Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 128

Thu, 18 Jul 2013

• 1. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Micha Berger)
• 3. Mouthwash on Tisha B'Av (was: 25 hour fast) (Doron Beckerman)
• 4. Re: Havdalah during the nine days (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. kinos (saul newman)
• 6. Re: Havdalah during the nine days (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Seeing the Simcha of Yerushalayim (Ezra Chwat)
• 8. arithmetic question (Eli Turkel)
• 9. Re: arithmetic question (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Zev Sero)
• 11. Structure of Shmoneh Esrai [the Requests] (David Wacholder)
• 12. Re: Havdalah during the nine days (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 13. what is a siyum? (saul newman)
• 14. Re: what is a siyum? (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Abortion isn't Murder (Chana Luntz)

On 16/07/2013 7:05 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> ????? ???? ???? ??????? ?"? ?"?
> ??? ?? ????: ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???
> ???? ?? ??? ???. ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???
> ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???. ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ?? .
>
>
> 6. Talmud Bavli Sanhedrin  72b
>    Rav Huna said, a minor who is chasing after another to kill him, we
> are permitted to save by means of [taking] his life, as we hold that a
> person chasing after another to kill [a rodef] does not need a legal
> warning, and it is no difference whether he [the rodef] is an adult or a
> minor.  Rav Chisda asked on this from the mishna [Oholos], as it teaches
> ?once its head has come out we may not touch it, because we do not push
> aside a life for a life? and why, [should it not be considered] a rodef?  It
> is different there because the mother is being pursued by heaven.

This disproves RMB's proposed diyuk of "KErodef velo rodef mamash".  If
the unborn baby were only "KErodef", then it would be obvious that once he
is born that is not enough to justify killing him.  That we need to say
that once he crowns he's no longer the rodef, Heaven is, shows that if he
*were* still the rodef, as he was five minutes ago, it would still be OK
to kill him.  It's only because the danger she's in now is natural, and
therefore not attributable to him, that he may not be killed to save her.

(By the way, this line of reasoning leads to a tremendous kula nowadays,
when dying in childbirth is no longer so common as to be considered simply
the way of nature, "from Heaven", perhaps in those uncommon cases where the
mother's life is in danger we *can* attribute it to the baby, even after he
has crowned, and consider him a rodef.)



> The Minchas Chinukh says that abortion for BN is punished with death
> because it's a 7MBN and explcitly excludes it being because it's
> retzichah mamsh.

And what does he say about hariga shel mi she'eino ben yisroel?  Look it up.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:36:56PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> This disproves RMB's proposed diyuk of "KErodef velo rodef mamash"...

Not /my/ diyuq, though. "RJHendell quoted RASoloveitchik who notes that
the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:9)... This is the shitah of ROY (Yabia Omer 4,
EH 1)."

> the unborn baby were only "KErodef", then it would be obvious that once he
> is born that is not enough to justify killing him...

And it isn't -- that's the end of that halakhah in the Rambam:
"ve'im mishehotzi rosho, ein noge'in bo, she'ein dochin nefesh mipenei
nefesh." If the baby wasn't born yet, we say it's kerodeif and abort
to save the mother. But if te head emerged, we do not choose one life
over the other. And the whole justification for the diyuq. RAS's point
is more from the contrast than the "ke-".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

RYGB's link to his blog relates only to the achilah aspect, but does not
relate to the rechitzah aspect of using mouthwash. It is well-known that R'
Moshe Feinstein forbade using mouthwash on account of rechitzah (see R'
Eider's kitzur hilchos bein hametzarim, citing RMF to this effect).

I once heard RHS discuss mouthwash, and someone brought up RMF's psak on
rechitzah and RHS was not convinced that rechitzah is with anything but
water. However, Maaseh Rokeach to Rambam Shevisas Asor 3:1; Matteh Efraim
613:3 and the Tchebiner (Dovev Meisharim 1:124) explicitly apply Issur
rechitzah to vinegar as well. [Rashash to Yoma 73b tries to prove that
rechitzah is only with water but rejects that proof.]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130717/410622e3/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> Rav Tzvi Rimon suggests using grape juice since it is only a
> minhag to not drink grape juice during the 9 days.

I had thought that nowadays just about everyone puts grape juice and wine
in the same category. Arba Kosos is an exception, where many require the
intoxicating ability. But otherwise, for brachos, kashrus, and Friday night
Kiddush, I thought they'd be the same.

