in the Maharil - and is quite
problematic, because if pisuk raglayim was a problem - why did it
disappear? (hukat hagoy would disappear, but not this....)

I did do a search on pisku raglayim - and found nothing relevant.  The
rashi on pesachim is that pisuk raglayim is something that we want to
avoid mentioning - nothing to do with the keves -but (and I thank R YE
Henkin - and see bne banim 4, p 141) - this refers to spreading the
legs - not to separating them as with pants (see Meiri)

R Zirkind's point was different - that the maskana of the gmara was
that the problem with requiring the keves for the mizbeach was not
related to pisuk raglayim - but to harchavas hapsiyos - therefore
eliminating the whole keves as a source..

I would add another, perhaps more fundamental point of approach - not
just to this issue.  Pants have been worn for a long time - even by
women (in the Muslim world).  They were worn in Europe in the
nineteenth century.  There are many responsa dealing with this issue -
some being mattir at least some types of pants, some assur, some
mattir bish'eat hadechak or as preferable to some other clothing. The
issue for almost all poskim is either a) beged ish or b) zniut (eg,
the term bigde shachatz is frequently used) - but almost no one refers
to the issue of pisuk raglayim - and we are talking about people with
a fairly encyclopedic knowledge (eg, rav ovadya's yosef's tshuvot -
and permission of pants under certain conditions).
While some may bring an issue of pisuk raglayim - the notion that this
is clear cut issur -  It's das Moshe, Sinaitic, assur
> :> even if everyone does it and no one finds it "interesting". It comes from the
> :> kevesh and not having stairs. The big she'eilah is what's the matir for men.
is what is problematic.  There may well be valid grounds for a posek
to assur pants, as some do, or to be mattir them, as some do - but the
backgrounds for the issur for most poskim who assur is far more
general issues of zniut and of beged ish - which suggests that they do
not find the issur of pisuk to be so clearcut...
Now, of course, it is possible that one has valid arguments that
everyone ignored - and discovered a new sinaitic issur.  However, the
likelihood is that one has invented rather than discovered it...-
because of the belief that it should be assur.

However, the difference between creating a new sinaitic issur to
bolster our convictions that something is assur - and creating a new
heter for a sinaitic issur because we believe it should be muttar
(such as, to be topical, mishkav zachor) - is quite small - and
reflects a distortion of the sources.  We should be careful - that our
issurim are real issurim, and our heterim are real heterim

meir Shinnar

Go to top.

Message: 6
From: "Noah Greenfield" <ngreenfield@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 11:25:01 -0500
[Avodah] Upsherin


I am under the impression that the GRIZ and R Chaim Kanievsky both oppose
the minhag of upsherin, even suggesting that there might be pagan
influences. If this is correct, is it proper to attend a colleague's
(child's) upsherin ceremony? Is there any legitimacy in attending if I think
my colleague would otherwise be offended in any way? Should I point out to
him the potential pagan-ness of his party?

Also, how should this be presented to students who may have had
upsherinthemselves. Should we be warning them against this ceremony?

Noah Greenfield

"It is more important to seek the truth than to believe that one has found
- Abraham Luchins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070211/2e0d9c13/attachment-0001.html 

Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:08:22 +0200
[Avodah] Megilla on Shabbes

Our Magid Shiur wanted to prove from today's daf (Taanis 4b) that the
original takono of reading the Megila included the halcho that it
wouldn't be read on Shabbos.

The proof was that the Gemora brings a posuk - from the Megila.

However we couldn't find a written source. Does anybody know of such a source?

- Danny

Go to top.

Message: 8
From: dfinch847@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 14:46:02 -0500
[Avodah] Tzinius and the ILG

Ilana Sober writes:

"Is it a coincidence that ready-to-wear clothing is almost always 
manufactured in sweatshop conditions in developing countries? I cannot
remember when I last saw a union tag in an item of clothing. Should we 
really be surprised that clothing that presents an ethical michshol 
alsopresents a tznius michshol?"

Bathroom-breaks, a day off to commemorative the Triangle Shirtwaist 
Factory fire, decent health insurance, maybe these were 
collective-bargaining issues for the ILGWU. Tzinius? Not a chance. 
Especially when Dave Dubinsky, a man of many loves, ran the union.

I believe it's healthy for women -- young, old, not-so-old, single or 
married -- to dress with style, grace, and a sense of fashion. There's 
nothing wrong with bringing out the beauty of the female form. Jews 
have been doing it for many centuries, with joy and happiness all the 
way around. The new-fangled black-paper-bag look has interesting 
origins in the politics and sociology of Da'as Torah, but doesn't 
reflect an abiding halahic norm.

David Finch

Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Elazar M. Teitz" <remt@juno.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:46:38 GMT
Re: [Avodah] early bird specials and ribbis

     I think that the question of early-bird discounts or late-
payment penalties are completely unrelated to ribbis, since there is 
no factor of agar natar.  There is no loan, nor any charge nor 
payment for use of another's funds.

     If an item has been sold at a given price, and the merchant 
raises the price, he has certainly done no wrong.  Why should there 
be a problem if he announces his intent to raise the price as of a 
certain day?



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Galsaba@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:30:15 EST
[Avodah] Parah Aduma. Is it "Red Cow" or "Red Heifer"

Mishna Artscroll says that it is wrong to call Parah Aduma Red Heifer, 
because the Parah Aduma must be 3 or 4, while according to Webster Dictionary Heifer 
is less than 3, therefore Hefoer cannot serve as Parah Aduma.
I checked the following:

In most places I checked  Heifer = Parah Adumah.

