Wow, great post. It seem that in some ways Lag B'Omer has turned into YaLaG B'Omer.
Fabulous post -- one of your best! As for the plagiarism, nothing new. But I wonder if it is plagiarism simply because they are plagiarizers, or if they think it is kosher to plagiarize from the academic and non-haredi scholars. While some plagiarize from other haredim, I think others probably make a chiluk and only plagiarize from the non-haredim, whom they don't feel they can cite.
I agree with anonymous, the strongest argument in favor of plagiarism is that by giving attribution, you are admitting having read seforim which are forbidden. Who knows what could happen.
you are admitting having read seforim which are forbidden. Who knows what could happen.
Care to explain?
Excellent post!
As the joke goes, the plagiarizers are "koneh bshinuy".
As this post shows, many minhagim current in Eretz Yisroel do not have a strong historical basis, in contrast to minhagei Ashkenaz, which go back to the time of the Rishonim and further. Unfortunately, there is a tendency these days to adapt minhagei Eretz Yisroel in chutz laaretz, as it says in this week's parsha "yoshon mipnei chodosh totziu". These customs are brought back by the boys who learn in Israel.
Regarding mitpachas seforim, the Chid"a in Shem Hagdolim has a problem with it and says that the Yaavetz wrote it to counter the followers of Shabsi Tzvi.
Excuse the Hebrew transliterations. I'm having a problem with my Hebrew fonts.
Wikipedia has a decent cummation on the Kabbalah re: posekim issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Zoh...w_of_authorship.
Does the Chida quote a letter in which the Yaavetz says this? I know there exists a forged letter to that effect (by Satanow?) but I can't recall all the details.
http://www.bhol.co.il/forum/
topi...opic_id=2087803
I appreciate the effort put into this article, but a little editing please?
>At this point I am unable to find the source for the riddle of the Malbim that Landau brings
Don't tease. What's the riddle?
excellent article but please edit! its painful to read.
For everyones convenience, here are the Chida's words which I copied from the hydepark link referred to by wolf (I wouldn't dare plagiarize on this blog 
אלה דברי החיד"א בספרו שם הגדולים (מערכת ספרים, אות ז', ערך זהר, ד.):
עתה מקרוב בא לידי מטפחת ספרים, וראיתי בהעברה בעלמא שעשה פלילות עד שכתב שאינו לתנא אלא לאחרון ופקפק על הגדולות והנוראות אשר בזהר. ולפום ריהטא הייתי תמיה מאד על דבריו בכלל ופרט ורבותינו אריוון דאורייתא מהר"ם קורדוביר"ו והאר"י זצ"ל בעלי רוח הקדש ואשר נגלה עליהם אליהו זכור לטוב ובכל הארץ יצא קום ובקצה תבל מליהם הם נגדו ואחריהם כמה קדישי עליונין. ולכן נראה לי כי גם הרב ז"ל ידע באמת ובתמים ענין הזהר הקדוש. אך בקנאתו על כת הארורה שעוברים על כריתות ומיתות ב"ד דתלו עצמם בלשונות הזהר בדברי שוא ושקר, לכן הראה פנים לקעקע ביצתם ולומר משום עת לעשות פקפוקים אלו וכונתו לשמים, וה' ברחמיו ידיננו לכף זכות.
ע"כ דברי החיד"א שם.
Is it plagiarism if you look up the sources that someone else quotes and then write your own analysis? I'm not so sure that qualifies, neither al pi halakhah nor based on academic standards. Anyone have any thoughts?
If you are quoting obscure sources that someone quotes - e.g. someone found some weird shitah which had been ignored previously in the literature - and you cite it as though you did the research, I believe that qualifies as plagiarism.
But if you are citing a wellknown rambam you saw for the first time in an article that obviously would not be a problem since you could have gotten this source from any hundreds of places.
(In medicine, I would imagine just taking the sources cited in a review article you find would be plagiarism as well. )
And just to add - i've found that pressed for time, rabbis are notorious plagiarizers in their drashos - i almost never here rabbis cite secondary sources which have the exact presentation they give over - they just cite the rashi or ramban the vort is based upon. (but here, unlike in Gil's example, the analysis is not the rabbi's, but belongs to the secondary source.)
The issue of what exactly constitutes plagiarism is definitly a tough question. However in this particluar case he does not bother to reinterpet the information at all he just changes around the order. Further more he does at times as I mentioned give credit to the sources where he saw things buried deep in footnotes in middle of the article so what game is he exactly playing? At least three different Hebrew authors have told me he lifted their stuff even with the same mistakes they made. Which implies some of the stuff he does not even bother to double check. See Dan's earlier post on this authors volume on Elul and Tishrei here http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006...-
plagerism.html.
So I guess in this case it would be called plagiarism
Maybe the subject of what exactly constitutes plagiarism today will be the subject of its own post in the future.
i've heard that some rabbi once told the chazon ish of an obscure tosefta in taharos pertaining to his learning. when the next volume of "chazon ish" was published the tosefta was quoted but not its finder. when the rabbi asked the chazon ish why his name was missing it is said he answered - "for that -you get a thank you."
p.s. is it true that otzar hachochma is guilty of infringing on others' copyrights? or is the subject taboo...
On the "well known Rambam" case cited above - See sdei Chemed - entry Ha'Omer Davar" and also the encyclopedia Beis Aron same entry and sources cited.
You are too quick to accuse people of plagiarism.
