Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 082

Thursday, December 17 1998

• MENORAH
• shehechiyanu on nairos chanukah
• Re: avodah v. 80, Yosef as a moreid
• kollel class system
• Re: chanuka:Psak & Mishna Berura
• Re: Avodah V2 #78
• Re: MENORAH
• Re: chanuka:Psak & Mishna Berura
• Re: Avodah V2 #78
• Eis laasos
• Re: kollel class system
• Re: kollel class system
• R. Emden and R. Eyebeshuetz
• Rav Eybeschutz and Rav Emden
• Re: Rav Eybeschutz and Rav Emden
• KOLLEL class system
• RYE
• Re: Avodah V2 #79

How can we explain the difference of how the menorah is depicted on the 
arch of titus and how it is described by the Rambam?

At work we have a mincha minyan with members who are not yet frum.  Bet.
mincha and ma'ariv menorah is lit, and it was suggested that someone who did
not light at home on the first night should light menorah w/ shehechiyanu.
Wasn't sure if this is correct - that person's lighting is not a personal
kiyum of ner ish ubeito, but l'chora is a kiyum of  pirsumei nisa brabbim
which might be a chobas hatzibbur.  Does shehechiyanu relate to that person's
ma'aseh hamitzva done for the first time, or to the kiyum mitzva of the
tzibbur which has already been fufilled on the first night?  (R' Chaim Brisker
has the same chkirah - ma'aseh vs. kiyum - on all birchas hamitzvos). Another
possible nafka minah: would someone who lit early at home with a shehechiyanu
and then goes to shul and lights for the tzibbur say another shehechiyanu on
the first night?  

-Chaim

In a message dated 12/16/98 9:51:43 AM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> A final note on Yosef: I wanted to suggest that Yosef was judged as a moreid
>  b'malchus, similar to Ramban's comments (38:24) on Tamar's burning.  This
>  removes the issue of being judged by kerovim (which admittedly doesn't come
> up
>  if you learn he was a rodef), 

In addition if they had law of BN Krovim can rule and testify on them (Ramabam
Hil Mlochim 9:14).

it allows for flexibility in determining his
>  punishment (acc. to Shut Rashba cited in B"Y end C"M 388, though Yitzchok
Z.
>  pointed out Rambam in Hil. Melachim is cholek, see first line in Yeruslami
>  Perek Arba Misos), 

There are other Sources as well, see Mitzpeh Shmuel on the Toseftoh Sanhedrin
9:3.

>it explains why Yehudah and Reuvain are the central
>  characters, and is very meduyak in reading of "hamaloch timloch aleinu".  

Furthermore it explains why they said "Bal Hachalomos Boh" not "Bal Hadeeboh,"
however the Shverikeitin I have with this Tzugeing is:

 1) Bpashtus until Yaakov revealed that Reuvain lost the Mlucho (49:3) it was
Reuvain because he was the Bchor (mentioned previously that by Esov the
Mechiro was a Boh Lolom for this reason), why when Reuvain said "Lo Nakenu
Nofesh" he still had to tell them throw into pit, they should have let him
free (as he didn't mean to throw him into the pit for him to die there).

Even if we are to apply the rule of Melech Shemochal Al Kvoidoi Ein Kvodoy
Mochul, (and perhaps that is why Yehudoh argued to sell him as Golus is
Mchapeir like Missoh), according to Tosfos in Ksubos 17a is Mashma that it
applies only to a real King (which has the Geder of Som Tosim Olecho Melech,
which is hard to say that Reuvain had during the life of Yaakov). (this is no
contradiction to the Ramban WRT Tamar as there he is referring to a Mosheil in
his own area, not on all the Shvotim).

If he was Chayov Missoh Al Pi Din (and no retraction can help) what right did
they have to sell him and not kill him?

2) Yosef was also a Bchor and a Bchor to Ikar Habayis (see Rashi 30:4, Rashi
33:2), and Bpashtus that was the Reason that Yaakov made him the Ksones Pasim,
so M'din BN (that Yichus goes after mother) who says he had to recognize
Reuvain (Ulhoir from Rashi 22:2 D"H Es Bincho),  (OTOH Mlucho is Bikor to a
nation and  nationality goes after the father, but in that case neither was
yet melech rather Yaakov). while as a Yisroel perhaps  Reuvain would have to
be king  (Dvorim 21:15-17).

