Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 34

Thu, 28 Feb 2013

• 1. Re: partnership minyanim (Meir Shinnar)
• 2. Esther and the King (Michael Feldstein)
• 3. date of purim (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Esther and the King (Micha Berger)
• 5. Lecture by Rav Moshe Tendler about Brain Stem Death (cantorwolberg@COX.NET)
• 6. Re: Lecture by Rav Moshe Tendler about Brain Stem Death (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Esther and the King (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: How do Chabad deal with the Amen of Krias Shema (Chana Luntz)
• 9. Re: Esther and the King (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Esther and the King (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: partnership minyanim (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Fwd: BeisDin Errs Who Brings the Chattos? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: partnership minyanim (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: nashim and betulot (Poppers, Michael)

RAM

> And thus are the partnership minyanim born. Not from rebellion, and
> not from accepting outside cultural norms. But from lack of knowledge
> of the Torah's norms.
I would suggest that to the contrary, the need for something like
partnership minyanim ( leaving aside the specific format and halachic
issues that they raise) reflects a deeper understanding and internalization
of true Torah values - and the opposition reflects a more superficial and
surface understanding 
The other side is not always just ignorant...

Meir Shinnar

While it is clear that the original plan called for taking just betulot
(Esther 2:2-3), it seems from a later reference that the 'pekidim' who
circulated around grabbing women for the palace, did not hesitate to take
married women as well (Esther 2:17)--'mikol hanashim...umikol
habetulot...'.  Ahashverosh had absolute power and absolutely no scruples.
 In a society which viewed people as essentially dispensable, it's not hard
to see how one of his officers might hear about a beautiful woman and
simply take her in to the palace without worrying too much about her
status.  Consider that in the flood of women being shlepped to the harem,
Esther had no difficulty concealing her identity--it's not like they were
checking people's personal information on a computerized data base.
 Ahashverosh's paranoia about enemies may have been grounded partially in
the fact that he was taking women indiscriminately, married or not.
-------------------
This subject piqued my curiosity about something, too.  Was the concept of
adultery as a yeharog v'al ya'avor in place at the time of the Purim story?
 Or was that a later concept?  It certainly seemed that Mordechai took the
practice of bowing down and idolatory pretty seriously.  One can certainly
question whether it was proper for Esther to engage in an adulterous
relationship if, in fact she was already married to Mordechai.
-- 
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130227/c5af9b28/attachment-0001.htm>

<<The Ohr Sameiach (MC, Shemos 12:16, "yeveyom) finds this significant,
and he notes something similar about the date of Chanukah. "Binfol
oyivkha al tismach" and "maasei Yadai tov'im bayam" mean that we do not
make holidays celebrating war or their victories. Only the salvation we
gained in their aftermath.

R' Shelomo Al-Qabetz (Manor haLevi 9:20, "vayikhtov Mordekhai") writes
similarly -- Purim is on the day of deliverance, not the day of the war,
because "HQBH does not rejoice in the destruction of evil people.">>

In addition the Sfas Emes answers that the miracle is that the nation was
able to rest "nachu" on those days. In general there are always problems
but on those there was a complete rest

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130227/5cb151cd/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 08:33:55AM -0500, Michael Feldstein wrote:
: This subject piqued my curiosity about something, too.  Was the concept of
: adultery as a yeharog v'al ya'avor in place at the time of the Purim story?

The gemara (Megillah 15a) assumes so, and gives two answers:

1- Abayei: "Esther qarqa olam haysa." Gilui arayos is not yeihareig
ve'al ya'avor for women, since it can be done passively. When Mordechai
Esther agrees with Mordechai that she'll have to go to Achashveirosh
rather than remain passive, she realizes she is violating a YVY and
says "kaasher avadti avadti".

2- Rava: An aveirah is not yeihareig ve'al ya'avor if the nakhri is
asking for the aveirah for his own hana'ah. And even if the avreirah
is berabbim.