I agree with the point that Gil Student made above, and think the responses to this are inadequate and miss the context.
Just because a set of standards has become standard in academic circles, and for scholarly articles doesn't mean that someone else is dishonest if in the circles in which he moves and in the type of articles he writes different standards are appropriate.
I don't recall ever in my life seeing in a classic-style Jewish sefer a citation to a source attributed to someone else, unless the entire source is only being quoted from the secondary source. (IOW you'll see an entire quote in the form of "see Sefer X quoting Sefer Y saying ...", but will never see someone say "Sefer X alerted me to the existance of the following source ...". And in the former instance, it's generally understood that the reason for the form of the quote is because the author and/or his readership did not have (ready) access to the original source.)
I don't understand the criticism of the guy for "not bother[ing] to reinterpet the information " - who said the purpose of this article was to reinterpret information? The purpose of the article is to inform the readership.
I'd like to see some professors and scholars acknowledge the Mesoras Hashas and Toldos Aron for alerting them to the location and existance of a lot of Biblical and Talmudic sources. (IIRC, the Steipler actually once did this!)
Bottom line is that this type of criticism seems derived for the most part from taking standards and mindsets of Goyim and applying it to torah and then criticizing other people for failing to adhere to these standards.
(In addition to the above, I am not convinced that Eliezer Brodt et al are able to accurately determine whether in fact the guy found the sources only by seeing them in some prior article.)
test
Sorry for the test comment - my prior comment had disapeared.
Shelo l'hotzi han'yar chalak, I'll add that it's commonly accepted knowledge that the likut seforim all copy from each other. They are widely ridiculed and criticized for this, but not for some "davar b'shem omro" standard. Rather, for failing to look up the original sources altogether, and consequently misquoting them and/or taking them out of context.
GIl
YOur question about quoting sources
is what Alan Dershowits was acused of by Noam Finkestein
ב"ה, הילולא דרשב"י, ה'תש"ט
ברוקלין, נ. י.
הרה"ג הוו"ח אי"א נו"מ וכו' מהורשי"ז שי'
שלום וברכה!
במקרה ראיתי, בספרית כ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר שליט"א, את ספרו "המועדים בהלכה" מהד"ת, ומצאתי שם בפרק ל"ג בעומר העתקת לשון הפרע"ח (דפוס דובראוונע ודפוס לאשצוב
שער ספה"ע פ"ז בהערה, וז"ל: והטעם שמת רשב"י ביום ל"ג בעומר כי הוא מתלמידי רע"ק שמתו בספה"ע.
והנה ידוע, אשר קטע זה מוקשה הוא הן בנגלה, כי רשב"י הוא מהחמשה תלמידים שסמך רע"ק אח"כ, הן מצד הנסתר ע"פ המבואר, בפע"ח שם ובסידור האריז"ל, מדריגת הכ"ד אלף תלמידים שמתו ומדריגת ה' תלמידים הנ"ל. וכבר עמד ע"ז בשו"ת דברי נחמי' חאו"ח סל"ד סק"ז. וסיים: ואולי יש ט"ס בפע"ח שם במ"ש כי הוא כו' כנ"ל וצ"ע בדפוס קארעץ ששמעתי ששם נשמט זה.
ואמת כן הוא, אשר בפע"ח דפוס קארעץ לא נמצא קטע הנ"ל. וכן בסידורי האריז"ל ובשני פע"ח כת"י, שישנם באוסף הכת"י אשר לכ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר שליט"א, חסר כל ענין זה. כן לא מצאתי לביאור הנ"ל בכל דרושי דא"ח שראיתי לע"ע.
וז"ל ספר הכוונות (ענין ספה"ע דרוש יב בטעמי מנהגי ל"ג בעומר: כי הרשב"י ע"ה הוא מחמשה תלמידיו הגדולים של רע"ק ולכן זמן שמחתו ביום ל"ג בעומר. ועד"ז הוא במשנת חסידים.
- ובעהמ"ס ד"נ כנראה לא ראה את סה"כ, מדאינו מביאו - ומכמה טעמים מהנכון, לפענ"ד, לתקן את הנ"ל בספרו, או עכ"פ להעיר על הספקות שבדבר, בהזדמנות הראשונה.
דרך אגב, בשו"ת ד"נ הנ"ל יש כמה ענינים מהענינים שבהם נגע במאמרו ל"ג בעומר אשר בספרו.
בכבוד ובברכת כ"ט
מ. שניאורסאהן
ב"ה, פסח שני, ה'תיש"א ברוקלין, נ. י.
הרה"ח הוו"ח אי"א נו"מ וכו' מהור"י שי'
שלום וברכה!
...
כמה טעמים נאמרו בשמחת ל"ג בעומר וחגיגתו. ואנו אין לנו אלא האמור בכתהאריז"ל ומובא בדא"ח, אשר יום זה הוא יום הסתלקותו של רבי שמעון בן יוחאי - הילולא דרבי שמעון
- אשר "הגיע בשעה ההיא לתחלת וראש כל המדריגות שלו.. וזה הי' ענין לימודו עם החברים בשעה ההיא.. והי' מאיר בו מבחי'.. הארת אורו של משיח".
ומדי שנה בשנה ביום זה מתעורר עוד הפעם מצב זה, כידוע.
...
