144 Selected Reform Responsa

Yad Hil Zekia Umatanah 1.14; Tur and Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat 156; Meir of Rothenburg Responsa#544; etc).

Even in conjunction with“sacred” areas as the teaching and interpretation of the written and oral law, great care was exercised to protect the jurisdiction and status of rabbis and teachers. Some authorities like Isserlein and Weill permitted competition and felt that it was good for the community(Weill, Responsa#151; Isserlein , Terumat Hadeshen#128). Israel Isserlein made his decision on the basis of encouraging the study of Torah . Some later authorities agreed with them. Many scholars felt that the appointed rabbi of the community had a right to protect his status, both as a teacher and a judge. He could also protect the income from these and other sources(4vnei Nezer Yoreh Deah 312.37; Meshiv Davar 18, 9; Hatam Sofer Hoshen Mishpat#21; Mayim Amugim#70). The Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries present both points of view(Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 245.18 ff). This equivocation on the part of the medieval authorities was intended to encourage strong scholarly leadership.

Matters changed when the modern rabbinate became a profession and the rabbis’ livelihood depended upon services rendered to the congregation. Under these circumstances, it was forbidden to trespass on another rabbi’s territory(Moses Sofer Hatam Sofer Hoshe Mishpat#21: Yoreh Deah#32; Meshiv Davar #8). Some disagreement remained on the right of a newcomer to teach, as this is a mitzvah and its fulfillment should not be denied to anyone(Elijah ben Hayim Mayim Amugim,#70; Akiva Eger , Responsa Tanina#12; Abraham Mordecai Halevi Ginat Veradim Yoreh Deah 3.7). Livelihoods were protected and the matter under discussion is related to this question.

Similarly books of prayer that were in the public domain and which could be considered part of the divine tradition were protected through copyright. So, for example, the first edition of the famous Heidenheim Mahzor, printed by Roedelheim contained statements by four prominent rabbis granting a copyright. When a printer in Sulzbach proceeded to republish the work, a special statement warning against its purchase was issued by Pinhas Horowitz of Frankfurt (final page Heidenheim Mahzor 1832).