How does Rav Rimon hold on these other areas? Is grape juice Hagafen? Does
it become assur on being touched by an akum? Can it be used for Friday
night Kiddush? If he says yes to these three, then I'd like to hear more
about why he distinguishes between wine and grape juice during the nine
days. And if his answer is the alcohol, then does he allow beer or whiskey
during the nine days?

I'm not challenging him, chalilah. But Torah hee, ul'lamda ani tzarich.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51e6b75c93e7a375c7de0st03vuc

 [hakhel.info, who reminds that  if anyone is ever up at  1 am , let them
remember to say tikkun chatzot]

Special Note Three:  As we have noted in the past, In the unparalleled
Artscroll Kinos, by Rabbi Avraham Chaim Feuer, Shlita, Rabbi Feuer writes
the following in the course of his introduction:



?The tears of Kinos are a never-ending stream.  When I began to translate
and elucidate the Kinnos on the day after Succos, I called my Rebbi, HaRav
Mordechai Gifter, [Z?tl], and asked, ?How can I get into the mood of
writing about Kinnos just a day after Simchas Torah, while all the happy
tunes of joy still resonate in my ears and Tisha B?Av is still so far off
in the future?  Who can think of Kinos now??



?He replied, ?You are mistaken. Kinos are not only for Tisha B?Av, they are
for the entire year, except that throughout the year we recite Kinos in a
whisper, while on Tisha B?Av we shout them out loud!  Whoever neglects
Kinos all year long and attempts to start reciting them on Tisha B?Av will
not succeed in saying them even then, because he will recite the verses
without any feeling and he will become bored.  We must cry and mourn over
the Churban all year long, in every season, and then our Kinnos will reach
their climax of pain on Tisha B?Av.?



?This concept of regular mourning over the Churban is codified in the very
first chapter of Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 1:3).  It is proper for every
G-d-fearing person to feel and anguish over the destruction of the Holy
Temple.



?The Sefas Emes was once asked, ?And what should someone do if he feels no
anguish over the Churban of the Temple ??  The Rebbe replied, ?Then he
should be consumed with pain and anguish over his own personal Churban.  If
a Jew doesn?t feel real pain over the Churban, it shows that his soul is in
a wretched, abysmal state!?



?True, Kinos are for all year round--but when does one begin to develop a
feeling for them?  On Tisha B?Av.  If one truly comprehends and feels the
Kinos he recites on this day, he will be inspired to refer back to them
throughout the year?.?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130717/d06ccdc8/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:24:14PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: R' Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Rav Tzvi Rimon suggests using grape juice since it is only a
:> minhag to not drink grape juice during the 9 days.

: I had thought that nowadays just about everyone puts grape juice
: and wine in the same category...

This is exactly what I was thinking about when I wrote my post. Clearly
from subsequent emails, I did a bad job writing it. So let me try to make
the point again. As a prelude to rejecting it in light of an off-list
conversation with R' Doron Beckerman.

RZR appears to be taking the approach that aveilus during the 9 Days
or Shavua sheChal Bo is more about a feel than halachic categories.
Therefore, once the mitzvah of havdalah forces the minhag to bend,
he recommends the non-alcoholic choice.

The other approach to making decisions that involve how to go beyond
halakhah would be as RAM assumed -- looking at applying halachic
categories to measure the distance we're bending things and what bends
things less. In which case, "just about everyone puts grape juice and wine
in the same category" of yayin, and choosing beer would make more sense.

But RDB asked me off-list on different grounds.... When it's not havdalah,
beer is permitted and grape juice not. So what's the question? Of course
one should choose beer.

First, not my idea, just material I dug up during that conversation:

The SA (OC 551:10) says it's mutar to make havdalah on wine. The Rama
quoting the Maharil says nohagin lehachmir and give the wine to a qatan
where there is one, and to drink the yayin oneself when you don't have a
qatan present. The earlier Ashkenazi acharonim don't recommend sheikhar
to get out of the hole.

The MB (s"q 68) notes that one can have wine at a se'udas mitzvah, and
Ashkenazim are only more machmir by havdalah than by a se'udas mitzvah
because it has the kid option.

So it would seem that they thought: Of course you should choose grape
juice.

So, my second theory:

What's happening here to make grape juice an option is that havdalah
makes yayin preferred over other drinks -- just as se'udas mitzvah would.

