 |
| R' YY Fisher ZT"L |
Truth to be told, I thought that more than the last post would be rehashing the same arguments. Thankfully, BlogInDM's
latest post has some interesting new ideas worth exploring. This back and forth lets the matter by crystallized by both sides.
Specifically, some of the focus thankfully shifted towards halachah and source, as oppsed to being feelings-based.
Once again, you should be reading the previous posts both here and on BlogInDM in order to correctly understand the discussion.
Lets begin:
This is a meaningless example, as Yosef himself acknowledges the compelling reason to permit it; a potential raising of the bar of Torah learning in the community. Improving Torah learning that otherwise could not occur, is a significant benefit.
That wasn't my point. Rather, in inferred from that that we should be looking to Halacha for proper guidance on ethics, rather than relying on our own ideas. For that, its a perfect example.
Yosef also conflates the idea that something is permissible with the idea that it is ethical or advisable. This is not true.
I didn't say its advisable, just like I don't advise people to eat rib steak. Its permissible.
One example. The halacha is that a contract worker has to be paid his wages at the end of the day. "Lo talin peulas sachir." Yet, the halacha is that "Lo Talin" does not apply if the worker was hired through agency. Yet, I don't believe that there is a single source that maintains that it is ethical to not pay the worker in a timely manner. According to the strict halacha, one can push payment off, yet would anyone argue that the fact that halacha permits it means you should do it? Could does not equal should.
Again, not "should", but still allowed.
I never said that most poskim permit copying. It's clear that most forbid it. Yosef claims he has confirmed such rulings, but refuses to identify the poskim, if they exist. The rabbi whose opinion on this is public is also known to permit cheating on taxes. His logic to permit is the same.
Ah. Before you said that "all" forbid it. At we downgraded to 'most'. The logic of the other rabbonim is quite possibly different. Your assumption is wrong.
I'd like to confirm this. Name them. Torah hi, v'lilmod ani tzarich. It's interesting that these alleged psakim are only being issued privately, but you feel compelled to publicize them. I actually agree with you on that though, if they exist, then they should be public, so that there can be a shakla vetarya of Torah. That's the way the halachik process used to work.
I was waiting for this question. :) While I did state that these were private conversations, there are some names that I can openly state because I believe stating them would not cause them anguish.
One name, which I
know without doubt that he permitted copying is
R' Yisroel Ya'akov Fisher, the Av beis din of the Eidah Chareidis. Another name, which I am slightly hesitant of because I am unsure of the exact wording of his heter was
R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.
It is probable that the reason the paak of these gedolim weren't publicized was because it wasn't much of a question back then, before file-sharing became common.
But yes, it should be public. If not simply for harbatzas and yedias haTorah.
Um, the law is being enforced. There have been numerous court cases, settlements, arrests for piracy, websites taken down, etc. etc.
Nothing compared to the amount of sharing going on. Probably less that 1/10000 and you could probably add another few zeros there. These are laws that are very rarely enforced.
Nice. A completely made up fact. Sure there are some people who advocate for illegal downloading. There are people who advocate for lots of illegal things. NAMBLA for instance. Doesn't make it moral.
Not a made up fact; just simply my own observation. I didn't say that this makes it moral, I only said that this make the chillus Hashem claim moot. It does.
If the halacha were that dina d'malchusa doesn't apply, then rabbonim have an obligation to teach Torah accurately, regardless of the impetus to encourage copying or not. They also have an obligation to follow that policy consistently, with regard to yichus investigations for example. Yet, rabbonim routinely allow people to marry Jews on the basis of dina d'malchusa. They enforce monetary obligations based on dina d'malchusa, and so on.
Again, dina dimalchusa does apply!
Just not here! With regard to other cases it might well apply. Zero contradiction.
Actually, he's the most notable posek (not that I view him that way) I've heard of to support this. The only other allegorical claims I've heard for these positions adopt the same halachik reasoning he does. Its simple logic, as the obligations are both rooted in dina d'malchusa dina. If Yosef does know of respected poskim who make a distinction between dina d'malchusa for taxes vs. downloading, let him cite them. Again, we need to clarify amitah shel Torah, right?
Right. I did so above, clearly noting select
well accepted poskim. I admit that I don't know their view on taxes. But definitely notable.
Actually, he's a nogea b'davar. He has acknowledged-- even advocated-- illegally downloading music.
Um, where exactly did acknowledge doing that? There you go again, making false accusations.
Yosef claims that naval birshus hatorah doesn't apply. I believe that it should, even according to to those who would like to say dinad'malchusa isn't applicable here. No one needs free music.
No one deeds yogurt either. Is anyone who eats yogurt a 'naval birshus hatorah'?
So to make some things clear, paying for music is a form of (respectable) tzedakah.
Another thought I wanted to make clear here. Never pasken off a blog. Go ask your posek. This is only to raise awareness of another much-maligned side of the argument.
