Volume 32 Number 68
                 Produced: Thu Jun 29  5:25:47 US/Eastern 2000

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Announcing the Molad after the event (6)
         [Sheldon Meth, Jonathan Grodzinski, Carl Singer, Ben Z. Katz,
Yisrael Medad, Daniel M Wells]
         [Michael and Abby Pitkowsky]
Burial on Yom Tov
         [Moish Gluck]
Ethical/Halakhic Salary Dilemma
         [Asher Goldstein]
Geshem or Gashem again (2)
         [Matthew Pearlman, Michael Poppers]
Kosher meals on Aeroflot
         [Avram and Annette Sacks]
Question on Odd Statistics in Numbers Census
         [Zev Sero]
Respect for Elders
         [Stuart Wise]
Yehe Shmeh Rabba Mevarach
         [Baruch J. Schwartz]


From: Sheldon Meth <SHELDON.Z.METH@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:03:00 -0400
Subject: Announcing the Molad after the event

In V32N53, Chaim Shapiro asks:
>>    What was the point of announcing the moled in shul this month
>>(Sivan), when in fact, the moled for the month had already passed?  Is
>>it because the announcement is still the minhag (custom)?

The practical hallachik reason for announcing the Molad is to know the
latest time one can perform Kiddush Levanah, which is 14 days 18 hours,
22 minutes, and 1-2/3 seconds after the molad.  Thus, the molad is
announced whether or not it has already passed.

From: Jonathan Grodzinski <JGrodz@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:29:14 EDT
Subject: Announcing the Molad after the event

That begs the question "why announce the Molad of any month?"

The only things that hinge on the Molad nowadays are the earliest and
latest times for kiddush levanah (in every month) and the fixing of Rosh
Hashanah (Tishrei - and that is the only Molad not announced).

For either of these reasons the Molad should be announced whether it
occurs before or after the announcement .

Chaim's question seems to suggest that the purpose of the announcement
is that we should either do something or have some "kavanah" (special
thoughts) at the moment of the Molad. - is anyone aware of any such

Jonathan Grodzinski of London

From: Carl Singer <CARLSINGER@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 10:22:59 EDT
Subject: Re: Announcing the Molad after the event

The past tense was used.  It still proclaims that the new moon was
spotted at such and such a time and therefore set your calendars
accordingly.  Given the time it took to travel from Jerusalem to various
other locations (such as during the Babalonian exile) I imagine the past
tense was often the case.


From: Ben Z. Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:11:32 -0500
Subject: Re: Announcing the Molad after the event

This of course happens every so often because the only rosh chodesh that
is tied to the actual moled is rosh chodesh Tishray, and even that one
is often off (since rosh hashana can only be 4 days a year and rosh
chodesh Tishray can of course be any day of the week, rosh hashana can't
be on the correct day more than 4/7 of the time).

I have always suspected (but am aware of no sources for this) that the
rosh chodesh blessing in shul on the shabat before rosh chodesh is
really a sort of proclamation of beis din as to when the new moon will
be.  That is why the chazan/announcer (or someone nearby) holds the
sefer Torah, as if he is making an oath.  It seems to me that this
custom must have originated sometime after the calendar became fixed and
no longer dependent on witnesses, perhaps before the fixed rabbinic
calendar was universally known or accepted.  This explains why rosh
chodesh needs to be announced even after the moled is passed - in fact,
it is even more important to do so on such months, to be sure that no
one mistakenly observes rosh chodesh early, when the new moon is
actually seen!