3) Bpashtus the dreams where Bgeder Nvuoh, (and perhaps if he wouldn't say he
would be Oveir on Koveish Nvuosoi), in that case he is not saying that he is
now king, but that he will be we, (which he was), when Shmuel told Shaul that
HKB"H removed the kingdom from him was he a Moreid Bmalchus?

Happy and illuminating Chanukah.
Yitzchok Zirkind

HM threw in aremark 'no one should be prevented from learning as long as he
wants'.   I assume he's  referring to someone of independent means for whom
parnasa is not an issue.  Once the kollel class is dependent on the klal for
its funding, the donor should have the right to an accountability system as
well [ of course, if baalei tzedaka wish to give boundless sums without
knowing the result, gei gezunterheit------but i think the baalebos is
entitled to decide where he'll put that dollar towards limud tora...]

In v2n78 Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> writes:
: You have raised an interesting problem. How does one read the Mishna Berura to
: arrive at halacha l'maaseh?

I have a similar but unrelated question: When does one read the MB, Aruch
HaShulchan, or any other seifer, and when is one obligated to ask a poseik?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6007 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In v2n78, Yitzchok Zirkind Yzkd@aol.com wrote:
:                                                  they wanted to avoid direct
: killing, as to a BN in a Gram, see Rambam Hil. Rotzeach 2:2, which is Mashma
: he has to tie him down...

The Ohr HaChaim has an oft quoted explanation that touches on the conundrum of
hashgachah pratis vs. bechirah chafshis. In short, the OH states that they
wanted to assure that the death would be min Hashamayim. If they would do the
killing outright, they wouldn't know if he's guilty, or if Hashem just allowed
them to act on their bechirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6007 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Dec-98)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Steve katz asked:

> How can we explain the difference of how the menorah is depicted on the 
> arch of titus and how it is described by the Rambam?


I believe the common explanation is that the Romans didn't get THE
menorah, only one of several that were in the Beit HaMikdash. A lesser
one, so to speak.


---sam

In a message dated 12/16/98 4:30:31 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> I have a similar but unrelated question: When does one read the MB, Aruch
>  HaShulchan, or any other seifer, and when is one obligated to ask a poseik?
>  
Now your touching on the Machlokes between the Rosh and the Rambam if one
needs to know the reasons of the Halacha in order to rule on the actual
Halacha itself.

Yemei Chanukah Mei'irim

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/16/98 4:36:31 PM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

>  the OH states that they
>  wanted to assure that the death would be min Hashamayim. If they would do 
> the
>  killing outright, they wouldn't know if he's guilty, or if Hashem just 
> allowed
>  them to act on their bechirah.

I am aware of this approach, Vshivim Ponim Latorah, (the Shverikeit is MM"N if
he is Chayov Missoh then it becomes there obligation to do so, and if they had
a doubt then they would have to sit a Beis Din and either be Mchayeiv or
Pottur).

A Freilichen Chanukah

>We recently touched on the topic of eis la'asos, which brought to mind 
>a question...
>
>Is there an example where "eis la'asos" nullifies a real issur? For 
>example, in the case of "d'varim sheba'al peh i ata risha'i", which of
the 613 are being violated? To me it looks like the application is more
oriented 
>toward terminating minhagei Yisrael or possibly chumros, and not
necessarily actual issurim.
		The classic case of eis laasos is the takana to greet people beShem. 
This is definitely a kulo in the mitzvah of morah Hashem.  Does this fit
your category?

Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Newman,Saul Z wrote:
> 
> HM threw in aremark 'no one should be prevented from learning as long as he
> wants'.   I assume he's  referring to someone of independent means for whom
> parnasa is not an issue.  Once the kollel class is dependent on the klal for
> its funding, the donor should have the right to an accountability system as
> well [ of course, if baalei tzedaka wish to give boundless sums without
> knowing the result, gei gezunterheit------but i think the baalebos is
> entitled to decide where he'll put that dollar towards limud tora...]


