it's not just a kids comix thing either. in a book of "inspiring " stories I read about how this traveling Yid managed to beseech a kind man to share his hotel room. after the benefactor warned him he snores, the Yid made up a story about angels hovering over him when he slept so that the nice guy would wait till he slept to see it. so the guy got duped and stayed up all night because of our hero's lie.
there's at least 2 clear cut biblical sins he did, probably more. and this book is supposed to inspire you with clever solutions like his. I hope this story never happened and that the author and publisher publicly do teshuva and buy back all their books.
I haven't spent much time reading popular frum magazines or books for at least a decade - probably more. But I do know that the demand for content is huge, so I can only imagine what's been happening with quality.
I'm wondering whether the issur to covet someone else's property applies only to things that are in the material realm. The Torah's examples are your fellow's servant, donkey, etc. True, your fellow's wife is also mentioned, and a Ben Torah knows very well that she is anything but a material object. But we could argue that a person who is coveting someone else's wife is not doing so out of ruchnius. So, we might say that given that the Ari had an appreciation for the ruchnius of this object that nobody else would, maybe he was allowed to try to get it and put it to use in the service of Hashem in a way that nobody else could -- similar to the way we are allowed -- even on Shabbos -- to purchace a property in E.Y. if it is in the wrong hands.
I'd say that's a bit of a long shot: I'm not aware of any full Torah prohibitions that are waived for people who have the "right" kavanos. Property rights are property rights.
In Temple times, if a Para Aduma is born to a farmer, is it lo sachmod for the Kohanim to try to buy it from him? I'm doubting that. This is something that Klal Yisroel needs. Presumably, the Ari viewed this manuscript as something that the Klal needed, and they would only get the benefit if it was in the hands of someone who understood its significance. Is it really not a parallel? You might need a way to address whether this manuscript can be elevated to that category. But I would tend to believe that the issur of lo sachmod is all about curbing our tendency to serve ourselves rather than serving Hashem.
My (unproven) feeling is that Temple officials would pass up such a Para Aduma. If God wants us to do such mitzvos, I'm sure He can find permitted ways to get there. The Torah isn't ours to compromise.
I was thinking about that, but that was very different: Dama ben Nesina was in the jewelry business and everything he had was for sale. It was just that he refused to wake his father up at that moment. But there was no לא תחמוד involved.
it's not just a kids comix thing either. in a book of "inspiring " stories I read about how this traveling Yid managed to beseech a kind man to share his hotel room. after the benefactor warned him he snores, the Yid made up a story about angels hovering over him when he slept so that the nice guy would wait till he slept to see it. so the guy got duped and stayed up all night because of our hero's lie.
there's at least 2 clear cut biblical sins he did, probably more. and this book is supposed to inspire you with clever solutions like his. I hope this story never happened and that the author and publisher publicly do teshuva and buy back all their books.
Yeah, I saw a different kids' comic on Shabbos and found it inappropriate for adults (or anyone with critical thinking skills).
I haven't spent much time reading popular frum magazines or books for at least a decade - probably more. But I do know that the demand for content is huge, so I can only imagine what's been happening with quality.
I'm wondering whether the issur to covet someone else's property applies only to things that are in the material realm. The Torah's examples are your fellow's servant, donkey, etc. True, your fellow's wife is also mentioned, and a Ben Torah knows very well that she is anything but a material object. But we could argue that a person who is coveting someone else's wife is not doing so out of ruchnius. So, we might say that given that the Ari had an appreciation for the ruchnius of this object that nobody else would, maybe he was allowed to try to get it and put it to use in the service of Hashem in a way that nobody else could -- similar to the way we are allowed -- even on Shabbos -- to purchace a property in E.Y. if it is in the wrong hands.
I'd say that's a bit of a long shot: I'm not aware of any full Torah prohibitions that are waived for people who have the "right" kavanos. Property rights are property rights.
In Temple times, if a Para Aduma is born to a farmer, is it lo sachmod for the Kohanim to try to buy it from him? I'm doubting that. This is something that Klal Yisroel needs. Presumably, the Ari viewed this manuscript as something that the Klal needed, and they would only get the benefit if it was in the hands of someone who understood its significance. Is it really not a parallel? You might need a way to address whether this manuscript can be elevated to that category. But I would tend to believe that the issur of lo sachmod is all about curbing our tendency to serve ourselves rather than serving Hashem.
My (unproven) feeling is that Temple officials would pass up such a Para Aduma. If God wants us to do such mitzvos, I'm sure He can find permitted ways to get there. The Torah isn't ours to compromise.
we see them doing just that for a stone for the ephod
I was thinking about that, but that was very different: Dama ben Nesina was in the jewelry business and everything he had was for sale. It was just that he refused to wake his father up at that moment. But there was no לא תחמוד involved.
interesting I did not know that detail