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
Ph 773-880-4187
Fax 773-880-8226

From: Yisrael Medad <isrmedia@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 00:46:42 +0300
Subject: Announcing the Molad after the event

I think it falls in the category of Zecher L'mitzvat...  And all paskin
that announcing the Molad is the subsititute for the Kiddush HaChodesh

From: Daniel M Wells <wells@...>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:54:32 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Announcing the Molad after the event

The molad is announced not as an indication of an astronomical event
that will be (or that was). It is purely a mention of the next
mathematically calculated molad. ie the addition of 29 days (ie 1 day)
12 hours and 793 halachim (or 44 minutes and one helek) from the
previous molad. It has no connection to the true molad and is based on
'Jerusalem' time and not cairo time (GMT+2) which is prevalent here in
EY. For that reason Tokshinski's calendar which is used by many
charedishe shuls, mentions that when the molad is recited, it should not
have an extra hour added to it for summer time. We recite it purely to
remember Rabbi Gamliel's calculation as a piece of additive
arithmetic. Whether the calculation is a matter of deoraita or
derabbonan is open to question.  Generally the difference between real
and calculated molad is very small showing a calendar with an extremely
high degree of accuracy compared to the civil calendar which had to be
altered back in the late 1500's and presumably again in the year 4000CE



From: Michael and Abby Pitkowsky <pitab@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:48:30 +0200
Subject: Bulmos

 From looking in Julius Preuss' _Biblical and Talmudic Medicine_,
trans. Fred Rosner, it seems that maybe the use of the term bulimia has
changed.  In the entry for bulimia, pgs. 182-3, the description is a
condition of ravenous hunger associated with malnutrition or extreme
cold.  I could be wrong but maybe someone can check in either the Oxford
English Dictionary (OED) or a book on the history of medicine.



From: Moish Gluck <moish@...>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:32:06 -0400
Subject: Burial on Yom Tov

From: Yisrael Medad <yisraelm@...>
> One Israeli paper had the burial of the Satmar victims on the Chag.  Was
> that true?

> [From a conversation in shul today, my understanding is that Satmar is
> one of the few groups that paskin that Kavod Hames takes precedence and
> requires kevurah even on Yom Tov. Anyone with further information is
> encouraged to elaborate. Mod.]

The Veener Rav Ztz'l was laid to rest on Rosh Hashona. His Levayeh was
Rosh Hashona in the morning before davening.


From: Asher Goldstein <mzieashr@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:32:20 +0200
Subject: Ethical/Halakhic Salary Dilemma

As an excuse both for adding on salary beyond that mandated by one's
grade or rank and not paying social benefits on this salary component,
Israel has devised the "kilometrage" system for employees who own
vehicles.  Such employees are allocated so many kilometers a month, for
which they are monetarily "reimbursed."  The amount of kilometers is set
in accordance with one's grade (or sometimes negotiations) and does not
actually have to be driven; in addition, the employee receives what
effectively amounts to amortization expenses.  The problem arises when
has to declare on an official form that one has driven "on duty" the
amount of kilometers set in advance for the employee.  It used to be a
monthly form; often it is a half-year report. The form, of course, is a
legal fiction, for almost no one anywhere drives the number of allocated
kilometers for work-related purposes.  It is simply a ploy to enable the
worker to earn more money.  Without filling in and signing the report
form, however, one will no longer receive this extra salary, which can
be considerable.  Is it ethically and halakhically proper to so declare
(with your signature) that one has driven the amount allocated--you have
to fill in the amount, though you are restricted to your assigned
figure--even though you have not actually done so?

A. M. Goldstein
Editor, FOCUS
University of Haifa
Tel. 972-4-8240104


From: Matthew Pearlman <Matthew.Pearlman@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:14:55 +0100
Subject: Geshem or Gashem again

Rick Turkel wrote (#59)
<<< (2) is this the type of segolate noun that undergoes the segol -> qamatz
However, the answer to (2) is a pretty definite "No."  "geshem" is like
"beged," which doesn't undergo this
change; ... I don't have a concordance handy, but I'm pretty sure "gashem"
doesn't exist either. >>>

gashem eg 1 Kings 18:41 and 44.

Matthew Pearlman

From: Michael Poppers <MPoppers@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 11:44:38 -0400
Subject: Re: Geshem or Gashem again

The form "goshem" (i.e. with a komatz) exists at the end of 4 p'sukim in
TaNaCh, according to my concordance: I Kings 18:41,44; Z'chariyah 14:17;
and Koheles 12:2 -- seems to me the answer actually is "Yes."

