Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 005

Friday, September 13 2002

• Re: Avodah V10 #4
• Original text
• Pants
• Re: Pants, Mosquitos, and the West Nile Virus
• new subject
• avinu malkenu and selichot
• Tziruf for a zimun
• Sundry Tefillah Items
• RE: LeDovid Hashem Ori
• Re: Sundry tefilla items
• Re: CY and CA, Avodah 10 #3, My Error
• Re: Circular Poseks
• Re: Why teach the other opinions
• [Fwd: Re: Kohanim and Ground Zero]
• Taz on daughter dowry
• Re: LeDovid Hashem Ori
• Re: avinu malkenu and selichot
• Re: Sundry tefilla items
• Re: Original text
• RE: [Fwd: Re: Kohanim and Ground Zero]
• Re: Taz on daughter dowry
• Dor Revi'i on aheta v'ashuv

> Is it "zeh lazeh" or "zeh bazeh"?
> The Ein Yaaqov has a lamed, but the original gemara has a beis.
> From which the Ohr haChaim concludes that it means "all Jews are mixed
> in one with the other"....

Baal haturim to shmos 22 (2) has zeh bazeh and says it means if one is
pain all are in pain.
you cant speak of the original gemara-- the girsa of the rishonim is
likely more "original" than our vilna shas.

Zvi

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:31:23PM -0400, Herb Basser wrote:
: > The Ein Yaaqov has a lamed, but the original gemara has a beis.
: > From which the Ohr haChaim concludes that it means "all Jews are mixed
: > in one with the other"....
...
: you cant speak of the original gemara-- the girsa of the rishonim is
: likely more "original" than our vilna shas.

I was simply assuming the text of the gemara *as* *published* in the
Ein Yaaqov is less original than the Vilna Shas.

-mi

From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
<<But as to the essence of what I thought to be his Psak I do not see
the problem with it.>>

The problem is that (either you or) someone took the position that since
pants were a machlokes haposkim, as it were, then those who prohibit
them need to respect the pesak of those who permit them.

We started with Rav Ovadya Yosef, and I believe about 5 people made the
point that he only permitted them as a poor alternative to miniskirts,
hardly a "heter".

Then we got to a rumored pesak from Rav Moshe, which has been, I believe,
effectively scotched.

What we're up to now, from "heavy duty poskim" ( I believe the term was
used) in favor, is that Reb Harry does not see a problem. With all due
respect, that does not rise to a machlokes haposkim.

So, if and when the aforementioned HDP appear, we can re-open the issue.
In the meantime, I think it fairly safe to say that wearing of pants by
women is prohibited by the overwhelming majority of modern day poskim.

Prove me wrong, but use facts, not your sevaras, again, I mean no
disrespect to you; but I don't think you consider yourself a heavy
duty posek.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
> From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
> <<But as to the essence of what I thought to be his Psak I do not see the
> problem with it.>>

>         The problem is that (either you or) someone took the position
> that since pants were a machlokes haposkim,
> as it were,  then those who prohibit them need to respect the pesak of
> those who permit them.

Actually I never said that although in theory I beleive it to be true
thatthose who prohibit them need to respect the pesak of those who
permit them.


>         We started with Rav Ovadya Yosef, and I believe about 5 people
> made the point that he only permitted them
> as a poor alternative to miniskirts, hardly a "heter".

>         Then we got to a rumored pesak from Rav Moshe, which has
> been, I believe, effectively scotched.


No it wasn't effectively scotched. It has been put on hold. 

Since my last post on the subject I have received further corroboration
from one of my close personal friends who has impeccable RW credentials
that indeed it was RMF who had such a Shittah. When I asked him if he
remebered such a thing he used the same langauge I remebered in RMF's
name without my prompting him, namely that if a woman wore a "tunic top"
which was a top long enough to cover up the point of Pisuk Raglayim than
MeIkkar HaDin it was OK.

>         What we're up to now, from "heavy duty poskim" ( I believe
> the
> term was used) in favor, is that Reb Harry does
> not see a problem.  With all due respect, that does not rise to a
> machlokes haposkim.

I never used the term "heavy duty poskim" in any of my posts.