בברכה ופ"ש כל החבורה יחיו
מ. שניאורסאהן
בכתהאריז"ל ומובא בדא"ח: פע"ח שער ספה"ע פ"ז, דרוש מכ"ק רבנו הזקן (הוזכר בשו"ת דברי נחמי' חאו"ח סל"ד ס"ז. סידור שער הל"ג בעומר. ובלשון מהר"נ מדובראוונא (שם: כבר נתפרסם בכל העולם מכמה דורות ענין הילולא דרשב"י בל"ג בעומר. הילולא דרבי שמעון: זח"ג רצו, ב. ועייג"כ זח"א ריח, א. - ומה שהקשו דהא אדרבה בהסתלקותן של צדיקים מתענין, י"ל דשאני ל"ג בעומר דרשב"י ציוה לשמוח בו (עיין בפע"ח שם ועפמש"כ במהרי"ו 0הובא בש"ך יו"ד סשמ"ד סק"ט הדין דשומעין לו.
ואכמ"ל. הגיע בשעה: סידור שער הל"ג בעומר סד"ה אתה הצבת. ובסופו. בדורות הראשונים.. האחרונים: ראה אגה"ק סכ"ו. הקדמת הרח"ו לשער ההקדמות. שומר אמונים ויכוח א, כ"ט. קונטרס עץ החיים. קונטרס תורת החסידות פ"י. ועוד. ובאור לימוד: מכתב כ"ק אדמו"ר (מהורש"ב נ"ע (נדפס בהוספה לקונטרס עץ החיים עפ"ד.
In regard to the outside sources for Upsherin:
Just about the only positive result that I got from the Tirupati hair thing a couple of years ago (the false claim that certain hair from Tirupati, India is tikrovet avoda zara) is that i discovered the source of the minhag of waiting and making a ceremonila first hair cut.
It is practiced by the devotees of the Tirupati avoda zara. The difference is that there they wait until age 4.
Fotheringay-Phipps
I will try to deal with some of the issues you raised.
At the outset I apologzie for replying so sharply.
As I have written earlier it is not an easy call to decide if and what is plagiarism I really hope to return to it someday but this is not a paying job - its a free service which some seem to forget.
You write: You are too quick to accuse people of plagiarism.
Than you conclude by saying In addition to the above, I am not convinced that Eliezer Brodt et al are able to accurately determine whether in fact the guy found the sources only by seeing them in some prior article.
I really wonder and please be honest here if you ever saw the works of Freund in general and this volume in particular and if you’re familiar with the volume by Landau. If you did not see any of the above so do not trust me at all just get the works and go thru them and show me how very wrong I am.
You write: You are too quick to accuse people of plagiarism.
I spent much time going thru them both comparing them. Further more I have nothing to gain if he did plagiarize as I had enough for a nice post before hand. [Of course until some geniuses can not bear to read it due to the million typos and awful English - they probably could not understand it either - I hope they forgive me] I believe you are so much more quicker to say I am wrong and on basically nothing because I doubt you went thru these works than I came to the conclusions that I did about Freund.
As I wrote and I will again Landau does a much better job (its actually very ironic because Freund writes the column that Landau used to write in the Hamodia) as a whole etc, but it is very obvious he uses his stuff and adds in a few of his own new sources.
Now you ask how I can determine this for certain it’s very simple he makes the same mistakes as these three independent authors have told me. Besides he does admit to using the sefer he just does not admit nearly enough so as I said check for yourself and get back to me on your findings.
It is true that the Chazon Ish said that if someone tells you a source you do not have to quote his name as is quoted in his in Archos Rabenu (3:113) and in Maseh Ish (1:86). N. Rakover in his book Zechut Hayosrim brings those that argue on this point. Now Freund does mention Landaus name in regard toa few things none of them rare etc showing he is not Mekel like the CI but he is makpid. But this is not the issue at hand. Its quite simple I highly doubt (but I seem to be wrong according to you and Gil) that someone would say if A spend a few months researching a sugyah going to the library every other day and than writes it up with all his sources many rare and very hard to find. When he writes it up he does so plain and simple - well organized but with no special perspective on the topic just lets the facts talk for themselves. Along comes B a few years later and takes all that research and adds on a few points with mentioning the help he got from A’s. article. Now lets imagine that A was Gil and B was Freund oh I would love to be in the room when Gil reads that piece in the Badad issue 35 to see the look on his face when he sees his name in footnote 99 for some stupid little thing and nowhere else. I will than remind him what Fotheringay-Phipps wrote its nothing as "The purpose of the article is to inform the readership." Further more it comes from the goyim to care about such things! Let the guy take your hard work as long as he informing the readership!
Fotheringay-Phipps who in the world are we kidding the only reason I suspect you do not understand these things to say something as ridiculous that I got this from Goyish standards is because and I admit I am going out on a limb here is you never wrote something in a public place like what I am talking about but try it and get back to me If you did correct me and I take back all that I said on this point (as you seem to go out on a few limbs here so did I). I have no concern if someone steals a rare source or two from someone else I believe everyone does it, the issue is a whole article that I highly doubt the Chazon Ish would say of course its Mutar!!
To understand why it is very accepted to do such a thing (to thank a primary article on the topic) is very simple. We find in many recent seforim what I feel is the equivalent they write in the introduction I consulted with this and this great expert in the field who helped me with some issues etc. Now the way I look at it is that until this day Landau is the expert on Lag Boemer he spent the most time researching the topic and wrote it up the best gathering the most material and presenting it the best. So what I feel is that any piece written on this topic that uses this material owes him the common decency of his work to give credit in the beginning or towards the beginning of the article that he used the article. Now Landau is very careful to do that he mentions Benayhu and Yari all the time in his articles. Further more Freund himself seems to agree with me at times as in some articles of his one I mentioned and their are others he writes at the outset says I used this guys sources and added so even he understands it - does not think its a goyish thing!