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


From: Avram and Annette Sacks <achdut@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 10:19:26 -0500
Subject: Kosher meals on Aeroflot

We will be traveling on Aeroflot to Russia in several weeks.

1. What experience has anyone had with kosher meals on Aeroflot?
2. What hechsher is on the meals, particularly with respect to the meals
on flights originating from Moscow?
3. Did anyone feel that they were treated any differently, or received
less service because they had ordered a meal that labeled them as being
Jewish?  If so, in what way?  This last question is of particular
concern to us.

We are fully aware of the current political scene in Russia,
particularly as it relates to the recent arrest of the president of the
Russian Jewish Congress, but would appreciate any specific responses
people might have to our questions. Thanks in advance.

Avram and Annette Sacks


From: Zev Sero <Zev@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 15:33:40 -0400
Subject: RE: Question on Odd Statistics in Numbers Census

>We also have a tradition that the very circumstances of the
>Bnei Yisroel's burdens seemed to have caused them to give birth rather
>prolifically (6 at a time according to Rashi), whereas it is reasonable
>to suppose that the Levites were not so prolific. It follows, therefore,
>that the numbers of the first born of the Bnei Yisroel would be
>substantially higher than those of the Levites.

>Does that make sense?

No.  On the contrary, it makes the problem stronger.  If the Yisre'elim
had larger families than the Leviyim then the ratio of first-born to
later-born children should be *lower* than that for the Leviyim.  And
yet it is higher, which can only be caused by one of the following:
a. the Leviyim either had larger families than the Yisre'elim (which
   contradicts what we know, that those who suffered had sextuplets,
   while Yocheved, the wife of a Levi, had one child at a time.)
b. An unusually large percentage of first-born children of Leviyim
   were girls (why?)
c. Something killed either first-born Leviyim or later-born Yisre'elim
   in greater proportion than it did later-born Leviyim or first-born
   Yisre'elim (again, why?)

As for the suggestion that only those bechorim born after the exodus
had to be redeemed, it doesn't make sense that those bechorim who were
themselves saved during Makkat Bechorot are exempt from this requirement,
while those who were born later, and therefore would not have died then
in any event, are subject to it!

Zev Sero                Any technology distinguishable from magic
<zsero@...>       is insufficiently advanced.
                         - Gregory Benford 


From: Stuart Wise <swise@...>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:44:13 -0700
Subject: Re: Respect for Elders

I have a question that I hope won't be considered nitpicking.  I have my
regular place in the shul I daven weekday mornings, and one day last
week a man who doesn't come regularly advised me that I was sitting in
"someone else's seat who is older."

I know who the person was referring to and he didn't appear especially
"older," maybe a few years older than I.

The question is when a person has to show respect to an older person is
is strictly chronological, so that a 49 year old man has to respect a 50
year old man, or is it a generational matter?

I happen to look younger than my age, so he must have thought I owed the
other person respect, but then began wondering about the whole respect
for elders issue.


From: Baruch J. Schwartz <schwrtz@...>
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:10:41 +0200
Subject: Yehe Shmeh Rabba Mevarach

It seems obvious from the sources that yehe shmeh rabba mevarach etc. is
a congregational response to the kaddish and not primarily designed to
be said by the hazzan (or whoever is reciting the kaddish). Only in
passing is it mentioned that the hazzan should also recite this line
(Rema 46:1).  According to Tefilla Kehilchata 25:7 note 24 (plausibly
interpreting MB 46:2), the hazzan should say this line together with the
congregation, quietly, and continue aloud from yitbarach veyishtabach,
and trained hazzanim as well as most laymen seem to follow this
apparently correct practice. I would be interested if anyone can cite
primary sources specifically confirming that yehe shmeh rabba (unlike
the response to Barchu) is not to be repeated by the hazzan or persons
saying kaddish but rather said along with the respondents. Of course
this is particularly relevant in congregations where all the mourners
recite kaddish together.


End of Volume 32 Issue 68