So the question is whether one chooses the yayin preference for havdalah,
or the yayin avoidance for the 9 days.

The question of grape juice vs other yayin would be entirely to minimize
alcoholic consumption at a time when it seems inappropriate. Which would
seem to make sense to me just in terms of the mood, but then why isn't
beer minimized during this period (and not just se'udah hamafseqes)
as well? I don't know. Maybe people then had less reaction to beer's
alcohol than those who tell us to choose grape juice over wine are
assuming we of today's culture have to wine.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

Some interesting stats on the phrase "kol... zoche vi..." 

Appears just once in  Mishnah, and never in Tosephta or Yerushalmi.
9 Tannaic sources (3 of them R. Yonatan). 13 Amoraic, (not including
the one mentioned in the inquiry).

The "zchut" earned in sources break down as follows: Olam Haba-9, future
or unnatural Olam Hazeh- 7, Olam Hazeh- 4.

So there's plenty of room to understand the intention of "Zoche V'roeh
Bsimchata" as all of the above.

Dr. Ezra Chwat
The Department of Manuscripts/
The National Library of Israel

I am currently learning the laws of Onaah (BM 4th perek).
If one looks at CM 227#1 the Mechaber states that if one sells something
worth 7 for 6
or 6 for 5 (and similarly 6 for 7 or 5 for 6) then it is Onnah (ie an exact
sixth).

I am completely confused as the ratio 7/6 is not equal to 6/5.
The Sma discusses whether the sixth is from the article or from the money.
It seems to me that is irrelevant.

The SA then proceed that if the price difference is less than 1/6 ie 6.99
for 6 or 5.99 then the sale is valid. If OTOH it is more ie 7.01 for 6 or
6.01 for 5 then the kinyan is not valid.

My impression is if the sale is 7/6 = 1.16666 then the sale is valid and
the difference is refunded.
Greater than 1.16 but less than 6/5=1.2 the sale is not valid (mekach taut)
and at 1.2 it is again valid but the extra money is returned - which is
ridiculous.

The SA stress that the sale is valid but the overcharge is returned only
for an exact sixth.
This implies that this halacha holds only if the price is a multiple of 6.
If the price is 599.99 or even 400 this would never occur.
Even in the ideal case it is almost impossible as a difference of a penny
changes the halacha.

In fact the gemara in BM51a discusses that if the article is worth 5 and
the buyer pays 5.5
he is stuck with the overcharge. However, if he volunteers to pay 6 then he
gets the entire overcharge back. (The gemara gives a technical answer which
doesnt hold in general)  Again leads to strange situations

Any help is appreciated

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130717/7b54edfb/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 06:46:42PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: I am currently learning the laws of Onaah (BM 4th perek).
: If one looks at CM 227#1 the Mechaber states that if one sells something
: worth 7 for 6
: or 6 for 5 (and similarly 6 for 7 or 5 for 6) then it is Onnah (ie an exact
: sixth).

: I am completely confused as the ratio 7/6 is not equal to 6/5.

Se'ifim 2-4 have helpfule example.

: The Sma discusses whether the sixth is from the article or from the money.
: It seems to me that is irrelevant.

That's s"q 3.

Also remember that you're used to thinking of percentages as a fraction
of the starting value, whereas chazal more often speak in terms of a
fraction of the larger value (milevar).

So their 1/6 over is our 20%. If
    y = 120% * x
as we would phrase it, then it's just as true that
    x = y - 1/6 y
which is how Chazal would phrase it.

For some reason I asked about last Jan, the SMA doesn't use that concept.

I explained the SA's examples then, using the SMA's explanation. Quoting
myself from <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n011.shtml#13>:

> The SA's examples are (CM 227:2-4):
>     [Onaah by the buyer:]
>     - selling the value of 6 for 5 [- 1/6, underpaying by 1/6 the value]
>     - ... or the value of 7 for 6 [- 1/7, underpaying by 1/6 the price]
>     [Onaah by the seller:]
>     - or selling the value of 5 for 6 [+ 1/5, overcharging by 1/6 the price]
>     - or the value of 6 for 7 [+ 1/6, overcharging by 1/6 the value]
>     then this is ona'ah ... and he me'aneh must pay the ona'ah...

>     If the ona'ah was a kol shehu less... he doesn't have to return
>     anything... it is the norm for everyone to be machol that.