>         So, if and when the aforementioned HDP appear, we can re-open the
> issue.  In the meantime, I think it fairly 
> safe to say that wearing of pants by women is prohibited by the
> overwhelming majority of modern day poskim.


I do not think it is fair to say that. But I do think that this is what
most people beleive.

>         Prove me wrong, but use facts,  not your sevaras, again,  I mean
> no disrespect to you; but I don't think you consider yourself a heavy
> duty posek.

I have yet to ask R Shmuley Feurst (RSF). He and I were in Telshe together
as Bachurim and we know each other quite well. But he is a very busy man
and is constantly being asked shailos by the public. I do not want to
bother him with a question that does not need an immediate answer except
to satisfy our curiosity. BUt I see him quite often and will definately
ask him next time I do. But be advised that since the Psak by RMF was
verbal, R. Feurst ...MAY... not be aware of it despite the fact that he
was a Talmid Muvhak of RMF. It may just have never come up. So even if
he doesn't corroborate what I heard in his name RMF may still have had
the Shittah in question.

As to my Svara, I stand by it. There is absolutely nothing wrong with
stating my Svaros to what I believe should be Psak Halacha, as lonfg
as I make it known that these are my Svaros. I do so openly and invite
refutation through other Svaros or definitive universal Psak (which if
that is the case here, I would like to hear the Svaros to counter mine). I
am not a HDP I am not even a LWP or P of any kind. I do not ebver Paskin
for anyone not even myself. But I often will come to Halachic conclusions
about Halachic Shailos and when I ask those Shailos to Poskim, I will,
also, ask (or they will tell me without asking) their Svaros for the
given Psak... and see If my reasoning was sound and I was right or wrong.


Now that RSF has come up there has been an intersting development here
in Chicago. Due to the dangers of the West Nile Virus and the carrier
mosquitos, RSF, Dayan of Agudath Israel of the Midwest, and R. Gedaliah
Shwartz, Av Bes Din of the CRC and the RCA have issued a joint Psak that
Halachicly acceptable Mosquito netting under the Schach be used this year
and that it was not only permissible to kill any mosquitos on yom Tov
that one sees it was Halachicly required to do so. This Psak was printed
and distributed to all Synogogues here in the Greater Chicago area. It
was also a front page news story in the Tribune here over Rosh Hashannah.

IIRC, RAS said that such netting Passuls the Sukkah. If so it would seem
from the Psak that eating in a Sukkah this year would be a Sakkanah of
sufficient severity to exempt one from it.

Any thoughts?

HM

> Now that RSF has come up there has been an intersting development
> here in Chicago. Due to the dangers of the West Nile Virus and the
> carrier mosquitos, RSF, Dayan of Agudath Israel of the Midwest, and
> R. Gedaliah Shwartz, Av Bes Din of the CRC and the RCA have issued a
> joint Psak that Halachicly acceptable Mosquito netting under the
> Schach be used this year and that it was not only permissible to kill
> any mosquitos on yom Tov that one sees it was Halachicly required to
> do so....

Yes;  could you post teh pesak? 

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

We may have discussed this in previous years if so my apologies
Some questions

1. Why in many of the selichot are the end of one verse combined with
the beginning of the next one.
I note that in the artscroll machzor this is frequently changed from
the usual printing
e.g l_kel Orech Din, Kol Maamimin,

2. In all siddurim I have seen Avinu Malkenu is listed after nefilat
apayim but all shuls I know say it immediately after shemonei esre and
before tachanun

3. Why are some parts of avinu malkenu said out loud (edot mizrach don't
say anything out loud).

Thanks,
Eli Turkel

The pesak of the Shulchan Aruch is that preferably one should eat pas
in order to be part of a zimun. The implication of the lashon of the
Sh"A is that the minhag is to be metzaref those who've eaten even yerek.