As for whether the 3 yeihareig ve'al ya'avor were in place yet, I think
quite the reverse. At the time of the Purim story, the pesaq that there
were ONLY three mitzvos that were YVY wasn't yet concretized. In Seifer
Makkabiim we learn that the Chassidim haRishonim wouldn't fight a war
on Shabbos. Piquach nefesh -- saving SOMEONE ELSE's life -- is only a
matir / dokheh Shabbos because of the opportunity to keep more Shabbos
later if kept alive. So it would seem to me (miqal vachomer) that Shabbos
is only off the YVY list for this reason. And not like the other 609.

So it may be that the machloqes about the size of the list may have only
been between 3 and 4. But there is little reason to assume earlier pesaqim
had FEWER than the current three.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is equipped with such far-reaching vision,
mi...@aishdas.org        yet the smallest coin can obstruct his view.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Contrary to popular belief, organ transplant is not only allowed al pi
din, but it is meritorious. And all of the traditional objections are
now disproven by the prominent rabbi, professor of biology and expert
in medical ethics Moshe David Tendler, son-in-law of R' Moshe Feinstein.

It is a must to watch his lecture.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WVV59sQP64

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 09:36:49AM -0500, cantorwolb...@COX.NET wrote:
: Contrary to popular belief, organ transplant is not only allowed al pi
: din, but it is meritorious...

According to RMT. It is unclear RMF actually did change his mind from
what was published earlier in IM. I don't think his sons remember his
final position the way his son-in-law does.

And as for other posqim, RSZA (e.g.) was very against. The Tzitz
Eliezer was also against -- and he no less an expert on medical ethics,
being the poseiq for Shaarei Tzedeq Medical Center, and a far more
broadly cited poseiq than RMT. R' Aharon Soloveitchik, R' Shemuel Wozner,
and RYSE also all rejected brain death. 

R Binyamin Walfish went to RYBS in 1983 or '84 to ask RYBS his opinion.
RBW reported that RYBS accepted brain death as a criterion, but RAS, R'
Isador Twersky (a son in law), and R/D Haym Soloveitchik said he did not,
and grandsons R' Mayer Twersky and R' Yichok Lichtenstein reported several
conversations in which RYBS said that he didn't and didn't understand
how anyone can accept it.

R' Avraham Shapira, R Mordechai Eliyahu, R' ZN Goldberg and R Shaul
Yisraeli established that the Rabbanut *does* hold of brain stem death
as a criterion for defining death halachically. The RCA had some concerns
with the responses they received from the rabbanim and doctors involved in
that pesaq: they relied on RMF (who we don't know what he really holds),
RME said he wasn't dealing with the matter on a lemaaseh level, according
to discussions RZNG's understanding of the medicine in question didn't
match the doctors'...

See the threads before, at, and after
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=B#BRAIN%20DEATH
and the RCA report at
http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Halachi_%20Issues_the_Determination.pdf

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.

On 2/27/2013 12:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> As for whether the 3 yeihareig ve'al ya'avor were in place yet, I think
> quite the reverse. At the time of the Purim story, the pesaq that there
> were ONLY three mitzvos that were YVY wasn't yet concretized. In Seifer
> Makkabiim we learn that the Chassidim haRishonim wouldn't fight a war
> on Shabbos. Piquach nefesh -- saving SOMEONE ELSE's life -- is only a
> matir / dokheh Shabbos because of the opportunity to keep more Shabbos
> later if kept alive. So it would seem to me (miqal vachomer) that Shabbos
> is only off the YVY list for this reason. And not like the other 609.

I don't believe your analysis of Sefer Maccabim is correct.  Mattitiyahu 
didn't say, "From now on, people need to fight."  He said, "We need to 
all learn how to use weapons so that we'll be able to fight."  In other 
words, the Hassidim Rishonim had a point.  They had no weapons and no 
idea how to use them, so fighting back would have been futile.  They 
decided that since they were going to die one way or another, violating 
Shabbat wasn't an option.  Mattitiyahu wanted to change the context, and 
make it so that fighting could be effective.