My remarks were intended as independent of funding considerations. Nut, 
you raise a good point. There are limited funds available on the part of 
Klal Israel for purposes of supporting Kollelim. Those funds would be 
put to much better use if only those who are the potential Yechidei 
Segulah would get them, instead of equally distributing them to any and 
all who happen to be in a kollel, regardless of their potential.  
Shouldn't those do do have "The Right Stuff" get the lion's share of the 
money so they could live a little better than the near poverty level 
they live on presently because of the broader distribution of funds? 

As for the late bloomers who choose to stay in a kollel, hopefully, the 
numbers of such individuals would be greatly reduced and the chances for 
success for those who remain would be increased because many would be 
weeded out and only the cream would stay in a world where there was more 
scrutiny and guidance on the part of Roshei Yeshiva and Roshei Kollel.

HM

In my last post I made a serious typo. instead of the word "now" I 
inadvertantly typed the word "nut".  Please accept my apology and know 
that it was an inadvertant mistake and not, G-d forbid an attempt to 
slur.

HM

I am sincerely grateful to R. Daniel Eidensohn for taking the time to
respond to my post in a manner that is careful, thoughtful and cogent.
Though I still do not agree with him, my respect for him continues to
grow.

Pressed to summarize RDE's view on the RYE/RYE controversy, I would boil
it down to four words:  The Gedolim have spoken.

I had suggested that there may still be value to taking sides.  But RDE
notes that such value exists only so long as no consensus has developed
(e.g., regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe).

>The dispute with Rav Emden is
>different, however, because a consensus has been established amongst our
>rabbinic leaders - as Dr. Leiman has pointed out. [snip]Therefore we can no
>longer voice the opinion of the Yaavetz as a viable position.

While I stated that I thought it important to consider whether R.
Emden's accusations were true or false in reading his halakhic works or
that of R. Eyebeschetz, RDE demurs:

>If Rav Soloveitchik and Rav Moshe Feinstein - knowing full well the
implication of your well articulated >problem - did not see fit to take
sides between Rav Yonasan and Rav Yaakov - who are we?

I wrote that embracing both RYE and RYE as tzadikim was irrational.  RDE
responds:

>The fact that there is a consensus of gedolim on this issue - that both are
to be viewed as tzadikim - >precludes the viability of any ben Torah
from taking a public stand against it.

For those who do not have the patience to read long posts, I will
summarize my response thus:  (1) I am not aware of any explicit
statement of any gadol embracing both figures as tzadikim.  (2)
According to RYGB, the yeshiva world's position regarding R. Emden's
claims is merely one of pragmatic disregard, not a decisive evaluation.
(3) In any case, this amounts to an application of da'at Torah to a
historical question, which I do not believe is binding on any ben Torah.

I will now expand on these points for those with time and patience to
burn.

RDE refers repeatedly to a consensus of our gedolim.  He compares this
to the consensus regarding the Shulhan Arukh.  I agree that there is no
validity to questioning a halakhic consensus.  The Shulhan Arukh is not
open to question today, and this is one of the significant differences
we have with the so-called halakhic authorities of the Conservative
movement.  But regarding the Shulhan Arukh, we have many explicit
statements (including R. Emden's recently cited on this list)
establishing its authority.  In contrast, I am not aware of even one
20th century gadol who has explicitly addressed the issue and determined
that they were both tzadikim.  Of course, I am no authority on this
issue, and I would be happy to learn otherwise.  What I see is that the
olam ha-yeshivot freely uses the sefarim of both RYE and RYE.  But I
believe that may reflect a willingness to be ma'alim ayin from the
issue, rather than an explicit hekhsher of both as tzadikim.  (By
analogy, a number of gedolim remain willing to cite the Besamim Rosh,
although its provenance is dubious.)

RDE notes that the debate between the hasidim and mitnagedim was equally
rancorous, but we now view both sides as tzadikim.  But, fundamentally,
that was a debate regarding derekh ha-hayyim.  The consensus today is
that both derakhim are valid.  I do not see how this can be compared to
the RYE/RYE controversy which, I think can be resolved in only two ways.
 If Ya'avetz was right, one cannot defend Sabbateanism as a valid derekh
ha-hayyim or the actions of a tzadik.  If he was wrong, then he falsely
slandered a gadol ha-dor, hardly a qualification for tzidkut.  As I said
before, elu ve-elu simply cannot apply.