In short my criticism on Freund is very simple and I believe correct has nothing to do with standards from Goyish Academic circles.
"could of" should be "could have"
"besides for" (in several places) should be "besides"
The first time I saw a Mechabar crying plagiarism was Greenwald in his Kolbo on Avielus, he proved that Asaf in his sefer on Kadish stole all his info together with the mistakes
Well put, Eliezer. There is a huge difference between lifting a source or two and stealing an entire article. And frankly, I don't think this is either a modern, or "goyish" sentiment.
As for the comment regarding the various Otzros etc., I have also wondered whether all the works included are really part of the public domain. Unless, of course, this obsession with copyrights is yet another "goyish" invention...
Yakov Hillel was accused many times of plagirisim too
There's a famous, probably apocryphal, story, told about any number of Rabbis, regarding plagiarism. Basically, "I don't mind if they say my Torah in their name. I do mind if they say their Torah in my name."
>Just because a set of standards has become standard in academic circles, and for scholarly articles doesn't mean that someone else is dishonest if in the circles in which he moves and in the type of articles he writes different standards are appropriate.
>I don't recall ever in my life seeing in a classic-style Jewish sefer a citation to a source attributed to someone else, unless the entire source is only being quoted from the secondary source.
F-P, I have a question for you.
Let's forget this specific case.
Imagine if you will, Mechaber "A" writes the definitive article about a topic. Say, for example, whether or not one is permitted to sleep on Rosh Hashana. The Mechaber does a prodigious
amount of research, gathering all known sources about the topic, as well as uncovering heretofore unknown sources that he tracked down in various libraries, journals, manuscripts, etc.
He then publishes his results in a journal such as the Yeshurun.
Years later, Mechaber "B", publishes a work on the customs of various Yom Tovim. When he is preparing his volume on RH, he comes across the now rarely looked at article of Mechaber "A". He basically lifts all the information from the article and publishes it lock, stock, and barrel, with only some minor cosmetic changes. (He changes the order of the sources, and adds a few notes of his own.) Furthermore, he does credit the original article in a footnote on a minor point, showing that he did, in fact, see the original article.
Putting aside the "academic" definition if plagiarism, and even forgetting the Inyan of "omer davar b'shem omero", do you think that what Mechaber "B" did is yashar?
I'm not discussing this case per se, I'm asking you what your opinion of such an act is in principle.
Also, assuming that you agree that what Mechaber "B" did was in fact wrong, would it be wrong to call him out on it in public?
Obviously my question is predicated on he fact that in my example, Mechaber "A" fails to giv attribution to Mechaber "B".
Sorry- should read: "my question is predicated on the fact that in my example, Mechaber "B" fails to give attribution to Mechaber "A".
Eliezer,
I was only speaking in learning, not discussing the right and wrong aspects of it. I found an old post on my blog about this subject that supports you: http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/200...-
secondary.html
Eliezer Brodt: "At the outset I apologzie for replying so sharply."
No problem at all (& no need for this type of thing, in the future).
"I really wonder and please be honest here if you ever saw the works of Freund in general and this volume in particular and if you’re familiar with the volume by Landau. If you did not see any of the above so do not trust me at all just get the works and go thru them and show me how very wrong I am."
Actually I don't recall having heard of either of these people, let alone having read these works.
My skepticism was based on the facts as you described them. You write "R. Tuviah Freund basically lifted all the material from R. Betzalel Landau", but then go on to say "To be sure, Freund adds much material to the topics discussed by Landau and Freund covers areas not covered by Landau. On the other hand, Freund omits many interesting topics and sources relating to this day ..."
So it sounds like RTF didn't just copy all of RBL's work wholesale. He used a lot of the same material but also added extra sources of his own, and also left out some stuff that RBL included. Since he is obviously capable of looking up much of this stuff himself, and since he apparently did a lot of additional research himself, how can you know WRT a given source that he only saw it in RBL's work? Here is where my skepticism comes in.
In your response you note that "he makes the same mistakes". If this is correct then it's likely that he did indeed get that source from RBL (but only "if", and we've seen in this very blog people accusing other people of having made mistakes when the reverse was true. And even then it's only "likely", because a mistake that one guy can make, another can too. I would say this depends on the nature of the mistake). So let's grant that RTF got some sources from RBL. As you say, he himself acknowledges him in some instances. But you are assuming that he got a lot of other sources as well. How do you know? It's not as if we are talking about some randomly chosen material. Sources relating to Lag Ba'Omer are a very small area of research, and it's not hard to imagine that two capable researchers will uncover many of the same sources.
I remain skeptical.
If I had to guess I would say that there are some indeterminate number of sources that RTF got by looking at RBL's work, but there are also a lot that he came up with on his own, and even in the former instances it's hard to know how many he might have eventually come up with by himself but happened to see RBL's work first. Considering that situation, in the additional light of the fact that he didn't use all the sources, and also added some of his own, so that the percentage of the entire article that is directly based on RBL's work is some unknown but possibly quite small percentage, and considering that the context of the article was informative rather than "scholarly", I don't think a charge of plagiarism is at all justified.
"I have nothing to gain if he did plagiarize [...]"