Lisa

RAM writes:

>Without me seeing Rav Yosef's reasoning, it is difficult to comment.
However, working just from what has been presented here -- namely, that ALL
of >these benedictions are in the same category, and he does not seem to be
singling out the last one just prior to the Sh'ma -- I would suspect that
the >problem has nothing to do with the Sefardic reluctance for women to say
a bracha on a mitzvah that they're exempt from, but to the larger Sefardic
>reluctance about ANY bracha which is not a clear and direct obligation. The
most famous example of this might be their not saying Hagefen on the second
>and fourth cups at the Seder.

These are one and the same - the reason brought by those who hold so for
women not saying a bracha on a mitzvah that they are exempt from is because
of the larger reluctance about any bracha which is not a clear and direct
obligation such as the second and forth cups at the Seder.

> Similarly, if Rav Yosef is saying that women should not say ANY of the
brachos between Barchu and Amidah, then it is more likely related to whether
or >not those brachos constitute a required tefila, and less likely related
to Shma itself.

Here is (part of) footnote 6 on the Yalkut Yosef hilchot Kriat Shema and its
blessing letter 6:

"...And even though there is to say that the Brachot of Yotzer v'ahavat olam
and v'emet v'yatziv are not brachot of kriyat shema, since behold we do not
bless "asher kidishanu b'mitzvotav vitzivanu l'kroa kriat shema and like the
Tur writes siman 59) in the name of the Rosh.  In any event the opinion of
the Rambam and the Ramban and the Rema and the Aruchot HaChaim, that their
din is like the din of brachot of kriyat shema.  And so writes the talmidim
of Rabbanu Yonah perek shlishi sheachlu (Brachot 45b) and the Rashash in his
teshuva (siman 438).  And thus one who is exempt from kriyat shema is exempt
from the brachot of kriyat shema.  And further since behold also to the
brachot of kriyat shema there is a fixed time, and they are in the category
of mitzvot aseh shehazman grama women are exempt, and like was written in
Tosphot (Brachot 20b, megila 24a) that also for a d'rabbanan this rule
applies.  And so is clear in our matter in the Magen Avraham and in the
Shulchan Aruch of the gaon Rabbi Zalman (siman 70 si'if katan 1) and all
this is set out clearly in Yabiat Omer chelek 3 (chelek Orech Chaim siman
6).  And see also in Yachave Da'at (chelek 1 at the end of siman 78 and in
the ha'arah there, and in chelek 3 siman 3).  And push aside the Shut
Mechazeh Eliyahu to the gaon Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Frank shlita that I saw
there (in siman 16) that he has a different position, and according to him
only the brachot that have in them "vitzivanu" women are forbidden in them
for mitzvot aseh shehazman grama, according to the Rambam and his
supporters, but brachot of shevach there is not a problem etc see there.
And I stand by my position, that even though the objection from that which
they say "vitzivanu" is a great objection against the opinion of Rabbanu
Tam, like the Smag writes and the hagahot Mamoni, but even without this
reason there is to prohibit according to the opinion of the Rambam and the
gaonim that prohibit a bracha sheaino tzricha that it is d'orita.  And so is
clear from the words of Rabbanu Manoach (in perek 2 of hilchot shofar
halacha 1 page 30a) that even according to the opinion of the chachmei zfat
that women make blessings on mitzvot aseh shehazman grama, it is not logical
to say this, that even if you say that the halacha is like Rabbi Yosi that
we do not prevent women from blowing [shofar], thise werods are only in
relation to blowing on Shabbat [he means Yom Tov here] that is only because
of shvut [rabbinical prohibition], but for the matter of a bracha l'vatala
in which there is in it a prohibition from the Torah that it says lo tisa et
shem Hashem Elokecha l'shav, like we say in brachot (33a) there is no doubt
that it is prohibited for them to bless.  Therefore women take a lulav
without a bracha, and the same for the other mitzvot shehazman grama.  And
we establish that because of bracha sheino tzricha touches it, that it is an
issur from the Torah according to the opinion of the Rambam and the geonim.
And so writes the Ramban in teshuva (siman 87) that the heter for women to
bless on mitzvot aseh shehazman grama this is because the prohibition of a
bracha sheino tzricha is only d'rabbanan.  And he merited to  this
understanding Rabbi Shlomo Kluger in Chachmat Shlomo (siman 8 si'if 9) that
according to the opinion of those who say that the issur of a bracha sheano
tzricha is from the Torah, it is forbidden for a woman to bless on mitzvot
aseh shehazman grama.  And the Rema (siman 589) who writes that it is the
custom of women to bless against his will to say that the reason is that all
that is the way of bracha there is not in this an issur from the Torah, and
the prohibition of a bracha sheino tzricha is rabbinic and the text is an
asmachta b'alma and like the Tosphot writes (Rosh Hashana 33a) ..."