Elie Ginsparg explains that we might view both as tzadikim because they
both were acting le-shem Shamayim.  But again, if Ya'avetz was right, I
do not see how we could rationalize Sabbateanism as le-shem Shamayim.
And if Ya'avetz was wrong, his good intentions might mitigate his error,
but hardly turn him into a tzadik.  If someone sincerely believed that a
contemporary gadol, say R. Elyashiv, was, hallilah,  a kofer and
plastered his claims all over Yerushalayim and Bnei Brak and published
books attacking him, would you feel the person was simply a misguided,
le-shem Shamayim tzadik or would you think this guy should be locked up?

Moreover, RYGB has a view of the yeshiva velt's consensus that differs
from RDE's:

>My impression of Dr. Leiman's understanding of the Yeshiva
>world's position, based on his analysis of the Noda b'Yehuda's response,
>is that there is a certain doubt as to RYEb's possition, but for purposes
>of preventing Chillul Hashem, we should cover up and paper over as much as
>possible.

This is hardly a ringing endorsement of both as tzadikim.  It is a
pragmatic policy, and one that reflects a surprising lack of concern
regarding the reliability of the Torah of two noted talmidei hakhamim.
Moreover, I think that the concerns that may have existed at the time of
the Noda Bi-Yehudah are not so strong today.  R. Eyebeschetz, I have
been told, could be described as the R. Moshe Feinstein of his day.  R.
Ya'akov Emden, too, was very prominent.  At a time when they had such
preeminent status, and even shortly after, the potential for hillul
Hashem and degradation of kavod ha-Torah was incalculable.  From a
remove of many years, however, I think the damage would be far less.
Unlike in those days, the bulk of the Jewish world (the potential
audience for a hillul Hashem)  have heard of neither of these rabbonim,
know nothing of the controversy and would not react in any way to a
conclusion one way or the other.  In fact, I think contemporary gedolim
have generally ignored the issue, rather than dictated a formal
response.

Indeed, RDE seems to acknowledge this when he speaks of the silence of R
Soloveitchik and R. Moshe Feinstein.  But, unlike RDE, I do not see
their silence as either conclusive or binding.  R. Moshe is known
generally for answering the she'elot that were put to him, not issuing
position papers on historical controversies (re R. Yehudah ha-Hasid, see
below).  R. Soloveitchik was even more laconic, sometimes passing
controversial she'elot to R. Moshe.  I am not aware of either of them
relying heavily on 18th or 19th century gedolim in their learning, and
neither styled himself a historian.

But, in truth, I lack authoritative kowledge on the consensus question,
so I will assume for the sake of argument that there is an explicit
consensus on this issue, and I will grant that virtually all gedolim,
past and present, have decided that both were tzadikim.  Does this
foreclose any other possibility for a ben Torah?  RDE says yes.

I believe RDE's position amounts to an application of da'at Torah on a
historical issue.  While da'at Torah is another thread, I will note
that, in some circles, it is accepted that a ben Torah should not
diverge from advice of gedolim on issues of personal conduct.  It is
accepted that gedolim have superior insight into manifold issues of
human interaction, political, social and national issues.  It is
accepted that kavod ha-Torah dictates deferring to the will and
judgement of our gedolim.  For purposes of this issue, however, I will
limit my demurral: I think da'at Torah has no application to historical
questions.  I present two illustrations:

As RDE knows better than I, R. Moshe wrote two teshuvot regarding a
perush on the Torah apparently authored by R. Yehudah ha-Hasid.
However, the manuscript contained a number of statements ascribing the
authorship of certain biblical passages to someone other than Moshe.
Citing the Rambam's well-known formulation on the subject, R. Moshe
concluded that such statements could not have been written by R. Yehudah
ha-Hasid and ruled that the book should be published with the offending
passages removed.  (Incidentally, I understand that Dr. Leiman was very
involved in this affair.)