FTR I am not accusing you of being biased about this matter. What I do think is that there are certain standards that are prevalent in circles in which you move and write, and you are taking these standards as being absolute, and thus applying them in a manner which is not appropriate.
"Along comes B a few years later and takes all that research and adds on a few points with mentioning the help he got from A’s. article. Now lets imagine that A was Gil and B was Freund oh I would love to be in the room when Gil reads that piece in the Badad issue 35 to see the look on his face when he sees his name in footnote 99 for some stupid little thing and nowhere else."
I would say a lot depends on where it's being published. If you are publishing something in a scholarly journal there is some implication that you are publishing original research, and it's dishonest to suggest otherwise. If you are writing in a mass-media publication like Hamodia, and later collecting your essays into a popular work, there is no such implication. When publishing in these sources, the primary - and possibly the sole - purpose of footnotes with sources is to direct to interested reader who wants to look into the matter further.
"Further more Freund himself seems to agree with me at times as in some articles of his one I mentioned and their are others he writes at the outset says I used this guys sources and added"
Why do you think he didn't do it here? (And why would a guy cite to a source that he had "plagiarized" from?)
Marcus,
See the third-to-last paragraph of my response to EB above.
>See the third-to-last paragraph of my response to EB above.
Is your point that if (in my example) if someone is writing a newspaper column and then publishes a collection of his columns then it would be menchlach to steal others research?
At the very least it would seem to violate the din that if a TC knows only one mesechta, he is not allowed to let others think that he knows two.
Marcus: "Is your point that if (in my example) if someone is writing a newspaper column and then publishes a collection of his columns then it would be menchlach to steal others research?"
It's not stealing if there is no presumption that he didn't do this.
As I observed earlier, much of passes for "research" really involves using the resources put out by others, who are not acknowledged. Virtually everyone reasearching a topic uses the sources referenced by the Mesoras Hashas (& RY Pick), the Bais Yosef and other achronim. People don't "credit" them for the research - they just "steal" it for themselves.
Address this. Do you think someone who fails to credit the Mesoras Hashas is "stealing the research" of the MH? How about someone who fails to credit the BY (or other sources of this sort)? If not, why not?
"At the very least it would seem to violate the din that if a TC knows only one mesechta, he is not allowed to let others think that he knows two."
There is no implication that he did anything else, so this is not an issue.
>It's not stealing if there is no presumption that he didn't do this.
Do you think that when people read a newspaper article on a halachic topic people (which is footnoted), people assume that the person didn't do any research and lifted the parts which are not footnoted directly from another article? Do you really believe that the author would not be in trouble if it was discovered that he simply goes to journals and copies whole articles form someone else? (Even in Charedi journals?)
>Do you think someone who fails to credit the Mesoras Hashas is "stealing the research" of the MH? How about someone who fails to credit the BY (or other sources of this sort)?
No. I agree that using a source or two that is readily available and is commonly used is not considered a problem. FTM, do you have any proof that this is considered wrong in the academic world? Do scholarly articles commonly say "My friend Sam told me about a NY Times article that says...", rather than "The NY Times reported .."?
>There is no implication that he did anything else, so this is not an issue.
Please explain what you mean here.
I think that if someone publishes an article with obscure sources and partially footnotes the article, it is assumed that he himself did the research to discover the other, non footnoted sources. This is in effect claiming that you have a bekius in the "mesechtos" that you are quoting, when in fact you only have an ability to look in old journals. I guarantee that people's opinion of this author as a TC would be diminished if it was revealed that he is only looking up old articles. It certainly seems deceptive to me, as well as taking kovod which is undeserved.
"Do you think that when people read a newspaper article on a halachic topic people (which is footnoted), people assume that the person didn't do any research and lifted the parts which are not footnoted directly from another article?"
Depends on what "lifted the parts" means. If you mean "found the sources", yes, that's exactly what we are discussing.
"Do you really believe that the author would not be in trouble if it was discovered that he simply goes to journals and copies whole articles form someone else?"
We're not talking about copying whole articles, only using sources that you saw cited elsewhere. When you write a mass-media article, or put out a likut sefer, what you bring to the table is presentation, organization, writing, etc. You are not pretending to be shedding new light on the topic. This is not the same as an article in a scholarly journal.
"I think that if someone publishes an article with obscure sources and partially footnotes the article, it is assumed that he himself did the research to discover the other, non footnoted sources."
I disagree. As above, the primary purpose of footnotes in these publications is to direct the interested reader to where they might do further research.
sorry for interjecting. i was just wondering about earlier comments and herr flohr's response. wasn't it pointed out that an ILLEGAL copy of a book is available on otzar hachochma! (the person who put it out violated copyright laws, as well as hasagat gevul obviously) - what is permission from a ganav to use the stolen material help??? (besides for the fact that it is strange how they WOULD get permission - as i believe the publisher carried out his work anonymously). personally, i haven't heard publishers mention otzar approaching them about commercializing their sefarim. (again i could be completely mistaken -- but it would seem appropriate that the first page of every [copyrighted] book that appears on otzar would be a scan of the WRITTEN permission otzar got from the publisher, or owner of copyright)). at least be worried about עקשות פה ולזות שפתיים.
Fotheringay-Phipp
Sorry for taking so long to respond I was very busy.
You write that in today’s circles no one gives credit to secondary sources. I will give you a few examples of those who do.
In fact the very sefer which you cite, the peskei teshuvos when he quotes secondary sources always gives credit and mentions those secondary sources.
