I learned that one must always repeat a saying in the name of the original source or else it’s like stealing. Does this apply to non-Jews? As an avid cook I noticed many Jewish cookbooks, from all publishers, copying recipes from non-Jewish sources and was wondering if it is a problem.
Answer:
The idea of saying something in the name of the original source is applied mainly by the poskim to matters of Torah (see, for instance, Bach, Yoreh De’ah 242). Indeed, it is listed as one of the attributes with which Torah is acquired. From the source in Megillah (Talmud, Megillah 15a), it is clear that the idea applies even to other matters of importance, and not only to Torah.
To classify what is defined as “important,” an indication will be whether or not the original source will be particular about being quoted in connection with the information.
If the original source is particular about being quoted, feeling the matter of sufficient importance, the idea of saying it in his name will apply. Therefore, there is no need to say over a standard joke in the name of the person one heard it from. The same applies for a “housewife recipe.” However, for a recipe published in a copyrighted book, it is possible that the matter will apply.
As an extension of “theft” (see Tanchuma, Bamidbar 22), the concept might apply even to a source from a non-Jew. A source for this is the Tiferes Banim (Intro. p. 7), who quotes from the Chasam Sofer that Pharaoh brought exile to the world when he told Yosef that he had heard that he knows how to interpret dreams, and did not say this in the name of the Sar Ha-Mashkim. This indicates that even a non-Jew is obligated in the matter, and the more so a Jew.
Yet, it is possible that where saying it in the original source’s name will cause the matter to be badly received (perhaps a kosher cookbook won’t do well to quote from non-kosher cookbooks), there is room for leniency. Although mentioned by the Magen Avraham (156) as a full prohibition, the idea of quoting original sources is not mentioned by poskim as a full obligation, and only as a (great) virtue. Where this will potentially cause damage, the concept is not binding.
Another problem, however, will be the possible transgression of copyright law, but this depends on the details of the particular case.
It is possible (for both issues) that the changing and adaptation of the recipe will make the matter less stringent.
