Avodah Mailing List

Volume 29: Number 35

Fri, 09 Mar 2012

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: cantorwolb...@cox.net
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:20:26 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] EGEL ZAHAV


The explanation I heard for Aaron's agreeing to make the egel was that 
they only gave him the choice of making the egel or being killed like 
Chur.  Why were those the only choices?  Because they were hysterical.


Chur said no to their request instead of giving them options.
Had Chur (or the 70 Elders for that matter, who also had been killed) told the eiruv rav that Aaron could be their leader,
that would have been a different scenario. But that never happened.
Let's say you are a teacher in school and your students love the principal (it should only happen) and they also love the ass't principal.
The principal goes to a conference and the students think that the principal died at the conference. (The midrash says that the
soton gave the people an image of Moshe lying in a coffin dead). The students then come to you and say that either you make them 
an idol to be in lieu of the principal or they will kill you. If you outright refuse their request, then they will kill you. But did it ever occur to
you to suggest that the ass't principal can take over? 
The people were never given that option so we don't know that it wouldn't have worked.
BTW, the Beverly Hills Chabad Rabbi Shusterman feels that was an option.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120307/4fc54476/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 2
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:22:41 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] drinking and getting married on Purim


R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> It is noted that RSZA got married on Purim. At that time he was a
> budding talmid chacham but not yet a posek. However, the mesader
> kiddushin was haRav Kook.
> So it seems that the actual halacha is not SA against Magen Avraham
> (I dont know if today weddings are done on Purim in EY - the excuse
> of saving expenses is a little less relevant)

I recall a wedding on Purim day when I was at Ohr Somayach in Yerushalayim
in the late '70s. I do not remember who the couple was, so I cannot comment
on their finances.

I also remember another couple, around the same time, who got married early
Erev Shabbos afternoon, and the seudah was the regular Shabbos dinner at
the yeshiva that evening. I remember hearing that that was done
specifically because they could not afford anything bigger. But boy was
that a leibedig Shabbos seudah!

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
LifeLock Ultimate&#174
Expanded Proactive Monitoring &#8211 Ultimate Identity Theft Protection
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f576180958681b0c2a1st04vuc



Go to top.

Message: 3
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 14:15:54 GMT
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] tachanun


R' Eli Turkel asked:

> I have trouble understanding the days that tachanun is not said.
> On one hand we dont say in the house of a mourner OTOH we don't
> say it when a chatan is in shul (note the difference between a
> mourner and a groom)

In one case, there is so much sadness already present, that adding to it
would be cruel or redundant. In the other, there is so much joy present
that sadness is incompatible. Thus we see two opposite causes having the
same effect.

Similar paradoxes happen elsewhere. My favorite example concerns the two cases where we omit besamim on Motzaei Shabbos.

Of course, we normally smell the besamim to invigorate us as the neshama
yeseira leaves. But when Shabbos becomes Yom Tov it isn't needed, and when
Shabbos becomes Tisha b'Av it won't help.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210



Go to top.

Message: 4
From: Saul.Z.New...@kp.org
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 08:13:32 -0800
Subject:
[Avodah] name adding


http://lifeinisrael.blogspot.com/2012/03/interesting-psak-add
ing-name-to-rav.html 

more on the accounting  of zchuyot in the case  of name  changes....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120307/695d8c7d/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 5
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:17:20 -0600
Subject:
[Avodah] Zeresh


Is there any midrash that says what happened to Zeresh?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120307/f7c82b44/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 6
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 01:13:16 -0500
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Egel Zahav


The Malbim says that they wanted only a replacement for Moshe, not a
god to worship ch"v but only "elohim asher yelchu lefoneinu", a
representative of Hashem that would lead them on their travels.  The
pillar of cloud/fire was now on top of the mountain and they assumed
 that it had gone home and was going to stay there.  And Moshe, who
 could have replaced it, was, they thought, no longer a physical person.

He says they believed that Moshe was telling the truth when he said he'd
come back, but since he'd gone 40 days without food or water they thought
it was impossible for his body to still exist, so he must have meant that
he'd be back as a mal'ach, like Eliyohu Hanovi.  And they said that was
all very well, but they needed "zeh Moshe haIsh", the physical Moshe,
whom they could see and talk to, and who could tell them where to go.
In his absence, they would need some object where the shechinah would
rest and they could treat as a proxy for Hashem.