>     If the ona'ah was more than 1/6 by a kol shehu, like he sold 60
>     for 50 minus a perutah [ie 49.75, or - 1/5.85], the sale is batel,
>     and the mis'aneh may (yakhol) return the property, but the me'aneh
>     may not reneg if the other wants it...

> You'll notice that I phrased each of the four cases three ways:
>     - the SA's wording
>     - the difference in value
>     - how it comes to 1/6 -- whether that's in value or in price.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Rescue me from the desire to win every
mi...@aishdas.org        argument and to always be right.
http://www.aishdas.org              - Rav Nassan of Breslav
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   Likutei Tefilos 94:964

On 17/07/2013 5:39 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:36:56PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> This disproves RMB's proposed diyuk of "KErodef velo rodef mamash"...
>
> Not /my/ diyuq, though. "RJHendell quoted RASoloveitchik who notes that
> the Rambam (Rotzeiach 1:9)... This is the shitah of ROY (Yabia Omer 4,
> EH 1)."
>
>> the unborn baby were only "KErodef", then it would be obvious that once he
>> is born that is not enough to justify killing him...
>
> And it isn't -- that's the end of that halakhah in the Rambam:
> "ve'im mishehotzi rosho, ein noge'in bo, she'ein dochin nefesh mipenei
> nefesh." If the baby wasn't born yet, we say it's kerodeif and abort
> to save the mother. But if te head emerged, we do not choose one life
> over the other. And the whole justification for the diyuq. RAS's point
> is more from the contrast than the "ke-".

Then why "mishamayim ka-radfu lah"?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

Begun - Avodah 31-136, Message: 5
Subject: [Avodah] Flow of middle stretch [Group B]

R' Mordechai Cohen quoted R' Bulmash OBM,  dividing the Amidah into
three parts:

#1 - #3 PRAISE [Group A]

#4-#16 REQUESTS  [Group B]

#17-#19  THANKS [Group C]

MC asks where is the Grand Structure in Group B? MC  seeks: An
architecture, a Grand Structure  that adds structure to the prayers.

R' MC has sent us a momentous invitation. I will rephrase and modify
the MC-Rav Bulmash arrangement:

R Bulman z'l hinted that the 12/13 requests  in Group B are  divided
into four groups of 3:

B-1 #4-#6 for individuals spiritual needs
                (for: #4daas/#5teshuvah/#6slicha)
B-2 #7-#9 for individuals guf needs
                (for: #7geulah/#8refuah/#9parnassa) +
B-3 #10-#12 for Klal Yisroel's spiritual needs
                (for: #10Collect the scattered*; #11Judges  who
lead/trebuild Torah,
                    #12control evil,
B-4 #13-#15 for Klal Yisroel's Bodily [guf]  needs
                     #13 righteous should prosper,
                     #14 rebuild Yerushalyim ,
                  #15 Reign of Messianic King
B-5  HEAR OUR PRAYER
Either #16 G-d should Be a Responder/ a Listener -
OR #16 Fulfil  ALL THE ABOVE REQUESTS -
OR #16 Hear Our Voice - Hearken to our requests -
          [COMPARE Aneinu Answer our Fast Day prayer]

Rhythm:
Spiritual then physical Guf for Yachid,
Spiritual then physical for All as One

MODIFICATIONS:
DW made four groups of exactly three brachot each, as MC suggested, EXCEPT:
he moved #10 COLLECT EXILES to B-3
he gave #13 RIGHTEOUS good Neighbors in #14 J'm, separating them from
#12 the wicked.
I left  #16 Hear our [silent] Voices an orphan in its own group.
As MC hinted, #12 was suspended by the wicked and reinstated; #15
David's Dynasty was added in Babylonia later.

DW left #16 an orphan,
B-5 Hear our prayers - the specific ones in B-1 through B-4;
              we have confidence in You
                          that You are listening closely to our prayers,
       that You hear even the silent unexpressed undifferentiated prayers,
                that You untangle the undifferentiated prayers
                        even before we ourselves hear them,
and You answer almost sooner than we express them.
              Ever are standing close by awaiting our prayers.
           Though our Earthly parents may be far away
                 You are always there to gather us in.

Since each time that we pray, we must add content, making each
audience with the King  unique and separately meaningful, I thank Rav
Bulmash, Hareinu Kaparas Mishkavo for the ideas.
And R' MC - may he continue to ask such magnificent questions and
Requests   - until all our prayers will be answered!!!


