# Primary Sources on Copyright - Record Viewer
Schmelkes Responsum, Przemysl, Austrian Galicia (1899)

Source: hebrewbooks.org

Citation:
Schmelkes Responsum, Przemysl, Austrian Galicia (1899), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), eds L. Bently & M. Kretschmer, www.copyrighthistory.org

Back | Record | Images | Commentaries: [1]
Translation only | Transcription only | Show all | Bundled images as pdf

            Chapter 1 Page 3 of 3 total



However, if the author has already sold his books then we must give further consideration to the matter. In that case, the author has already published his teachings and sold his books and, therefore, other people are entitled to learn and teach. Further, if all [the author’s] books have been, why is another person unable to bring benefit to the people of his generation by printing and selling [more copies of the book] for a cheaper price? For Ezra [the Scribe] instituted [a principle] for the people of Israel that those who teach Torah to small children are allowed to offer their services despite the presence of another Torah teacher in close proximity, as the [Talmud Bavli] states in Bava Batra 22a. In the face of that precedent, how could we rule otherwise by putting on a seal for these books [to prevent competition]?

And I have seen the writings of the Gaon of Lemberg in his Sho’el U-Meshiv [i.e., Joseph Saul Nathanson], where he discussed this issue extensively and concluded without hesitation that it is forbidden to reprint even when the original edition lacks a rabbinic approbation and reprinting ban and even though the author has already sold his books. [Nathanson further held that] the reason for the custom of the approbation and that the rabbis issue a decree that others are forbidden to print for a certain amount of years is to allow the printing after the expiration of the period set forth in the ban. However, [Nathanson held], absent a rabbinic approbation and decree, the author has a perpetual exclusive right to print.

With all due respect to His Honorable Holy Torah [i.e., Nathanson], I see no proof for this opinion. For although a teacher’s teachings about Jewish law are his, nevertheless once he lets another person learn from his written work or has sold the first printing of his books, he surely has permitted gratuitous use of them. As stated in Talmud Tractate Nedarim, Moses our Teacher was generous with the Torah and gave it to Israel, and Scripture referred to him with the verse, “He who has a generous eye shall be blessed.”
And for this reason . . . rabbis’ decrees that books may not be reprinted remain in effect for only a circumscribed number of years. And regarding what the Sho’el U-Meshiv wrote that if one invents a new craft, then another person is not allowed to practice that same craft without the former’s consent, because “our perfect Torah should not be less than their idle chatter,” this is not in accordance with what we learned about the Torah: “Just as I give it freely, so you shall give it freely.” The Torah is not an axe to cut with [i.e., one should not teach the Torah for one’s personal financial gain].

Moreover, regarding the tools of one’s craft, if one does not possess a privilege from the government attesting that he owns an eternal right to his invention, I know of no prohibition whereby another may not practice the same craft [or reprint the same books].

Granted, one who teaches the Torah may be paid an “idleness payment”—what he might have earned in another profession were he not devoting all of his time to teaching Torah. But aside from that [subsistence payment], where is it allowed to take payment solely for an intangible right, even where there is no burden imposed? Plus, even if we would agree that it is permitted to receive such payment for an intangible right, who is empowered to prohibit another from printing a book based on the former’s Torah knowledge until the one wishing to print pays for the right to do so? For the Torah is compared to water, from which one may draw freely with no charge.
And [Nathanson] brought proof [for his conclusion] from the case of Zion L’Nefesh Ḥaya [a commentary on the Talmud by Rabbi Yeḥezkel Segal Landau (1713-1793), written and published in the late eighteenth century]. That work was reprinted in Zolkiew after the publisher of the reprint edition received a license from the author’s son. But obtaining a license was entirely superfluous. A counterexample can be found regarding all of the books of the Gaon of Lissa [Rabbi Yaakov ben Moshe Lorberbaum of Lissa (1770-1832)], which were reprinted many times and sold cheaply. And the reprints contained no license from the author’s heirs. If it had been necessary to obtain a license [the books] would have been sold at a high price. Thus, the ruling of the Shoel U-Meshiv [Nathanson] requires further investigation.