Our minhag, AIUI, is to be metzaref only people who eat mezonos.
Should our minhag take preference over the minhag mentioned in Sh"A or
are we noheg a minhag beta'us?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
<<In one of his sichot Rav Pincus zt"l understands Malchuyos as being
what brings us rachamim ba'din. He says that when a King makes the rules
but then leaves their enforcement to judges, the judges have no choice
but to apply the law as written. But when the King Himself is judging,
He can be m'vater on our violations of His law and show mercy to us.>>

Rav Yisrael Reisman spoke about this at the Labor Day yom iyun.
His basic point was the same, which is that there is din of beis din,
and din hamelech. The B"D is beholden to the rules of evidence, etc.
The melech can judge based on re'os einav, even to being merachem bedin.

He thereby answered some strange leshonos in davening, such as asking
HKB"H to shut the mouth of the prosecutor. Imagine trying that in court?
But when the Melech takes your teshuva and other factors into
consideration, it's not unreasonable to ask.

He also explained why the kepeida to say "haMelech hamishpat" despite the
use of both the concept of melech and mishpat in Melech oheiv tzedaka
umishpat. The idea is that we davka want HKB"H to be the **Melech
hamishpat" rather than just being oheiv; our doing well in din depends
davka on the fact that he is a Melech bedin and able to bend the rules,
kiveyachol.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> I have noticed the following in postings:

> 1. Some say it Shaharit and Minha
> 2  Some Shaharit and Ma'ariv
> 3. Some only at Shaharit
> 4. Some not at all.

and what about

  5. Some say it Shaharit, Minha and Maariv!

Since the majority of the mincha minyanim at work are Nusach Seferad,
and not to be 'Perush min HaZibbur' I generally say it a third time.

Obviously LeDovid Hashem Ori does not have the same hiuv as Shma, Kedusha
or Aleynu but it does seem odd when people hurry out of the minyan to
avoid reciting it.

Daniel

> Has anyone ever discussed the difference between the Nusach of "Avinu
> Malkeinu Nikom Nikmas Dam Avadecha HaShafuch" (Sfard) vs. "...Nikom
> L'AINAINU Nikmas Dam ..." (Ashkenaz)? Yet, in Av HaRachamim said on
> most Shabbosos, both have the Nusach "Yivoda BaGoyim L'Ainainu Nikmas
> Dam Avodov HaShafuch". To further complicate it, the Nusach Ashkenaz
> Av HaRachamim earlier states: "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam, V'YIKOM Nikmas Dam
> Avodov" WITHOUT L'Ainainu, whereas Nusach Sfard has "Shi'Ar Tzadikei Olam,
> V'YINKOM L'Ainainu Nikmas Dam Avodov". Some add in the word "B'Yameinu"
> before L'Ainainu on Yom Tov that falls on Shabbos.

I would guess saying L'Ainainu or not has to do with the fact that
not everyone has a right to see reshoim receive their onesh. We learn
this from Lot he was told not to look back at sedom for this reason. On
shabbos which is meiein olam habah and has a shaychus to leosid lovoy we
all say L'Ainainu because then we will all be able to watch them receive
their onesh.

Yoel

I wrote:
> "... Similarly (CM:25:2-Bach) if a new Rav decides to pasken le-hachmir OR 
> le-hakeil as to a din about which there was a machloket for which the 
> previous community Rav had paskened differently, he may do so.

The reference should have been to the "Shach" commentary to that seif.
(The Bach of course only is found as a commentary to the Tur.)

The issue, again, is whether a new Rav may not only paksen to be machmir as 
to a particular halachic issue when the previous Rav was meikil but also 
whether he may be meikil when the previous Rav was machmir; the SHACH says 
that he may.

Sorry for the error; I typed the previous posting as a quick response 
without editing it.

Gemar chatimah tovah.

KT
Eliyahu

In a message dated 9/11/02 2:03:00 PM, Daniel Eidensohn writes:
<< There is an interesting paradox. If you argue that there is a rule
that one can not criticize the utilization in another community of
the ruling of a major posek - than how can you criticize the psakim of
major posekim who say that you can. How can you criticize their position
without violating your own rule!>>

You can't. That's the whole point. If your posek is more lenient than
others, then you have to tolerate the other poseks' intolerance. If your
posek is stricter than the others, then you have condemn the other poseks'
acceptance of your condemnation. That where the old saw, "Two Jews,
Three Opinions," comes from. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong,
but you're always wrong, even when you're right.

Right?

