Peretz,

That, of course, assumes that he didn't do any other melacha that Shabbos. Or is it your contention that a non-Jew must be *constantly* doing melacha on Shabbos?

Maybe the posing was done on Erev Shabbat (samuch leshkiya)? ;-)

Although EA is largely wrong about his application of lo tehanem, and overestimates his expertise in halachah; I think, Tal, that your rationale is mistaken. Hazal could have been a) referring to situations in Bavel and elsewhere outside the Land of Israel, and b) simply may have been talking in a context of when we were the weaker party in the Land of Israel. In either case, your rationale wouldn't suffice to explain the issue.

But many, probably most, poskim hold today that an individual goy is allowed to live in Israel today even without a technical status of ger toshav (which has its own requirements), IF they are law abiding and meet some other criteria. The truth is, we know nothing specific about this particular goy, and to make assumptions and pronouncements is just ignorant.

Back to the original issue: regardless of the how the goy came to take the pictures, I think it was a mistake to publish them. This is borne out by the obviously critical responses, indicating that at least there is an issue of appearance of impropriety.

Mordechai, I was under the impression that the issue EA raised had to do with inviting him to the kiddush, not letting live in EY in general (as to which the govt policy is to permit it). My post was addressing that narrow issue. I think it is pretty clear from that halakha that, at least in some circumstances, it is permissible to invite a goy to a seudah on Shabbos (but not Yom Tov).

You may be right about EA's intention. But it seems quite a strict stretch (though not impossible) to say that inviting a non-Jew to a meal is forbidden by the third drasha of lo techanem in the gemara in Avodah Zarah. It revolves around the nuance of 'hinam'. The Ran says if it is by way of gratuitous complement or some such, but not if it is to your benefit such as improving relations and the like ; but I'll have to go back and revisit this later. Maybe I'm wrong; but I don't think so. But as you noted, there are several instances in the gemara where hachamim sent gifts to a goy for some reason other than obvious pidyon shvuyim/ pikuah nefesh. I'll try and look at this when I get back from the beit midrash later.

Mordechai is correct (or closest), I believe, about my "intentions." Shabbos was not the issue. Showing this kind of deference to a goy was my issue,...when Israel in now in the position strength that it is, in the land.

Mordechai also makes IMO these important points regarding this:

"Hazal could have been a) referring to situations in Bavel and elsewhere outside the Land of Israel, and b) simply may have been talking in a context of when we were the weaker party in the Land of Israel."

The application of "lo techonem" here is related to living in Eretz Yisrael, and the overall "intention" of this misswah to prevent any encouragement for goyim to remain here, even temporarily.

In all fairness (I suppose), these residents of Beitar Illith are not doing anything which most Jews in Israel would do,...unfortunately.

I will remind everyone, as well (just in case you were wondering), that the term "A"Z" used by the Ramba"m (Aku"m is a result of Xian censorship) used concerning this misswah (See Mishnah Torah, Hil. A"Z 10:1-9) does not exclude Yishamaelim (Teshuvoth HaRamba"m 148, w/the concurrence of the Tur, Beth Yosef, and [uncensored] Ba"ch).

Mordechai writes...

But many, probably most, poskim hold today that an individual goy is allowed to live in Israel today even without a technical status of ger toshav (which has its own requirements), IF they are law abiding and meet some other criteria.

He is quite correct,...unfortunately. But, I will not apologize for taking a position more mahmir that the poskim, to whom he refers here. We are able to be mahmir, but IMO refuse to be. :-/

AFAIK, Rav Kook concurs with this cited position (Mishpat Kohen), and that refraining from A"Z was enough, even though this is in contradiction to the position of the Beth Yosef (Yeah, I know. Who the heck am I to argue w/Rav Kook? I am not anyone who can do such a thing. I'm simply providing information.). This position appears to be based in part on a girsah of the RAva"D contradicting the Ramba"m, who says that לא תשבו בארצך refers to all goyim (not accepting the 7 misswoth). The RAva"D here says this only refers to the 7 Amim.

In addition, AFAIK, Rav Kook's Heter Mekhirah (even though he knew that piqu'ah nefesh was enough, he also knew that the people needed/wanted a "heter," so he searched for one), selling of Land to Arabs ONLY during shemitah, appears to based on the Ba"ch, which unfortunately, had a piece missing from it. :-/

Unfortunately, this "heter" has gotten out of hand, and misapplied to non-shemitah years. (Rav Kook said to check the economic situation every 7 years, which we don't, etc.)

Rabbeinu Tzvi Yehudah (Kook) specifies the criteria which Mordechai mentions above: 1) No A"Z, 2) Acknowledgement of the Israeli Government['s authority] and its ownership of the Land.

Besides simply being able to cite Rav Kook, and thus avoid controversy.I wonder what the motivations behind the positions of these poskim. Just wondering, not necessarily criticizing!

I would love to see any links to such gilui da'oth of these poskim, as long as they cite their sources. If you don't have any links, but have attachments, let me know and I can send you my e-mail address.

Anyway, I certainly must correct my initial comment above by adding, "IMO," and removing the word "blatant." :-/

My apologies to the residents of Beitar Illith.

Yaak, Thanks for posting that joke. For some reason, I never can remember it correctly when trying to tell it. ;-)

I'm running in between things, but will add what I think is a correction to understanding the Rambam's view of Islam. In Maachalot Asurot 11:7, the Rambam writes "and so any non-Jew who does not worship avodah zarah, such as the Ishmaelites..." In his letter to Ovadiah the convert (Rav Shilat's edition page 238) Rambam writes in his answer to the third question, "The Ishmaelites are not avodah zarah worshippers at all..." Ishmaelites is, of course, the Rambam's terminology for Muslims, who in his time were almost all Arabs. I don't have his teshuvot handy, so I didn't look to clarify what he says there.

As far as the Beitar Illit goy shel shabbat, we don't know who he is, do we? Arab or other non-Jew? Muslim, Christian, or something else? The probability is that he is an Arab Muslim, or maybe Christian; but since we don't really know we can't opine about his particular circumstance.

Yes. This is why I made the point of citing the Ramba"m's teshuvah 148, and the Tur, Beth Yosef, and the (uncensored Ba"ch), because of the point you make. According to the Ramba"m, Islam is not considered avodah zarah.

I should have been clearer, by saying that when the Ramba"m (with concurrence of three above) uses the term "ovedei avodah zarah," in the context of the negative misswah of "lo techonem," this refers to any goy not keeping the 7 misswoth B'nei No'ah.

Interesting note: TB A"Z, 20a, which I believe was the section of Talmud to which you were referring above says avodath hakokhavim. Yet, in another (will I get in trouble if I say "correct" or "preferred?" ;-) ) girsah says the much more general term of "goy," which as you know was/is very unpopular with the Christian censors. ;-)

In other words, according to this girsah, the negative misswah of "lo techonem" applies to more than just "'ovedei avodath hakokhavim."

We can always debate what "goy" means or does not mean later. ;-)

Yaak, Thanks for posting that joke. For some reason, I never can remember it correctly when trying to tell it. ;-)