As a matter of precise characterization, I think it wrong to say that R.
Moshe "paskened" that R. Yehudah ha-Hasid was not the author of these
passages.  The authorship of the passages is a historical question, and
one that is not readily resolvable by reference to the Rambam's
definition of kefirah.  So too, whatever consensus may exist in the
Torah world regarding the RYE/RYE controversy, that consensus does not
carry halakhic weight, because the issue is a historical one, not a
halakhic one.

A related issue once came up in the Jewish Observer.  As I recall, an
article was written about Moses Mendelssohn  which noted that, contrary
to popular belief, he was not the first Reform Jew, but someone who kept
Taryag mitzvot and fought primarily for Jews to be treated as equals.
This article prompted a response from none other than R. Shimon Schwab
z.t.l.  He wrote that these historical facts about Mendelssohn should
not have been published, because, as a practical matter, his ideas led
to Reform and the undermining of Torah.  (Those who can recapitulate his
argument in greater detail are welcome to do so.)

With respect, I do not understand R. Schwab's position.  I do not
believe that the Torah community should misrepresent history for
educational purposes.  Regarding Mendelssohn, one can perhaps learn more
from knowledge of his real views than one can from suppressing them.
Indeed, if we intensively studied the RYE/RYE controversy, this might
help us address contemporary issues, like that of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.
 My rebbe, R. Lichtenstein, has repeatedly voiced his belief that a lack
of historical sensibility is one of the shortcomings of the haredi
community today.  (I would be interested to hear the thoughts on this of
RDE, who identifies himself as both a haredi and a student of history.)

In sum, I question whether the rabbinic consensus described by RDE
exists, whether it is explicit and whether it is somehow binding upon
us.  I also question the value of suppressing history for educational
purposes.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Rav Eidensohn stated that since  the yeshiva community has expressed, a
consensus about the controversy between Rav Eybeschutz and Rav Emden, we can no
longer support Rav Emden.  There was a previous thread where Rav Eidensohn
articulated a similar position about hashkafa - that once a consensusis achieved
in the "yeshiva community" about certain hashkafic issues, we can no  longer
adopt positions that were once acceptable   I think that  the issue here is the
same. That is,  Rav Eidensohn's position that we can no longer criticize Rav
Eybeschutz seems dependent on this notion that there is hachraa in non halachic
areas.   Those of us who disagreed then may therefore feel freer to debate the
current issue (recognizing darkhe noam and the limited data available to us).

Meir Shinnar

In a message dated 12/17/98 12:00:48 PM EST, meir_shinnar@smtplink.mssm.edu
writes:


> that once a consensusis achieved
>  in the "yeshiva community" about certain hashkafic issues, we can no
longer
>  adopt positions that were once acceptable .

While the term "yeshiva community" is a new Geder the issue of "Ifsike
Hilchisoh" is a halachic term with regard to even Hashkafa issues, the
strongst of them that comes to mind is "Yad Has-hem".

An Illuminating Chanukah
Yitzchok Zirkind

"The only people who should be learning in
Kolel full time are those individuals who truely have the potential to
be Gedolei Hador. "

     What about the person who could be a great 5th grade rebbie who might
produce gedolei hador (and other fine Jews) who needs 5 years in kollel to
be prepared for that?


" For the most of rest of us, the process should go
something like this:  Post high school - 1 or 2 years of uniterupted
learning. Then, learning in conjuction with an eye towards contributing
in some other way to klal Israel, whether it be in pursuit of a career
in chinuch, or some other profession.  (Ala Y.U., H.T.C., or Ner Israel)"

     Since this is basically what I did, and Rav Breuor Zt"l shita in "a
time to build" I can't knock it - but is it necessarily good for everyone
to be on the same system?

"R. Aaron Soloveichik has stated many times both in print and in word
that the concept of "Vehogiso Bo Yomim VaLaila" which applies to all of
us, applies differently to those who are potnetial Gedolei HaDor. "


     I assume Rav Aharon's oponion is based on the Ohr Semayach on RAMBAM
hilchos talmud torah that says that the chiyuv of vhegosom is not in the
chumash because different people have different capabilities and it would
not be fair for the Torah to command such.  Still is learning Torah and I
idea about fufilling one owns potential, or is it a minor leagues for
producing public superstars?   I agree if people are giving money to Kollel
on that assumption then the kollel should follow it, but if that is true I
think it is unfortunate.