David Finch

On Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:15:37 +0200 "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
Wrote:
>There is an interesting paradox. If you argue that there is a rule
>that one can not criticize the utilization in another community of
>the ruling of a major posek - than how can you criticize the psakim of
>major posekim who say that you can. How can you criticize their position 
>without violating your own rule!

>>1) First, there does seem to be a category of rav/psak viewed as
>>"infallible" in the sense that even though I don't follow him, and
>>may think him mistaken, his community is allowed to follow him without 
>>question - the category of kvar hora zaken - see, eg, ramah on yoreh 
>>deah 64:9 - it is not clear to me how far and under what circumstances 
>>this category would apply - rav Moshe's tshuva (yoreh deah 4:6) would 
>>seem to extend this quite far.

>>You are assuming that which you need to prove. Not everything that a rav 
>>says- is his community allowed to follow him without question (at least 
>>not after he has been attacked by major poskim)...

>I would propose the following guidelines: ...

The following is my understanding of this matter, I welcome correction
is my understanding is wrong.

A din about which there was a previous uncertainty may have been decided
in the Gemorah ("devar Mishnah"); or a din that was not decided in the
Gemorah may become subject to a consensus among Rishonim or Achronim
("sugya de-almah") and by convention no longer subject to debate;
otherwise the din remains open to decision by any qualified (Gemirah,
sevirah and reshut to pasken by way of appointment as a posek of an
entire community or kabbalah by the individual shoel)posek.

The matter of the gadlut of a posek and hence the weight to be attributed
to his pesak is, IIUC, relevant to a case where a posek who is unable
after attempting to do so to come to a hachrah as to the halacha based
upon raayot muchrachot and must therefore categorize the instant Halachic
question as a safek. Then and only then may he rely upon rules as to
sefeikot which include the weight to be attributed to the decisions of
the great poskim (see the long Shach at the end of YD 242).


Gadlut of those poskim who hold to a particular position, is also
relevant to the practice among poskim, as a matter of humility and of
common-sense prudence, to consult with more renouned poskim and obtain
their agreement when dealing with such matters as will have dramatic
consequences to individuals and/or dramatic and wide-spread group
consequences or when a pesak seems correct but due to its novelty the
posek wishes the support of someone greater so as not to fall prey to
error caused by over confidence. As to decisions having wide-spread
consequences it would be particulary imprudent. futile and brash to
attempt their implementation without wide-approval from other poskim
and/or the concurrance of a renouned posek, but certainly it is in the
best tradition of Torah scholarship to discuss the issue.

KT
Eliyahu

Is it Halachically permissible for a kohen visit Ground Zero?

The Taz (E.H. 113) explains ...
>> The Taz understands that the gemora by saying "it is also doreissa"
>> resolves this problem by saying that the Torah also has concern for
>> daughters and therefore it is not a Torah principle that the daughters
>> are ignored. It proves this from a verse in Yirmiyahu - even though it
>> is only navi is still the expression of ratzon HaShem - which states
>> that a father should marry off both sons and daughters.

RDE>I agree that the concept underlying the prophets words are Ratzon
HaTorah but I am claiming that the prophet's words to marry off sons
and daughters were actual prophesy and thus they are post sinaitic. This
post sinaitic principle can modify our understanding of the Torah itself
because it to is ratzon haTorah.

I think your understanding has no connection to the Taz. Note early in
his question the Taz asks, "why do we need 2 psukim? Surely it is a
contradiction in the Torah [pro and anti daughters]. [Yet the Gemara
does not ask this. Rather the Gemara is happy with the conclusion.]
If there is a distinction [whereby the anti-daughter pasuk does not
apply] then we don't even need the second pasuk [Yet the Gemara seems
obligated to bring the second pasuk]" All of this is the Taz speaking.
Note that nowhere is he disturbed that one pasuk is from Torah while
the other is from Navi. Quite the opposite. He sees the second pasuk
as being fully Torah. In his answer he never mentions that one verse
carries less or different weight due to it being from Navi.

RDE>The major problem with your understanding is that the prophet
introduces his words by first saying 29:4 "Thus says the L-rd of
Hosts, the G-d of Israel to all the captivity whom I have caused to be
carried away... Why would Yirmiyahu merely be giving advice after this
introduction even if based on Oral Law?