>As a side point, but very relevant: What does Rav Yosef say for a woman who
chooses to say Pesukei Dzimra? Does she say or omit Baruch Sheamar and
>Yishtabach? Any why?

He also says to omit shem and malchut for the brachot of psukei d'zimra

Note by the way that while Rav Ovadiah holds that if in fact men have the
custom to say birchas kriyas shema during fourth hour after netz then they
do have on whom to rely, but after the fourth hour it is also assur for the
men to say the brachos of kriyas shema.

Akiva Miller

Regards

Chana

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:33:04PM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
>>                    At the time of the Purim story, the pesaq that there
>> were ONLY three mitzvos that were YVY wasn't yet concretized. In Seifer
>> Makkabiim we learn that the Chassidim haRishonim wouldn't fight a war
>> on Shabbos.
>
> I don't believe your analysis of Sefer Maccabim is correct.  Mattitiyahu  
> didn't say, "From now on, people need to fight."  He said, "We need to  
> all learn how to use weapons so that we'll be able to fight." ...

First a correction. Those who refused to fight were not the Chassidim
haRishonim, but a different group.

Other than Matisyahu mourning for those killed before they decided it
was mutar to fight, I do not see him involved in the story at all.
Pardon me for quoting a Xian translation, but there aren't any Jewish
ones. 1 Mac 2:29-41:

    [29] At that time many who sought righteousness and justice went
    out into the wilderness to settle there,
    [30] they and their children, their wives and their animals, because
    misfortunes pressed so hard on them.
    [31] It was reported to the officers and soldiers of the king who
    were in the City of David, in Jerusalem, that those who had flouted
    the king's order had gone out to secret refuges in the wilderness.
    [32] Many hurried out after them, and having caught up with them,
    camped opposite and prepared to attack them on the sabbath.
    [33] The pursuers said to them, "Enough of this! Come out and obey
    the king's command, and you will live."
    [34] But they replied, "We will not come out, nor will we obey the
    king's command to profane the sabbath."
    [35] Then the enemy attacked them at once. 
    [36] But they did not retaliate; they neither threw stones, nor
    blocked up their secret refuges.
    [37] They said, "Let us all die in innocence; heaven and earth are
    our witnesses that you destroy us unjustly."
    [38] So the officers and soldiers attacked them on the sabbath,
    and they died with their wives, their children and their animals,
    to the number of a thousand persons.
    [39] When Mattathias and his friends heard of it, they mourned deeply
    for them.
    [40] They said to one another, "If we all do as our kindred have done,
    and do not fight against the Gentiles for our lives and our laws,
    they will soon destroy us from the earth."
    [41] So on that day they came to this decision: "Let us fight against
    anyone who attacks us on the sabbath, so that we may not all die as
    our kindred died in their secret refuges."