"Now, of course, no one should be denied the opportunity to learn full
time for as long as he wants.  This will enable the "late Bloomers" to
blossom late. The problem is THERE IS NO GUIDANCE! If someone goes into
learning full time and thinks he just may be a late bloomer then HE
SHOULD DO IT INFORMED, AND WITH HIS EYES WIDE OPEN! As I have stated an
almost infinite number of times, it seems that Roshei Kollel do NOT
encourage the majority of their talmidim who will NEVER BE Gedolim to
look for other ways in which their talents can be utilized to better
purpose. Instead, they allow the Status Quo to exist wherein there are
many Yungeleit who are encouraged to spend the best years of their lives
learning "relatively well" and then "all of a sudden" they have a large
family with absolutlely no training in any form for parnasah and a poor
attitude about the work ethic. (e.g. "Of course I will only work a half
day on Friday because I have to prepare for Shabbos"!!!)"

     I really think this is an unfair assesment of what goes on, and for a
darchei noam perspective unnecessary.  On a halachik note see the Mishnah
Brurah, and other poskim, at the begginig of chelek 3 about working erev
shabbos.  Based on such, and other, reasons my Harvard law School educated
boss who never spent a day in Yeshivah leaves three hours before candle
lighting, and while I don't know if he has to i think it's commendable.


"I think it is wrong."

     Do you have high level sources for this?
MAL, Esq.

Disclaimer!

Let me note that I have no personal opinion on the matter, as I claim no
familiartiy with the issues. All my comments were based on Dr. Leiman, and
reflect my perception of his opinion on the matter. Thus, I am flattered
that REC quotes me as authoritative, but I cannot accept this accolade!
(Thanks anyway).

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 10:15:00 -0500
> From: "Clark, Eli" <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM>
> Subject: Yosef and his brothers
> 
> R. Yitzchok Zirkind writes:
> 
> >In general according to many Yosef had a din of Rodeif (or perhaps Mossur
> >which is the same Geder, the fact that Rashi (37:2 D"H Es Debosom Ro'oh)
> >brings 3 things makes him a Muchzok, nonetheless they wanted to avoid direct
> >killing, as to a BN in a Gram, see Rambam Hil. Rotzeach 2:2, which is Mashma
> >he has to tie him down, (even though that by putting Yosef into a pit of
> >snakes it is pretty much the same, it is still something that Al Kol Ponim a
> >Yid is not killed in Beis Din for, but in any case in Pshutoy Shel Mikroh
> they
> >did not see the snakes).
> 
> Two points.  In peshto shel mikra there were no snakes at all.  (Also,
> in peshuto shel mikra Yosef was neither a rodef nor a moser.)

===> Well, the statement of ChaZaL seems to indicate that they actually
understood the p'shat that the put had snakes -- however, there is a good
chance that the brothers did not see that because of the depth of the pit.
The statement in question is right next to the statement that people do
not see a menora more than 20 Amos "up" and one reason that I heard for
the juxtaposition was that the pit was also 20 Amos deep....


> 
> Regarding moser: Having recently glanced at the sugya of moser, I don't
> understand how it could apply to Yosef.  Fundamentally, a moser is one
> who turns over a Jew (or his property, according to Rambam followed by
> the Shulhan Arukh HM 388) to a non-Jewish authority (See Bava Metzia
> 83b, Nidah 61a,and mefarshim al atar; Yerushalmi Terumot 8:4.)  The
> teshuvot on the subject include ShuT Maharah Or Zarua 142, Shut haBah
> 43, Havvot Yair 146 and She'ilat Yaavetz II, no. 9.  In the case of
> Yosef and his brothers, is there some non-Jewish authority he was
> reporting them to?  Alternatively, if we are categorizing the benei
> Yaakov as benei No'ah, is there any source indicating that mesirah is
> prohibited to a non-Jew!?  Could someone familiar with this shitah
> provide me some enlightenment, as well as some sources?

==> If you have a Torah Shleima, you may want to see the various material
brought specifically on the pesukim that describe the brother's first
spotting Yosef.

--Zvi


> 
> Kol tuv and Hanukkah same'ah,
> 
> Eli Clark

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]