The recent mechon yerushalim haggdah quotes the seder auruch and torah shelimah on every page (both secondary sources) and each time they quote it they cite them again.
There are many, many number of examples of this throughout the recent frum halcahic literature scene. Further more,RTF himself does give credit to secondary sources in this piece and in most of his pieces as well. The problem is that he does not do this nearly as much as he should as I will show below.
To clarify- I am not just talking about one or two sources but I am talking the bulk of ones work from a secondary source with out giving credit.
First for the record, you admit you never saw either piece which is under discussion, so it is quite silly for you to voice any opinion.
Now in my post, I accused RTF of wholesale theft of RBL's material. I did not give any examples. What I did say is, that if you read the material and compare the two, you will see exactly what I am talking about. Unfortunately, I can not cut and paste 100 pages from RBL, and 270 pages from RTF,to demonstrate this. This is why I asked if you read the material and just differed on my take of the matter.
You replied that you never saw it so nothing personal although my opinion is not worth much but yours is worth even less, as you never saw any of the material under discussion.
What I did show in my post was that there are places where he admits using the sefer as well as the yari article on the topic. So when you ask “what do I base my conclusions on?, I answered- “Read it, it is quite obvious.”
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated, (by no less than three independent chassdic writer friends of mine,) that he done this type of theft in the past. In those articles one of the ways to demonstrate this type of theft, is if I quote a source in siman 23 in a specific sefer and I made a mistake a few times in an article of mine and than fellow b quotes all those sources with the same mistakes its very likely that he took this stuff and did not bother to check it up.
Interestingly, recently a person put a lot of work in a specific sefer which he knew people would steal his material so he set such traps and people fell for it, and he then took them to beis din! ( I do not know what the pesak was).
In short, I am not giving you proofs as it would take to much time. I just think anyone who takes the two sets of articles will see very easily what happened here. And I invite you to not to take my word for it, do the research and look up both the article and the book yourself. I am sure that it will be obvious to you as well.
From your comments I see you have no clue as to how the Jewish frum not “scholarly” or “professorsishe” world of articles in papers is about.
Furthermore, even if I would demonstrate to you conclusively that he did plagiarize you hold this is nothing and you do not have to acknowledge sources etc.
As I said an the outset,even RTF himself disagrees with you as to what the proper protocol as in this situation,in the very article under discussion!! (As well as in many other articles where he thanks so and so for where I have gotten most of the material.)
Let me fill you in on what is considered proper procedure in such cases in the frum non academic world. There are many newspaper articles that have been printed over the past fifty years in many very frum papers on a wide range of topics. Including, the topics of Jewish history and minhaghim. Most recently, many articles of this nature are found in the Hebrew Hamodia and “Kulmos: from mishpacha in the Hebrew section.
Every week in some papers, and in others every month, many excellent articles are published on quite a number topics. These articles are designed to reach the layman and scholar alike. Some of them are to intended to inform readers of well known facts and to gather them in an easily accessible format, others are bringing to light previously unknown facts on the topic. Some authors just rehash the same things, while others find new material and new topics having spent a significant amount time on the research. When one reads a particular article, its is easy to tell which articles the author spent lots of time researching and bringing to light new information, and which are saying nothing really new. But one thing almost all of these articles do- is cite which secondary sources they use! It appears from you comments that you never read any of them!
The reasons why they do this could be many – which does not concern me as much I just know in the frum world it is done and should continue to be done.
I did give one very valid reason which you did not address at all and that was that RBL was the expert in the field of lag boemer and credit is given to the expert in the field in all seforim. I know you have no clue to what I am talking about for the plain reason you never bother to systematically research anything that you comment on. You take a gut feeling and then imagine that this is the way things are done, when in fact a minimal amount of research would show you that this is not in fact the case.
In order understand what I mean I will explain to you and others like you, what it entails to write an article.
Let us take for an example lag Boemer. Where would you begin? Of course there are the few basic things rehashed in all the seforim but that's' where it begins! How would you proceed from there? Anyway, another proof that you are speaking from ignorance is that if you would know anything about RTF's articles and books, you would know that he in fact does NOT discuss the run of the mill information on a particular topic, rightfully feeling that these topics have being written about so many times it would be just regurgitating stuff that has been done many times before. He tries to bring a fresh perspective and sources to any topic he writes on. Many of the issues that he focuses on in his article have not been dealt with by anyone prior, though some have been dealt with in obscure articles.
His intent is to be a mix between scholarly and informative. He quotes manuscripts at times along with many rare seforim and it is obvious to anyone who has seen his stuff that he is trying to bring something new to the table and not just the same old, If you would have seen his work you would know.
One of his methods is to track down the articles of people who did research these topics. Why shouldn’t he? Again, I know he does this as he often says at the head of an article that he got his material from so and so's article.
In this case he also does quote RBL, showing that he was aware of him. You feel that he must have seen RBL after he finished his research. I disagree .How do I know he knows about RBL before he began? First of all it's simple it's the tools of the trade- something you do not understand. When you do this kind of thing for a living, and time is money, etc. you find out exactly how to go about your job the fastest and most efficient way possible. In this case it is to see of someone else wrote about it it saves one tons of time in research. After that ,one can see of he has to add or maybe you differed on the way to interpret the sources. After reading the stuff, he then goes ahead and decided what to use as he did not use all the topics and he added many new topics as I noted he has 270 pages branching out into many side chapters which RBL does not bother with, as Landau only has 100 pages. What Landau did was after Benayhu and Yari debated the original sources, is to discuss the continuing widespread of all the various customs.