Interestingly, the Chassidim are described very differently in the
next verse:

    [42] Then they were joined by a group of Hasideans, mighty warriors
    of Israel, all of them devoted to the law.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Nearly all men can stand adversity,
mi...@aishdas.org        but if you want to test a man's character,
http://www.aishdas.org   give him power.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                      -Abraham Lincoln

On 27/02/2013 1:33 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 2/27/2013 12:21 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>                                                          .... In Seifer
>> Makkabiim we learn that the Chassidim haRishonim wouldn't fight a war
>> on Shabbos. Piquach nefesh -- saving SOMEONE ELSE's life -- is only a
>> matir / dokheh Shabbos because of the opportunity to keep more Shabbos
>> later if kept alive. So it would seem to me (miqal vachomer) that Shabbos
>> is only off the YVY list for this reason. And not like the other 609.

> I don't believe your analysis of Sefer Maccabim is correct.  Mattitiyahu
> didn't say, "From now on, people need to fight."  He said, "We need to all
> learn how to use weapons so that we'll be able to fight." ...

I've also seen it suggested (I don't remember where, but probably right
here on Avodah) that they considered it "sh'as hashmad", that the enemy's
reason for attacking them on Shabbos was davka to make them break it by
resisting, so it bacame a YVY; Matisyahu's chidush was that resisting
the shmad overrides the usual "sh'as hashmad" rule.

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

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:45:32AM -0500, Meir Shinnar wrote:
: One of the major changes that most of us live in is that women's roles
: are very much no longer confined to the private sphere - and have a
: very public role in every part of their lives except the religious one.
: Furthermore, very few (and none in the MO world) view the changes as
: ones that need to be fought in any sphere, except the religious.

: Given this reality, the consequence of this axiom is therefore a
: religious, moral and halachic imperative to find appropriate public
: religious roles for women (as changes in women's general education
: made it a religious and moral imperative to find the appropriate Jewish
: educaiton for women)

We've been through this a few times already, but since I don't see you
reflecting my objection in your current email, I'll try again.

There are actually two possible approaches, "given this reality". First,
one needs to decide if this reality and its implications have to be taken
as a given. Second, is it a positive or negative development vis-a-vis
avodas Hashem?

You presume it's positive or at least roughly neutral. I don't. I don't
think caring about a role in synagogue overly much is a good idea. I don't
think associating having the limelight with being a positive spiritual
development is a good idea. And most of all, I don't think tellinbg women
that the quest for egalitarianism in worship is a positive thing since
it comes with an unalterable glass sealing. The woman who gets Pesuqei
deZimra in her Partnership Minyan will never get Chazarat haShatz.

If one can change people from letting that equality in the workplace
generate a desire for equality in religion, and if one decides it's
a negative development, then one has an imperative to educate women
away from this misplaced desire.

If one feels one can't change the people but the desire is still negative,
on would be seeking ways to mitigate its impact and chance for progression.

As I wrote in the past, what bothers me the most is this jump to "given
this reality". It betrays a lack of cheshon hanefesh, a lack of attention
to the very issue you just stated before the above quote:
: It is different axiom that is of concern - one related more to the
: discussion of borer as the penultimate mitzva. To wit -
: 
: 1. Halacha, reflecting the ratzon of the habore as reflected in the
: real world , is not a mere set of meaningless rules- but should have
: spiriitual meaning and relationship to the individual in the world that
: he actually lives in.

Where is the exploration of spiritual meaning? You take the world as a given
without deciding what's an advance and what's a new problem, and tell me that
if I don't, I'm disconnecting the religion of the woman in question from
her reality.

I would instead say the only way to connect them is to assess the merits
and dangers of that reality from the perspective of a relationship with
G-d and with other people, and not only see if halakhah can be made
to accomodate the attitude she already picked up from the lifestyle
the West has given her. The job of religion is (at least in part) to
shape attitudes.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What you get by achieving your goals
mi...@aishdas.org        is not as important as
http://www.aishdas.org   what you become by achieving your goals.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Henry David Thoreau

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:20:37PM +1100, Meir Rabi wrote:
: The Halacha is quite clear. RaMBaM Shegagos 13:1; Following a Posek,
: following a Beis Din...
: WRT grievous errors, i.e. if BD completely forgets about a Halacha the
: ordinary people will ALWAYS bring their own Chattos. There can be no excuse
: to follow BD in such matters. Hil Shegagos that Reb Micha quotes 14:1 -- 
: vehoru la'qor guf migufei Torah; and 14:2, where RaMBaM provides examples -- 
: let's say if BD permit AZ, or to carry mireshus lereshus on Shabbos, or
: that bi'ah is mutar with a shomeres yom -- following such rulings never
: exempts the individuals from bringing their own Chattos. The individuals
: must know that this is not correct.

