Volume 54 Number 30
Produced: Fri Mar 16 6:36:24 EDT 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Mi She-Berakh for Agunot (3)
[SBA, Yael Levine, Avi Feldblum]
R' Steinsaltz controversy
[Shayna Kravetz]
Torture (2)
[Jeanette Friedman, Avi Feldblum]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:49:40 +1100
Subject: Mi She-Berakh for Agunot
From: Yael Levine <>
> Lisa Liel sent the same post to another list (WTN) on which I posted
> the prayer.First of all, ... translating the prayer into English
> without the author's consent, according to the copyright law she
> violated the copyright of the author.
None of my business really, but then you write:
> This translation is entirely incorrect in the majority of places, ..
> I have to clarify that this translation is incorrect, unreliable and
> unauthorized,
So maybe we should simply say that Lisa has obviously compiled a
different prayer to yours - albeit on the same topic..
And BTW, can a prayer that has been distributed widely be copyrighted?
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Yael Levine <ylevine@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:40:07 +0200
Subject: Mi She-Berakh for Agunot
First of all you haven't identified yourself.
A work that has been distributed is definitely still copyright by the
author, according to the copyright law. Even if a copyright sign is not
appended to a work, it is copyright by the author. This means that one
may not print it in written sources, and put it on the net, translate, make
a tune to it, etc., only by consent of the author. etc. I suggest you
check the copyright law. Additionally, since Lisa translated directly
from my prayer, it is a violation of the copyright. It is not a new
prayer. She herself never claimed it was.
Yael
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:37:45 -0400
Subject: Re: Mi She-Berakh for Agunot
From: Yael Levine <>
> This translation is entirely incorrect in the majority of places, ..
> I have to clarify that this translation is incorrect, unreliable and
> unauthorized
I accept that based on Yael's request in the original email that she was
not approving the publishing of the full text on the net, that I should
not have published Lisa's translation as a translation rather I should
have required it to be commented response to the list. However, Yael is
making the claim that Lisa's translation is "entirely incorrect in the
majority of places". I have read Yael's original Hebrew text and Lisa's
english translation, and I do not see any clear errors in the
translation, surely not items that are entirely incorrect in the
majority of places. I would appreciate if Yael could support that
statement by showing a few of the most incorrect / unreliable sentences
of the translation.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 07:10:16 -0500
Subject: Re: R' Steinsaltz controversy
Jonathan Baker <jjbaker@...> writes, in part:
>What really got people to ban him was his book "Biblical Images", which
>portrays some of Our Foreparents in less than stellar terms. Despite
>the Torah's own descriptions of the failings of the Avot, there is a
>school of thought saying that for us to say such things is Just Plain
>Wrong.
>
>From the Village Idiots blog:
>
>: R. Adam Mintz, ("Words, Meaning and Spirit: The Talmud in Translation"
>: - Torah U'Madda Journal vol.5) where on p.152fn.99 he writes:
>
>: "The three books mentioned in the original ban [placed by R. Elazar
>: Menachem Mann Schach, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashav, Rabbi Chaim Pinchas
>: Scheinberg and Rabbi Avigdor Nevenzahl] were: The Essential Talmud,
>: Women in Tanach, and Biblical Images [all by R. Adin Steinsaltz].
>: According to the report in Yated Ne'eman (August 18, 1989), 1, "In
>: these books condemned by the BaDaZ, the objections were not to isolated
>: sentances but to the whole tenor of the works."
This is depressing news. I have recommended R. Steinsaltz's "Essential
Talmud" to literally hundreds of people, many of them coming to Orthodox
Judaism with questions, either because of their own religious journeys
or (more often) because their children are getting 'farfrumt' ("pious-ed
up") and they want to understand the worldview their children are
acquiring. It is an absolutely terrific book that provides historical
context and conceptual basics for such things as Oral vs. Written Torah
and the transmission of traditions, and (what is sadly exceptional among
Orthodox Jewish texts) it is written in beautiful and comprehensible
English.