Further, the Malbim says, they weren't really wrong about that; they had
in fact been promised just such an object, i.e. the Kruvim!  And they'd
been told that it must be made of gold and not silver.  So they just
wanted to jump the gun and make the kruvim now instead of after the
luchos came down and the aron had been made.

But the fatal mistake was that while Aharon and the Zekenim had seen
the kruvim at Har Sinai ("vayir'u es Elokei Yisroel"), the nobles and
the rest of the people, and certainly the Erev Rav, had only seen the
merkovo and the Chayos Hakodesh ("vayir'u es hoElokim").  And so they
made an image of the Pnei Shor that they had seen.  The Chayos, Malbim
says, represent the way the world conducts itself according to nature;
they are animals, and they move about on their feet which are on the
ground.  But the kruvim, who have wings and fly about, represent the
way Hashem deals with Am Yisroel, with Hashgocho Protis and sechar
ve'onesh, not according to blind nature.  Thus by building a calf
instead of a kruv they were rejecting this Hashgocho and identifying
with the way the world works for the Umos Ho'olom.

And thus they removed their earrings, which according to a posuk in
Mishli are a symbol for wise words that are heard and accepted; this
was "edyom meHar Chorev", the adornment of having heard and accepted
Hashem's laws.  By making the egel they forfeited that, so it was
appropriate that they also removed their physical earrings.







-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name



Go to top.

Message: 7
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 08:34:34 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Rav Levi Yitzchok of Berdichev - The Nes of Purim


 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=5217


The gemara (Sanhedrin 21b) says that originally the Torah was written 
in Ksav Ivri and only later in the time of Ezra HaSofer was the Torah 
given in Ksav Ashuris (our Ksav today). What is the significance of 
this change and why did it happen in the time of Ezra?

Rav Levi Yitzchok of Berdichev in Kedushas Levi says that the prelude 
to Ezra and the building of the second Bais HaMikdash was the Nes of 
Purim. Krias Megilas Esther was accepted by all of Klal Yisroel two 
years after the Nes, and in the next year the Bais HaMikdash was 
built. The reason for this, explains the Berdichever, is as follows.

The gemara says that after the Nes of Purim Bnei Yisroel accepted the 
Torah in a way that they hadn't accepted it at Har Sinai. At Har 
Sinai they recognized the power of Hashem to override Teva and do 
with it as He pleases breaking every and any rule. They did not 
recognize however Hashem also has the ability to work within Teva. 
Only after seeing Hashem manipulate politics and clearly 
orchestrating a series of happenstances in favor of Bnei Yisroel 
during the dark times of Haman, did they finally understand that all 
of what happens and all that we see, is not merely natural world 
order but rather Hashem's will and choreography, albeit in a hidden manner.

The Seforim say that Hashem created the world with the 22 letters of 
the Aleph Bais. This might seem beyond our comprehension initially, 
however we must understand that the Aleph Bais are not shapes but 
rather different manifestations of the power of Hashem. In Shamayim 
there are no shapes for the letters as no shape can hold the 
unlimited power of each letter. The shapes of the letters of Ksav 
Ashuris are depictions of these powers as they appear in this world 
of natural limitation.

After Purim with the acknowledgement of Hashem's power within every 
mundane substance and event, we were zocheh to receive the Aleph 
Bais, itself a worldly exterior to infinite power. The concept of the 
materialization of Hashem's presence in the world paved the way to 
the materialization of power of Hashem within the Aleph Bais.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120308/cec151f4/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 8
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:33:43 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Purim roundup


 From http://tinyurl.com/4bgrcmg

<http://seforim.blogspot.com/2006/03/purim-mixed-dancing-and-kill-joy
s.html>Purim, 
Mixed Dancing and Kill Joys (3.06.2006); Mahar"i Mintz permitted 
cross dressing and mixed dancing on Purim. Also discussed are other 
rabbinic reactions to Purim merrymaking.

Also, here are a few Purim posts from fellow-traveller On the Main Line:

<http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2011/03/duel-fought-with
-swords-on-purim-1891.html>A 
duel fought with swords on Purim, 1891 a duel fought with swords on 
Purim, between a Jew and a modern-day Haman.

<http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-moses-monte
fiore-spent-his-time-on.html>How 
Moses Montefiore spent his time on Purim - giving matanot la-evyonim.