He worked on this for years again something you can not understand as you have not done. He does not quote a few known sources he checked many rare and manuscripts, as I noted. Now ever since Landau printed these articles there have been new seforim discovered and printed plus maybe landau missed something I am not saying that he does not add but the bulk was done by Yari, Benayhu, and landau. Take a look. Assuming what I say is true,which I doubt you do, it then follows that-
a) he was aware of the stuff before he began b) he used the stuff c) he than added his own stuff d) he did not bother to give proper acknowledgments for the bulk of his information. What is quite strange about RTF is that he does, at times, give full credit at the outset, while other times he does not. I think it is a combination of his work in general is a bit sloppy in presentation, so he here does not credit where he should, but more likely, it is because at times he does not think he will really get busted so why bother? But when he knows that there is a good chance that he will get caught, he is sure to give credit.
EB: "In fact the very sefer which you cite, the peskei teshuvos when he quotes secondary sources always gives credit and mentions those secondary sources."
I disagree.
"you admit you never saw either piece which is under discussion, so it is quite silly for you to voice any opinion."
As I believe I've said previously, my opinion was based on the facts as presented by you.
"But one thing almost all of these articles do- is cite which secondary sources they use!"
Again, this is simply untrue.
"You feel that he must have seen RBL after he finished his research. "
Not necessarily. At some point during his research. Not first thing out of the gate.
"even RTF himself disagrees with you as to what the proper protocol as in this situation,in the very article under discussion"
As previous, the primary purpose of sources in such articles is for the interested reader to do further research himself. Sometimes the sources add a lot more, and sometimes they don't.
"When you do this kind of thing for a living, and time is money, etc. you find out exactly how to go about your job the fastest and most efficient way possible. In this case it is to see of someone else wrote about it it saves one tons of time in research. After that ,one can see of he has to add or maybe you differed on the way to interpret the sources."
I disagree. What you do is look through all the obvious sources first, and the ones that you know about from having come across them while learning or researching something else. Also, a lot of people who write a lot (as well as a lot of people who don't, too) are in the habit of scribbling down sources that they come across that they think they might one day need. This is extremely common.
After you're exhausted all that, you look at other guys who wrote on the topic to see what you might have missed.
I see that you are assuming that virtually all articles that are written are based primarily on previous articles of others. In light of this assumption it's not surprising that you are so quick to accuse people of plagiarism.
"What is quite strange about RTF is that he does, at times, give full credit at the outset, while other times he does not."
What you write is one possibility, but it's also possible that in some cases his work is more heavily based on that of the predecessors than in others.
Fp you epitomize the term "jerk.". As is evident from eliezer's post, he spent a considerable amout of time researching this topic. You on the other hand have merely decided without taking any of your time (other than to read it) decided he was wrong. But rather than satisfy myself based solely on your laziness I took the time to examine the books in question. Indeed, as an obkective obersever would have concluded,fruends book copies entire sections, word for word, from Landau.
Now, I have no doubt that you will come back with some inane incrimination either against myslef or eliezer. But, before you do so why not take the hour or so to ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE BOOKS rather they spouting off at the mouth. I assume you can read Hebrew and I didn't find either book hard to find. So at the very least READ THEM.
chaim brever: "Indeed, as an obkective obersever would have concluded,fruends book copies entire sections, word for word, from Landau."
I don't have much to add WRT the rest of your comment, but obviously if he "copies entire sections, word for word" then he is a plagiarist. As above, my comments were based on the facts as reported by EB, which did not include that assertion.
That said, it's kind of odd that EB would have left out all mention of such clear and convincing evidence of plagiarism, and would instead have resorted to quibbling over whether RDF correctly attributed his sources.
At this point my assumption is that "chaim brever", or whoever that name is a nom de plume for (CF?), did not actually read the books at all, and the assertion that entire sections of word-for-word copying was done is false. Sometimes people are so driven by their righteous battles against jerks and inane incriminators that they feel a little shading of the truth is necessary.
Perhaps EB himself, a man who clearly read the books in question, can weigh in here with some facts. Are there in fact entire sections that were copied word for word (and if so, why no mention of it until now)?
>EB: "In fact the very sefer which you cite, the peskei teshuvos when he quotes secondary sources always gives credit and mentions those secondary sources."
>I disagree.
This is a bizarre comment. This is a question of fact, not a matter of opinion. Either the PT does or he doesn't.
Unless you are accusing EB of lying, how can you say that you disagree?
Fotheringay-Phipps, you have an real talent of avoiding answering my points. It's quite amusing. You say that you disagree with regard to my claim that the peskei teshuvos quotes secondary sources, care to explain why?
I opened up peskei teshuvos volume five checked the pages on Hilchos erev pesach until and including lag boemer and saw the following names numerous times Seder Haruch, seder Peasch Khilchoso, Netei Gavriel, Yom Tov shenei Khelcoso, Erev peasch Schal Beshabbas and Bein pessach lshavaous all of these are very well known likutim seforim and are secondary sources! I also notice how you avoided my other examples (Ozter Merforshey Hatalmud Hagadah). I avoided giving more examples for the simple reason that I knew that you would simply reply "I disagree" without having seen the sefer. Just as you did regrding this whole post.
I hesitate to ask if you ever even use these seforim, and if you actually have a basis for disagreeing, or, is it that you just can't admit when you are wrong.