RDE>I do acknowledge that the Taz citing Bava Basra (28b) seems to
indicate that the whole thing is eitza tova

Meaning that in spite of the prophet's words of introduction, at least
some of what follows is merely good advice according to the Gemara.

RDE>- but if taken literally we are not dealing either with prophecy or
with mesorah nor do we have an explanation of why the gemora in Kesubos
is refering to the prophet as doreissa and ratzon haTorah.

Do you mean that you feel you don't understand the Taz or the Gemara or
both? For whatever reason neither the Gemara nor the Taz address your
issue as a question.

RDE>> Thus the term doreissa means something learned from the Torah **and**
>> that which is ratzon HaShem. The latter can be learned from the prophets
>> and other sources (e.g., bas kol, ruach hakodesh and even commonsense).

> I see no basis for this conclusion from the Taz.

RDE>The conclusion only follows from seeing the words of the prophet as
prophecy as the pshat indicates.

Meaning this is your understanding of Yirmiyahu, independent of the Taz.
I claim that this idea of the Chida of using Heaven in all "unclear"
issues of Halacha is quite novel and, by his own admission, probably
not the opinion of the Rambam. To blame the Taz for this same position
I feel is totally unfounded.

Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 09/12/2002 1:22:22pm EDT, wells@mail.biu.ac.il writes:
> Since the majority of the mincha minyanim at work are Nusach Seferad,
> and not to be 'Perush min HaZibbur' I generally say it a third time.

What are the rules for following the minyan's nusach (eg 13 midot in
tachanun vs. kedusha language)? Similarly(?) what are rules for what you
must say if you're just passing through (yes Alenu, what about tachanun
and must you put your head down,avinu malkenu..)

GCT
Joel Rich

On 12 Sep 2002 at 7:11, Joel Goldstein wrote:
> On
> shabbos which is meiein olam habah and has a shaychus to leosid lovoy
> we all say L'Ainainu because then we will all be able to watch them
> receive their onesh.

But on Shabbos we don't say Avinu Malkeinu at all.... (except at 
N'eila). 

[Email #2. -mi]

On 12 Sep 2002 at 19:11, Eli Turkel wrote:
> 2. In all siddurim I have seen Avinu Malkenu is listed after nefilat
> apayim but all shuls I know say it immediately after shemonei esre and
> before tachanun

IIRC (from my days of davening in Imrei Shefer in Har Nof), Nusach 
Sfard (Chasidi) says Nefilas Apayim before Avinu Malkeinu (and then 
on Monday and Thursday says v'Hu Rachum after). 

-- Carl
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il      mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2002 at 7:11, Joel Goldstein wrote:
>>  On
>> shabbos which is meiein olam habah and has a shaychus to leosid lovoy
>> we all say L'Ainainu because then we will all be able to watch them
>> receive their onesh.

> But on Shabbos we don't say Avinu Malkeinu at all.... (except at 
> N'eila). 

When I mentioned shabbos I was refering to av harachamim not avinu
malkeinu.

Yoel

Micha Berger wrote:
> I was simply assuming the text of the gemara *as* *published* in the
> Ein Yaaqov is less original than the Vilna Shas.

It's usually the other way around.

David Riceman

> Is it Halachically permissible for a kohen visit Ground Zero?

Why restrict it to just Ground Zero -- they are finding remains in the
surrounding areas.

For that matter -- the dust that spread through the whole area contained
remains -- do we have to take that into account?

Akiva

> I think your understanding has no connection to the Taz. Note early in
> his question the Taz asks, "why do we need 2 psukim? Surely it is a
> contradiction in the Torah [pro and anti daughters]. [Yet the Gemara
> does not ask this. Rather the Gemara is happy with the conclusion.]
> If there is a distinction [whereby the anti-daughter pasuk does not
> apply] then we don't even need the second pasuk [Yet the Gemara seems
> obligated to bring the second pasuk]" All of this is the Taz speaking.
> Note that nowhere is he disturbed that one pasuk is from Torah while
> the other is from Navi. Quite the opposite. He sees the second pasuk
> as being fully Torah. In his answer he never mentions that one verse
> carries less or different weight due to it being from Navi.