<http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2012/03/1841-purim-in-new-york.html
>1841 
Purim in New York, to bang at Haman's name or not to bang?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120308/ade1e084/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 9
From: "Jay F Shachter" <j...@m5.chicago.il.us>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 01:15:21 -0600
Subject:
[Avodah] Dead-Letter Halakhoth


The following is from our sister mailing list Areivim:

> 
> Please see http://tinyurl.com/7jla27g for more.
> 
> Chabad-Lubavitch will hold its 26th annual 
> community-wide Purim Seuda dinner 5:30 p.m. today 
> at the Sheraton Syracuse University Hotel, 801 University Ave.
> 
> "Purim in Peking" will offer participants a 
> chance to enjoy Chinese delicacies and drink 
> royal wine according to the kings bounty ? as it 
> says in the Book of Esther. Asian attire is optional.
> 
> I wonder if they will be serving Peking duck.  YL
>

After reading the full article, cited above, it became evident that
this event was not actually going to be taking place in Beijing;
however, it does raise a question that I have thought about
occasionally over the years: Inasmuch as Beijing is an ancient city,
should not Purim in the Forbidden City be celebrated today (Friday,
Adar 15) rather than yesterday?

The question relates to a larger phenomenon, halakhoth that everyone
knows (this is a crucial component of the phenomenon, because if a
halakha is obscure, then there is a simpler explanation for why no one
observes it) and yet which are, de facto, dead letters.  One example,
perhaps not the best but certainly the most timely, is the halakha
that you should observe Purim on the 15th of Adar in Shushan, and in
any other city that was walled in ancient times.  But does any Jew
observe this halakha outside of Israel, or, in fact, outside of the
Jerusalem area?  It seems to be the case that in every city outside of
the Jerusalem area that was walled in ancient times, the Jews who live
there have decided that for some reason or another that particular
halakha does not apply to them.  I am not talking about cities that,
at some point in their history, were burnt to the ground, and then
rebuilt, perhaps in not exactly the same place.  I am talking about
cities like, e.g., Beijing, that never were.

Another example -- and perhaps there is a different mechanism at work
in this case, I haven't thought carefully and done a thorough
taxonomic classification of all these examples -- is when Jews ignore
the halakha that you can't live in a city that has no mikveh.  There
were plenty of otherwise religious Jews who lived in Skokie, Illinois,
long before there was a mikveh there.  Now, I understand that halakha
does not, in general, care about where the goyim draw their political
boundaries, and that Skokie and Chicago are the same city with respect
to, e.g., txum shabbath, but these were Jews living in neighborhoods
where they could not walk to the mikveh on Friday night.  Moreover,
there are clearer examples.  There were plenty of otherwise religious
Jews who lived in Palo Alto, California (where I lived before I moved
to Chicago) years before there was a mikveh anywhere within the txum
shabbath there, or indeed anywhere closer than Berkeley or San
Francisco.  I never heard of any Jew there who learned the halakha,
realized that he or she was forbidden to live there, and therefore
left.  They all decided that for some reason that particular halakha
did not apply to them (as I admitted two sentences ago, I lived there
myself, although not after I was married).

Consider another halakha that has, de facto, been defined out of
existence, the halakha that you aren't allowed to mourn for a suicide.
I have never seen anyone behave as if this halakha existed.  Whenever
there is a suicide in the religious Jewish community, he or she is
buried in a Jewish cemetery together with everyone else, and the close
relatives sit shiva.  In every case, the mourners consider their own
deceased to be an exception to the halakha.  If they enter into a
conversation on the subject, and many are unwilling to do so, they say
something incoherent about how their child suffered -- as if the Sages
did not know that every suicide suffers -- and should be treated as an
"oness", someone who sins under extenuating circumstances.  (What kind
of suicide do they think the Sages were taking about?  The kind that
doesn't suffer?)  This is said about every suicide in the religious
Jewish community, without exception, reducing the set of suicides to
whom the halakha "really" applies to the empty set, which is
preposterous.

And as long as we are talking about funerals, consider the halakha
that you're not allowed to deliver a eulogy on, e.g., Xol HaMo'ed.  I
have never seen anyone behave as if this halakha existed.  There is a
slightly different mechanism involved in this case: people admit that
the halakha applies to them; they deny that they are violating it.
Practically speaking, this halakha has only a single consequence: the
sole difference between a funeral conducted on Xol HaMo`ed and a
funeral conducted on a regular day of the year is that at a funeral
conducted on Xol HaMo`ed, every speaker begins his remarks by saying,
"hespedim are forbidden on xol hamo`ed" and there is no other
perceptible difference.

