03-03-2009, 12:02 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-03-2009, 12:04 AM by Director Michael.)
On the one hand, there is the point of actual Torah Law - which "argument" is correct. On the other hand, there is the question of what was transpiring between Joseph and his brothers.
In terms of Torah Law, the *basis* of the argument attributed to Joseph is correct. Jacob's family members were Noahides, and the animals they slaughtered (using the Jewish manner of kosher-slaughter) had the rule of being slaughtered by Noahides. This continued all the way until after the Israelites became Jews at Mount Sinai, at the giving of the "10 Commandments."
However, from "The Divine Code," Volume I, p. 313-314, it is clear that even so, the brothers would not have been liable to any punishment for taking meat from a convulsing *slaughtered* animal, based on pre-Sinai Torah Law. Surely Jacob did not make a rule about that for his family, because the brothers would have followed it. *Possibly* Joseph felt that the practice was wrong and worthy to be banned for Noahides (as the early Jewish Sages did decree after Mount Sinai - see Rambam, Laws of Kings 9:13), so he reported it to his father in hopes that Jacob would issue such a decree.
There are other opinions about what was transpiring between Joseph and his brothers. Another opinion (from the Zohar) is that Joseph observed the brothers doing something with the form of an animal, but he did not correctly interpret what he saw. He made the assumption, and reported it to his father without taking the time to investigate the real truth of the matter.
In terms of Torah Law, the *basis* of the argument attributed to Joseph is correct. Jacob's family members were Noahides, and the animals they slaughtered (using the Jewish manner of kosher-slaughter) had the rule of being slaughtered by Noahides. This continued all the way until after the Israelites became Jews at Mount Sinai, at the giving of the "10 Commandments."
However, from "The Divine Code," Volume I, p. 313-314, it is clear that even so, the brothers would not have been liable to any punishment for taking meat from a convulsing *slaughtered* animal, based on pre-Sinai Torah Law. Surely Jacob did not make a rule about that for his family, because the brothers would have followed it. *Possibly* Joseph felt that the practice was wrong and worthy to be banned for Noahides (as the early Jewish Sages did decree after Mount Sinai - see Rambam, Laws of Kings 9:13), so he reported it to his father in hopes that Jacob would issue such a decree.
There are other opinions about what was transpiring between Joseph and his brothers. Another opinion (from the Zohar) is that Joseph observed the brothers doing something with the form of an animal, but he did not correctly interpret what he saw. He made the assumption, and reported it to his father without taking the time to investigate the real truth of the matter.