At this point I agree with your objections to my reading of the Taz. It
was more a wishful attempt to make sense of the gemora and the Taz's
terminology than an objective reading of the Taz. So the original problems
remain and my reading is not a solution.

Thanks for the feedback
Gemar chasima tova
Daniel Eidensohn

To be posted on the Dor Revi'I website <http://www.dorrevii.org>

The Mishnah at end of Yoma teaches that one who says: "I will transgress,
and then I will repent; I will transgress, and then I will repent"
is not afforded by Heaven the opportunity to repent. The Gemara asks
why one has to say this twice and as an answer the following saying of
R. Huna is cited:
    R. Huna said in the name of Rav whoever transgresses a prohibition
    and repeats the transgression a second time comes to consider the
    prohibition as if it were permitted.

Rashi explains:
    Since he transgressed twice, he is not afforded by Heaven the
    opportunity to repent, because the prohibition seems to him as if
    it were permitted.

This is difficult to understand, because if one actively transgresses,
what difference does it make if he said that he will repent of if he did
not say he would repent? Either way, the prohibition now appears to him
as if it were permitted. Moreover, what is meant by the phrase "he is
not afforded by Heaven the opportunity to repent"? If the prohibition
appears to him as if it were permitted, he would not repent regardless
of whether Heaven affords him the opportunity?

It appears to our master that despite the words of Rashi that the Gemara
understood the Mishna to mean what it appears to be saying that one who
transgresses a prohibition twice with the intention of repenting is only
then not afforded the opportunity to repent. And the Gemara's question
was how is this different from the statement of another Mishnah that if
one says that he will transgress and Yom Kippur will atone, Yom Kippur
does not atone for his transgression? Thus, with regard to Yom Kippur,
one has to make the statement only once. The Gemara therefore asks why
it is necessary to say twice that one will transgress and repent before
he is denied the opportunity to repent.

But in truth there is a big difference between the two cases inasmuch
as Yom Kippur comes automatically. For if we say that one who relies
on Yom Kippur to atone for his transgression receives atonement for the
first such transgression, then the strap would be untied, and everyone
would do what he wants with this assurance of atonement. However,
if one transgresses with the intention of repenting, repentance still
does not come automatically, but only if one resolves to repent and to
sincerely regret his transgression. And who knows if he will in fact
repent? Therefore not everyone will dare to sin with the intention of
repenting afterwards. But in that case, what is the difference between
a person who transgresses one time with the intention of repenting and
a person who does so many times? And why is the latter not afforded the
opportunity to repent?

The Gemara therefore concludes that the Mishnah was speaking about
one who wishes to perpetrate a deception, because he knows that by
committing a transgression twice he would view the prohibition as if it
were permitted and would not repent of such a transgression. Therefore,
he cleverly says that he will not transgress twice consecutively without
repenting in the interim, inasmuch as by doing so would prevent him
from subsequently repenting of the transgression. Instead, he will
transgress and will then repent immediately, so that it will be as if
he had not transgressed. Only then will he transgress, and it will not
appear to him as if the prohibition is permitted, because he will not
have transgressed the prohibition twice consecutively, the first having
been nullified by his repentance.

Then, after the second transgression, he will repent once again, so that
he may transgress yet again. The Mishnah teaches that Heaven does not
afford him the opportunity to repent the first time, since if he repents,
he will transgress again. But if he is unable to repent for the first
transgression, he will be saved from the subsequent transgressions.

This is the answer of the Gemara citing the dictum of R. Huna in the
name of Rav that one who transgresses a prohibition twice considers the
prohibition as if it were permitted.. In other words, the Mishnah,
contrary to the initial assumption, is not referring to one who
transgressed two times with the intention of repenting. Rather, it is
referring to one who wishes to circumvent the dictum of R. Huna so that
the prohibition that he intends to transgress should not come to seem
to him to be permissible after the second transgression. He therefore
says in advance that I will transgress and then I will repent and then
I will transgress and then I will repent. Only in that case is he not
afforded the opportunity to repent for the first transgression. And this
clear in the words of the Gemara.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]