As is 13:1. See the Lekhem Mishneh, who contrasts 13:1 with 13:5. In
13:1, it is also a grevious error -- one that even the Tzeduqim weren't
making. In 5, it's the kind of error only an am haaretz wouldn't miss.

You are asking me to generalize from zil q'ri bei rav cases.

Meanwhile, while you mention my citation of 14:2, you only mention the
examples of the kelal given in 14:1, not the contrasting cases (starting
with "Aval, if to'u vehoru"). The one time the Rambam *explicitly*
(without needing the LM) gives an error that would require talmud to
catch, he says "... im horu bahen ve'asu rov haqahal al pihen, peturin,
uBD mevi'in qorban..."

And for that matter, I don't think one can draw your conclusion from
Shegagos. Because if a person is supposed to rely on his own talmud
rather than obey authority, then why were the tzibur acting beshogeig?

And for that matter, what does "pesaq BD" mean altogether? I asked ad
absurdum if you meant a person should follow their own daas over an
answer from a capital-G Gaon. But even before the geonim... Would you
say that a pesaq of the Sanhedrin is also authority that one should
ignore in favor of their own daas?

And getting away from ad absurdum... Leshitascha, is there any concept
of pasqening for others left? What reshus is given with a Yoreh Yoreh
if no one should be deciding halakhah for others?

And why acharei rabim lehatos, or halakhah kebasrai, or halakhah keBH,
or keR' Aqiva meichaveiro? Do what you think is right. Is there any
concept of halachic process left without requiring people to turn to
authority even when their own seikhel says otherwise?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

I find RnCL's argument about Sepharadim putting qetanim up for the amud
convincing in rebutting RMJB's argument, because he poses the comparison.

I wonder, though, if the comparison is valid. Perhaps rather than there
being no kavod hatzibur issue in giving a qatan the amud for Pesuqei
deZimra, the conclusion was reached that chinukh was a higher priority
than kavod. And then, a situation like nidon didan where the is no
chinukh element, there would be no parallel matir.

Also, I'm wondering if the following paradox holds: Chinukh is a
derabbanan. What about the chinukh of teaching a qatan that he must grow
up to conform to minhag? Could it be that according to the Rashba the
qatan has a greater chiyuv (derabannan of chinukh) to say PdZ than the
men do (minhag Yisrael)?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When faced with a decision ask yourself,
mi...@aishdas.org        "How would I decide if it were Ne'ilah now,
http://www.aishdas.org   at the closing moments of Yom Kippur?"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In Avodah V31n33, RGD wrote (in two separate msg.s):
> I was wondering something else.  How is it that Ahashverosh apparently
> limited himself to one wife at a time;  his other appetites would have
> me thinking that Vashti and then Esther were only "reishis ha 'harem'
> if you'll excuse a Purim pun but that there were plenty more where
> they came from? <
...
> it's the mashma'us of
the pesukim that now that he had one killed he had to replace her.
He could have promoted from within <
Why not say that there were two levels of "ladies of the manor," the wife
and the concubines?  L'havdil, the Torah talks about the "ahuvah" and the
"s'nuah," and then there's Chanah and P'ninah...and there's an ishah and a
pilegesh....  So yes, Achashveirosh had lots of concubines, but he had only
one malkah, and a lady from the concubine "caste" never could be a
monarch's wife. 

All the best from 
-- Michael Poppers via BB pager

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


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 34
**************************************

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