On my next point- (that it is the common practice in Hebrew newspaper articles to give credit when you owe the bulk of your sources to another's article)- you say that you disagree- on what basis? You seem to just assert it without giving a reason. I have a question for you- How often do you see the hebrew hamodia, or hebrew mishpacha, where the bulk of the articles that I am referring to are written?
Do you in fact have any articles to cite proof of your crazy theory?
I do not doubt that RTF obtains sources through his own research -especially the basic ones and even sources beyond the basic ones. How do I know this?It is because he himself acknowledges at the outset of each volume that he uses the card catalogue of Otzar haposkim which has all the regular sources . I also believe he is capable of doing above average research.
However, in this case,I was discussing rare sources and manuscripts which he takes from RBL and others, sources which are obscure even to an above average researcher.
What he does is that he takes an easy way out tracks down an article on the topic at hand in which the author had done extensive research, and in the case of this article on Lag b'omer, is thought of as the definitive article on the topic, where the author has done a comprehensive job,and uses it as a primary source.
I don't have a problem with him doing so, all that I am saying is that it is only menchlech to give credit where it is due!!
You write I see that you are assuming that virtually all articles that are written are based primarily on previous articles of others. This could not be further from the truth.
I never even mentioned other articles or accused anyone else of plagiarism- so I am not quite sure what you mean here (except for Blau - where I gave reasons for my accusation) and did not jump to accuse anyone else. I read through all the material carefully which is a lot more than I could say for you.
In short, you disagree with everything I say with backing yourself up. Fine. It's a free world. But let no one think that you have examined the sources and come to a deliberate conclusion.
As to Cb point-If you would read the primary materials under discussion, it would be obvious to you that RTF plagiarized. But then again it seems that you have the attitude of "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" and of course your rejoinder would be- "I disagree".
Come back to me when you compare the two sources and then we can have a serious discussion of the issue. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
Eliezer Brodt: "I opened up peskei teshuvos volume five checked the pages on Hilchos erev pesach until and including lag boemer and saw the following names numerous times Seder Haruch, seder Peasch Khilchoso, Netei Gavriel, Yom Tov shenei Khelcoso, Erev peasch Schal Beshabbas and Bein pessach lshavaous all of these are very well known likutim seforim and are secondary sources!"
Of course he quotes secondary sources. You agree that RTF also quotes secondary sources. That's not the question. The question is whether he ALWAYS gives credit to secondary sources.
The way I know that he doesn't always do this is because it's inconceivable that anyone could know all the sources that he cites from straight-up familiarity with these actual works.
"I also notice how you avoided my other examples (Ozter Merforshey Hatalmud Hagadah)."
Never heard of it.
"I avoided giving more examples for the simple reason that I knew that you would simply reply "I disagree" without having seen the sefer."
If your judgment about RTF is as good as your judgment about how I would reply my position is validated right there.
"On my next point- (that it is the common practice in Hebrew newspaper articles to give credit when you owe the bulk of your sources to another's article)- you say that you disagree- on what basis? You seem to just assert it without giving a reason. I have a question for you- How often do you see the hebrew hamodia, or hebrew mishpacha, where the bulk of the articles that I am referring to are written?"
I'm basing it on similar articles in English newspapers (Yated, Hamodia). I've seen a bit of the Hebrtew Yated.
"You write I see that you are assuming that virtually all articles that are written are based primarily on previous articles of others. This could not be further from the truth. "
What you said was: "When you do this kind of thing for a living, and time is money, etc. you find out exactly how to go about your job the fastest and most efficient way possible. In this case it is to see of someone else wrote about it it saves one tons of time in research. After that ,one can see of he has to add or maybe you differed on the way to interpret the sources."
"As to Cb point-If you would read the primary materials under discussion, it would be obvious to you that RTF plagiarized."
Why can't you directly answer the question? Again: Are there in fact entire sections that were copied word for word (and if so, why no mention of it until now)?
Marcus: "This is a bizarre comment. This is a question of fact, not a matter of opinion. Either the PT does or he doesn't.
Unless you are accusing EB of lying, how can you say that you disagree?"
Actually I find your comment bizarre.
EB did not write the PT. He read some of it. So did I. He has no actual first-hand knowledge of whether the PT always quotes secondary sources. Neither do I. He is making a judgment. So am I.
I have to admit, I spent some time rereading the comments as well as the post, and I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong. I admit it, I was confused and took a position that frankly is not logical. I agree that it appears that the RTF is guilty of a form of plagiarism whether it is word for word or not, it seems obvious he is indebted to others and should have noted as much.
Note: the preceding comment was not made by me.
Request to the blog owners: please delete the comment. (In this case it doesn't make sense to just change the name under the comment, because the entire purpose of the comment is to pretend that I've said something that I haven't.)
It's kind of ironic that a guy purporting to be upholding standards of plagiarism would stoop even lower, to forgery.
As the old saying goes "you can say my stuff in your name, but not your stuff in my name".
The prior comment is not mine. I find it especially ironic that when I am trying to admit that I got it wrong, someone attempts to impersonate me to continue to embarrass me by continuing to allege I don't agree wtih EB.
Further request to the blog administrators: please verify which comment is mine via ISP #. Thanks.
test
Request to the blog owners: please delete all comments made by Fotheringay-Phipps. (In this case it doesn't make sense to just change the name under the comment, because the entire purpose of the comment is to pretend that something is being said, while in reality, there is nothing actually being said.)
Commenting by HaloScan