Kol tuv, shabbat shalom, and a kosher and freilach Pesach,
Shayna in Toronto
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:10:18 EDT
Subject: Re: Torture
I'd be interested in understanding how you came to that conclusion
from the posted responses to your question. The summary of the
responses as I understood them was:
I asked a simple question that needs a simple answer: Is there a halacha
against torture. The answer is Yes or No. If the answer is No. Fine. If
the answer is Yes. Where is it?
That's all I asked.
Why I need to be attacked for asking a basically simple question is also
blatantly clear. I am used to this. It has been this way throughout my
orthodox education. You ask the teacher a question. The teacher doesn't
know the answer--so the result is that you spend the rest of the class
in the hallway or in the principal's office for having the unmitigated
gall for asking an idiot a question to which they didn't know the
answer, and therefore I had to be punished..
BTW, the answer is that there is NO Halacha against Torture, and it is
perfectly ok to torture someone.
now that I looked it up, Michael Broyde, who is on this has written so
in at least one article, maybe more, . He writes there is no problem
halachically with torturing people.
(Aside from the fact that everyone knows torture is one of the most
unreliable ways to extract information from someone, you really have to
worry about the ethics behind that--but then again, I have discovered
that ethics and morality don't often have anything at all to do with
halacha. They are not related at all.)
So like I said, on this list, Don't ask, don't tell, Torture is
perfectly fine--and don't forget to punish the person who asks the tough
question.
Consider me in the principal's office.
Thanks.
Jeanette
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum@...>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 06:00:39 -0400
Subject: Torture
On 3/15/07, <FriedmanJ@...> <FriedmanJ@aol.com> wrote:
> I asked a simple question that needs a simple answer: Is there a
> halacha against torture. The answer is Yes or No. If the answer is
> No. Fine. If the answer is Yes. Where is it?
>
> That's all I asked.
[See rest above]
The problem is that you did not ask a simple question. I'll ask you a
simple question:
What is the Halacha against talking?
Is that a simple question, is that formulated in a manner that can be
reasonably answered? I do not think so.
I do not claim to be a posek, but I can at least frame the question and
discuss some of the aspects of the question.
What is the Halacha regarding harming another person for no purpose or
because such harming of another person gives some satisfaction to the
person doing the action?
I think it is pretty clear that this is forbidden by halacha. In
general, it is forbidden to cause any type of harm to another
individual. Any definition of torture will fall under the catagory of
causing harm.
Are there situations where Beit Din can cause harm to specific
individual?
I think the halacha is very clear here as well. Beit Din has the
authority to use physical punishments to enforce halacha. They may give
a person Makot - lashes, as well as put a person to death. They also
have the authority to "makin oto ad shetetzei nafsho" - lash a person to
near the point of death. So there clearly are conditions under which
Beit Din can inflict harm.
Are there situations where a King can inflict harm or order harm to be
inflicted?
Here too the halacha is clear that there are situations where the
King can order a person to be killed. I would assume that if the king
can order a person killed, there may be other physical punishments that
a King can order. This power is not simply that he can do so at his whim
and desire, but must be for specific reasons that are characterized by
Halacha.
Are there situations where an individual can cause bodily harm to
another individuals?
Here too the halacha defines certain conditions in which a
non-authority individual can inflict harm on another individual. The
clearest case is where the other individual is actively trying to kill
or harm you. Under those conditions one has the right to cause bodily up
to and including killing that person to prevent that person from killing
you.
Are there situations where a person is not directly threatening the life
of another individual at this point, but where causing bodily harm to
that individual may result in the saving of multiple lives?
This is not a simple question to which there is a clear Yes or No
answer. I do not know the answer, but I strongly suspect that the answer
is that there are cases where the answer is yes and others where the
cases the answer is No. It probably depends on the nature / relation
ship of the individual in question to the life threatening situation,
the halachic nature of the entity causing the bodily harm (status of
individual, Beit Din, King, etc.) Likelihood of the bodily harm to
result in the saving of other lives etc.
In summary, you did not ask a simple question, and I maintain that your
conclusions are not justified. I do not know where you come up with: the
answer is that there is NO Halacha against Torture, and it is perfectly
ok to torture someone. Could you please post the source for that
statement?
As to the principals office, if you wish to go there, that is your
decision. But don't ascribe your being sent there by others when they
have not done that.
Avi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 54 Issue 30