From the perspective of the Jewish law precept that “the law of the sovereign state is the law,” it is forbidden in our country to print. And His Honorable Holy Torah [i.e., Simon Sofer] has asked if we apply that principle to a case like this even if the [local secular law] contradicts [and supersedes] Jewish law [by protecting the legal rights of an author when Jewish law per se would not].

Behold, in Hilkhot Aveida, No. 259 [the section the Shulḥan Arukh concerning lost property], it is explained that one who saves [another’s personal property] from the sea is obligated to return it [to the rightful owner] on the basis of “the law of the sovereign state is the law” [even though under Jewish law per se items that are washed to the sea are considered abandoned and free for the taking].

And in No. 356 it is explained that an innocent bailee must return stolen property to its owner on the basis of “the law of the sovereign state is the law,” because it is customary to do so. According to Siftei Cohen one must therefore return [personal property] on the basis of the custom [and not on the principle of the “law of the sovereign state” per se].

According to this [rationale], one may claim that the same law applies when [the Jewish community] has adopted a custom to refrain from reprinting in fear of the government [i.e., violating the law of the state]. However, one is [also] compelled to follow the precept of “the law of the sovereign state is the law,” because we should conclude that only when the law of the state directly contradicts the laws of the Torah and [also] causes financial loss [to Jews who would otherwise benefit from the Jewish law], do the laws of Torah remain in force. But in a matter where the law of the state [merely] prevents financial profit and is not considered to cause an injury, Jewish law requires that we uphold the law of the state for the same reason that we require that lost property [that Jewish law would deem to be abandoned] must be returned [to its owner].

And this law [prohibiting the reprinting of another’s work applies] is all the more so [applicable] because, as I have already written, the Gaon of Lvov [in other words, Nathanson] has written that [the rule prohibiting reprinting not merely derived from a rabbinic interpretation, but rather] this is the law according to the words of the Torah, and thus the law of the state must be observed.

And see Rabbi Moses Sofer, Ḥoshen Mishpat, No. 44, where it is likewise explained that if a regulation [of the sovereign state] is found to be favorable to craftsmen, the law of the state must be followed. All the more so here, where there is a state regulation in favor of the authors.

And behold, His Honorable and Holy Torah may look at the preface to Moses Sofer’s Responsa, Yoreh De’ah, in which the revered, righteous rabbinic authority stated that he did not wish to print and thereby gain monetary profit [because by receiving a profit from the learning of Torah] eternal life would be denied, God forbid. And thus he wrote that his books are abandoned property, [so that] all who wish to copy them may come forward and copy them. But who else is such an exalted righteous man, whose livelihood was plentiful in this world? In our day, the offspring of scholars of Jewish law are miserably poor, and it is necessary to earn a livelihood from teaching Jewish law. Nevertheless, according to Jewish law, but for the doctrine of the law of the sovereign state, [publishers] would not need to obtain consent [from the author] of a book which has already been in print. But in our country this does not matter, because there is law of the sovereign state [that must be applied].

    


No Transcription available.

Our Partners


Copyright statement

You may copy and distribute the translations and commentaries in this resource, or parts of such translations and commentaries, in any medium, for non-commercial purposes as long as the authorship of the commentaries and translations is acknowledged, and you indicate the source as Bently & Kretschmer (eds), Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900) (www.copyrighthistory.org).

You may not publish these documents for any commercial purposes, including charging a fee for providing access to these documents via a network. This licence does not affect your statutory rights of fair dealing.

Although the original documents in this database are in the public domain, we are unable to grant you the right to reproduce or duplicate some of these documents in so far as the images or scans are protected by copyright or we have only been able to reproduce them here by giving contractual undertakings. For the status of any particular images, please consult the information relating to copyright in the bibliographic records.


Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900), Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge, 10 West Road, Cambridge CB3 9DZ, UK