--

On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 03:24:14PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: R' Eli Turkel wrote:
:> Rav Tzvi Rimon suggests using grape juice since it is only a :> minhag to
not drink grape juice during the 9 days.

: I had thought that nowadays just about everyone puts grape juice
: and wine in the same category...
----------------------


Kedem. I forget his first name, but his last name was Herzog. He said that
one of the big poskim in EY (he said the name - I forgot it) paskened that
grape juice wasn't wine, because it doesn't ferment. He went to that Posek's
house and told him that it does, indeed, ferment, and offered to prove it to
him. (Obviously, he had a vested interest in people making Kiddush on Kedem
grape juice!) His point was that halachically grape juice is exactly like
wine. Another interesting thing he said about Kedem grape juice (I don't
know if it's true for other brands) is that it's always 100% grape juice.
But if a particular batch is not sweet enough, they mix it with a grape
juice concentrate that has concentrated sugars in it to raise the brix
(sweetness value). 

KT,
MYG

http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2013/07/rav-chaim-kanievs
ky-shlita-completes.html
depends for whom....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130718/bf153eba/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 07:18:13AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2013/07/rav-chaim-kan
: ievsky-shlita-completes.html

I'm betting it's fiction.

The story sounds too similar to one that floated around YU well before a
week ago Wed (older than my time) in which some rav was quoted as telling
his talmid to get a meat meal ready as he was in the mood for meat and
would finish Berakhos on time for a dinner siyum. Did you start yet?
No, I'll do it now.

I'm not naming the figure in the story (whose last name was NOT
Soloveitchik) because I don't think either story is true, nor entirely
complementary. It sounds more like a talmid made something up to say
how learned the rebbe is, not realizing that it sounds like the rebbe
is making a mockery of minhag Yisrael.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

RZS writes:
>Please cite *any* source that distinguishes between harigas ubar and
>harigas ben noach.

How about we start with the Tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmoel on
Sanhedrin 57b. Rabbi Yishmoel adds af haubarim, and quotes the pasuk
in Breishis of (9:6) "adam b'adam" as support for his position of adding
abortion into the matters that require the death penalty for a Ben Noach.
The gemora then asks, well how does the Tanna Kama, who does not list
ubarim, understand this pasuk, and explains that he understands it like
the Tanna of Beis Menashe understand it - namely that it is specifying
the death penalty being discussed as being chenek [strangulation].

Ie it would therefore seem that the Tanna Kama of the Braisa, the bar
plugta of Rabbi Yishmael, does not hold that abortion is prohibited to
Bnei Noach.

Now while the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim perek 9 halacha 4 poskens
like Rabbi Yishmael, as the Kesef Mishna there notes (the Kesef Mishna
explains that he does so, because he poskens that the form of judicial
killing required is sayif, the sword, and not chenek, strangulation -
a dispute that comes up elsewhere). Otherwise it is not exactly obvious
why one would do so, and it might perhaps be even argued that the Tanna
Kama, given the reference to Beis Menashe, might be considered a rabbim
against Rabbi Yishmoel's yachid.

And, as the Achiezer notes (Achiezer Chelek 3 siman 65 towards the end
of the siman) the simplest way to explain the Tosphos in Nida 44a-b and
the Chiddushei HaRan in the third perek of Chullin is that they posken
like the Tanna Kama and not Rabbi Yishmael.

And note that if you do posken like Rabbi Yishmael, you might have
something of a problem with the actions of Yehuda and Tamar. After all,
Tamar was three months pregnant at the time that Yehuda ordered her
killed. But after all, if there is a prohibition on killing foetuses,
then Yehuda would have been violating that prohibition twice over (for
Peretz and Zerach) in not waiting until she gave birth. And the same
would have to be said for Tamar. It is one thing to say that it is
better to that I, Tamar, be thrown into a fiery furnace than whiten
the face of my fellow [ie Yehuda] in public. It is another to say,
it is better that I, and two additional innocent halachically defined
souls, whose destruction is murder, be thrown into the fiery furnace
rather than one person [Yehuda] be embarrassed in public. Even if being
embarrassed in public is akin to murder, you suddenly don't have the
1-1 ratio everybody assumes (Yehuda versus Tamar) but 3:1. How could
Tamar take that sort of risk? The whole story really only makes sense
if one holds that uber k'yerech imo applied also to Tamar, even though
she had the din of a Bas Noach (it being pre Matan Torah).

Regards
Chana



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 128
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)