In Britanica: Hebrew  Para Adumma,   in Jewish history, unblemished, 
never-before-yoked animal.

I found also: Heifer A young female cow of over 12 months old, which may or 
may not have had a calf.

According to Webster On Line: a young cow; especially : one that has not had 
a calf

it did not mention the age, but the hardcooy Webster I have does say under 3 
years old.

According to Hilchot Parah Aduma, the rambam mentioned (as you stated) Bat 
Shalosh or Bat Arba,
and also ?? ??????--?????:   (o shenirbea pesulah)

In my opinion the fact that the Para is Para that not nirbea was the dominent 
reason why it is called Heifer.
the onse who call it a cow consider more the age then than the fact that the 
cow should not be one that had a calf.  

So what would be the right translation for Para Adumah?


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20070211/660d9150/attachment-0001.htm 

Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Danny Schoemann" <doniels@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 21:11:32 +0200
[Avodah] Megila on Shabbos

The question arose tonight in Daf Yomi, how come we read Megilas Shir
haShirim and Koheles davka on Shabbos - and M. Esther cannot be read
on Shabbos.

- Danny

Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:02:00 -0500
[Avodah] Copyright redux

The following is from the most recent issue of Shabbat BeShabbato,
sent out by Machon Zomet under the auspices of the NRP.


Downloading Programs from the Internet
by Rabbi Re'eim Hacohen, Rosh Yeshiva and Chief Rabbi, Otniel

Question: Recently it has been published in the name of prominent rabbis
that from the strictly halachic point of view it is not prohibited to
download songs, movies, and programs from the internet, even if the author
demands payment for them. This was explained by comparing the internet
to the case of rescuing something from "the depths of the sea"? in which
case the object belongs to whoever takes it even if the owner wants it
back. Is this really permitted, even though the secular law forbids it?

Answer: The answer depends on three basic issues: (1) The general issue of
copyright ownership? is there such a thing as stealing material that has
no physical substance at all? (2) Might it be required to pay for using
the material because the one who uses it has derived a benefit from money
belonging to somebody else? Do the secular rules and laws have an effect
on the laws of halacha? (3) Can an internet program really be considered
the equivalent of something that came "from the depths of the sea"?

(1) In the past, great rabbis have discussed the issue of copyright.
The RIFforbid copying somebody else's material and viewed copying Torah
insights as a mitzva that was linked to a sin (Responsa of the Rashba
volume 6, 286). And in Responsa Sho'el U'Meishiv it is written that
an author has the rights to his creation. On the other hand, the Beit
Yirzchak disagreed (Yoreh Dei'ah 75). However, this dispute is directly
related only to studying Torah, while in the general case all the rabbis
agree that the author has the rights to his creations. In addition, Rabbi
Zalman Nachman Goldberg sees the sale of a disk as "a limited purchase"
which does not give the purchaser the right to make a copy. However,
this is specifically related to a disk, not to downloading songs from
the internet.

(2) According to the Talmud in Bava Kama, one who derives a benefit from
an object that belongs to a colleague must pay him for using it. The
Noda B'Yehuda expanded this ruling to include a case where the benefit
was not direct but indirect. Thus, anybody who benefits from a program
or from music that somebody else created is obligated to pay, because
he received a benefit.

Civil law prohibits copying a program or music, and it also prohibits
distributing these materials on the internet. It seems reasonable to
assume that "the law of the land" applies. And in fact Beit Yitzchak
forbids copying written material, based on this law, "Dina D'Malchuta."

Another point to be taken into account is the binding effect of accepted
community practice. We have been taught, "The inhabitants of a city can
make rules about passing through the gates, about weights and measures,
and about wages of workmen" [Tosefta Bava Metzia 11:23]. Such rules are
binding on the people. This was expanded starting from the time of the
Geonim (after the Talmud was completed). For example, see Shaarei Tzedek,
Volume 4, 304:16. As is well known, the Chatam Sofer prohibited printing
the Talmud based on these rules (Choshen Mishpat 41, 79), and his opinion
was accepted by Rabbi Herzog and Rabbi Nissim (published in the TUR,
"El Hamekorot" edition). Clearly, in our case, if society makes such
rules it is not reasonable at all that only those who fear G-d will make
exceptions for themselves.

(3) As far as I can see, copying something from the internet is not at
all comparable to rescuing something from the depths of the sea. This
halacha refers to something that has been lost by the owners and is not
freely available to anybody else, and thus even if the owners claim that
they have not given up hope, the object can be kept by somebody who finds
it. In the present case, there is no tangible object that was lost, and
no owner is helplessly standing by. Rather, every person can make his
own choice whether to disobey what has been accepted by society and to
steal or not. Thus, this can be compared to a lost item that is in the
possession of many different people. In the case of the internet, if the
rabbis declare that everybody should pay for the use of a program, the
owners will not despair of receiving their money from religious people,
and as far as they are concerned this is certainly not the "depths of
the sea." Certainly as far as music and computer programs are concerned
one cannot say that the owners have despaired, since their daily legal
struggle to protect their rights clearly shows the opposite.

In summary: Beyond the strict halachic approach discussed here, the laws
commonly accepted by society obligate those who obey the halacha. The
moral demands of the Torah should never be less than what is demanded
by local law, which requires one to pay the author for the use of his


Avodah mailing list

End of Avodah Digest, Vol 23, Issue 16

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to

You can reach the person managing the list at

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

< Previous Next >