A thoughtful taxonomy of these dead-letter halakhoth would be welcome,
as would be an elucidation of their distinguishing characteristic.  My
first impulse was to assert that Jews just don't observe halakhoth
that are difficult (fasting on Yom Kippur is easy; desisting from
thirty-nine categories of labor on Shabbath is easy; not mourning for
your son is hard).  But that is a facile conclusion that does not fit
the facts.  There is nothing more difficult than the laws of nidda;
and yet, a woman tells her husband that she has seen something that
resembles a red rose, and he separates from her, which is a marvel,
more marvelous than the way of a vulture in the heavens, or a serpent
over a rock, or a ship on the high sea.  It is a marvel that it
happens even once, and yet it has happened millions of times.

So it is not simply a matter of Jews not observing the halakhoth that
are difficult.  There is something else going on here, perhaps it is
more a matter of Jews not observing the halakhoth that are out of the
ordinary, that require you to revise your expectations, that require
you to do something different from what you had pictured yourself
doing in your circumstances.  As I write these words my eyes wander
and alight on a copy of "The Cognitive Control Of Motivation" by my
old professor Phil Zimbardo (a promising researcher before he was made
useless by fame and celebrity) and I wonder whether doing something
different from what you had pictured yourself doing is, perhaps, the
most difficult thing of all.


                Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter
                6424 N Whipple St
                Chicago IL  60645-4111
                        (1-773)7613784
                        j...@m5.chicago.il.us
                        http://m5.chicago.il.us

                "The umbrella of the gardener's aunt is in the house"



Go to top.

Message: 10
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:24:26 +0200
Subject:
[Avodah] Who Is Poor On Purim?


I live in a well to do area and I am, by communal standards, very poor.

Last year, individuals in the community gave us more than $4,500 on 
Purim, which I gave back to the rabbi as we are not entitled to take 
charity. Last year and the year before, he refused to take the money 
back from us and told us that we must keep it. I wrote him a letter 
questioning this, and he told me that I could write to you to ask if we 
may keep the money or not.

See the url for the rest of the question and the psak:

http://torahmusings.com/2012/03/who-is-poor-on-purim/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120309/e7cbef4f/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 11
From: "Prof. Levine" <llev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 08:37:22 -0500
Subject:
[Avodah] Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular


From  http://www.jidaily.com/MOVC1/e


In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able to 
identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show that 
Esther can be identified.  Secular sources can be utilized to shed 
light on the story of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther).

See the above URL for more.   YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120309/fadc0383/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 12
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:30:37 -0600
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Dead-Letter Halakhoth


(resending)
Back in biblical times, bamot were the classic example of the kind of 
dead letter halakhot you're talking about.  This is hardly a new 
problem.  I think the issue comes up primarily when people are being 
told not to do something that would otherwise be a religious obligation, 
but in the case of examples like Skokie, I think it was an issue of 
assimilation, on some scale or other.

Lisa

On 3/9/2012 1:15 AM, Jay F Shachter wrote:
> A thoughtful taxonomy of these dead-letter halakhoth would be welcome,
> as would be an elucidation of their distinguishing characteristic.  My
> first impulse was to assert that Jews just don't observe halakhoth
> that are difficult (fasting on Yom Kippur is easy; desisting from
> thirty-nine categories of labor on Shabbath is easy; not mourning for
> your son is hard).  But that is a facile conclusion that does not fit
> the facts.  There is nothing more difficult than the laws of nidda;
> and yet, a woman tells her husband that she has seen something that
> resembles a red rose, and he separates from her, which is a marvel,
> more marvelous than the way of a vulture in the heavens, or a serpent
> over a rock, or a ship on the high sea.  It is a marvel that it
> happens even once, and yet it has happened millions of times.
>    
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120309/49277246/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 13
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:29:28 -0600
Subject:
Re: [Avodah] Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular


Meh.  The fact that Ahasuerus = Khshayarsha = Xerxes is very old news 
(http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol11/v11n022.shtml#06 for example).

Honestly.  He wrote an entire book arguing about how Chazal were totally 
wrong about the Persian period.  The fascinating thing is that his 
primary reason for holding this position is that Greek sources say they 
were.  But then in this article, he suggests numerous times that 
Herodotus was wrong about fairly major things.

He mentions that the Gemara disagrees with him: "The identification of 
Achashverosh with Xerxes does not fit with the view of the Talmud."  And 
he brings "sources" that support him against the Gemara.  Among them R' 
Avigdor Miller, who if he were alive today, would probably be furious at 
the misrepresentation.

Lisa


On 3/9/2012 7:37 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://www.jidaily.com/MOVC1/e
>
>
>       *In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able
>       to identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show
>       that Esther can be identified.  Secular sources can be utilized
>       to shed light on the story of the Megillah (Scroll of Esther).*
>
> See the above URL for more.   YL
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120309/c1ce78f1/attachment-0001.htm>


Go to top.

Message: 14
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 20:28:46 GMT
Subject:
[Avodah] Weird Exceptions


We have mentioned in the past that when Chazal make a rule, it does not
necessarily follow a logic that we would think of at first glance.
Sometimes the rules are even counter-intuitive, until one realizes the
deeper reasonings that Chazal had used.

(An example of this that I've often used is the "twenty amah height limit"
for sechach and for a Chanuka menora. It strikes many as odd that Chazal
would make such an arbitary cut-off without regard for how far away the
viewer might be.)

I think that today, Shushan Purim, is another example worth remembering. In
my mind, the most logical rule would have been to observe Purim on the 15th
in any city which had a wall in Esther's day. We could then make an
exception to that rule, and give kavod to Yerushalayim and set the 15th as
Purim for Yerushalayim as well, even though Yerushalayim did not have a
wall in Esther's day.

But that's NOT the rule Chazal chose to make. The actual rule is to observe
Purim on the 15th in any city which had a wall in Yehoshua's day, which
includes Yerushalayim, but *excludes* Shushan. So they made a logical
exception to that rule, and set the 15th as Purim for Shushan as well, even
though Shushan did not have a wall in Yehoshua's day.

This seems so odd! Either route would have had the same effect, of
observing Purim on the 15th in both Shushan and Yerushalayim. So why did
they follow the second rule rather than the first?

It seems to me that the answer is found in Gemara Megilla 3b, which brings
a pasuk (regarding redeeming one's land, Vayikra 25:29) to show that
certain halachos d'Oraisa apply in a walled city, but not elsewhere, and
therefore we must carefully define exactly what counts as a "walled city".
I don't recall or see where that Gemara makes an explicit comment, but it
seems simple to me that if the Torah is declaring a law about the walled
cities of Eretz Yisrael, then that status ought to be established upon
entering the Land.

Now, Chazal were under no obligation to use the same definition of "walled
city" for both land redemption and for megillah reading. But the point I'm
making in this post is that it was natural for them to do so.

The Torah is one entire system, and the parts cannot be separated. There is
a tendency among Chazal to presume that we are at least somewhat familiar
with ALL of Torah, and that is why they define "walled city" the same way
for these two very different areas of halacha.

Another example: On a d'Oraisa level, we may not have milk with the meat of
a behemah, but there's no issur with mixing milk with the meat of a chayah.
Chazal were afraid that we'd make mistakes, so they sought to broaden the
issue, on a d'Rabanan level. But then come the question: How broad should
they make it?

I never lived on a farm, yet even so, I know the difference between animals
that produce milk, and animals that don't produce milk. So if it had been
up to me, I would have included both behemos and chayos, but I would have
left the poultry out of it. But Chazal didn't see it that way. And I'd like
to suggest that the reason *why* they didn't see it that was is that there
is no halachic category of "animals that produce milk."

They could have broadened their net further, to include *all* animals, even
fish. I'm not sure why they didn't. Perhaps they just didn't want to be
that strict. Or maybe "all animals" is a linguistic category without being
a halachic category.

And what they were looking for is a *halachic* category. And that's why we
avoid mixing milk with animals which require shechita. Because any Jew is
presumably aware that cows and deer and chickens need shechita, but tuna
and locusts do not.

And similarly, I suggest, that because of the laws of redeeming one's land,
we presume people know which cities had walls in Yehoshua's day. But who
would know which cities had walls in Esther's day? So Shushan is the
exception to the rule, despite its importance to the Purim story.

That's my guess, anyway.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4f5a6845bf9121fb52ddst02vuc


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 29, Issue 35
**************************************

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..."


< Previous Next >