Volume 42 Number 77
                 Produced: Fri May 21  6:22:38 US/Eastern 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Daylight Savings Time
         [Ben Katz]
Kashrus and Water
         [Richard Schultz]
Summer Time All-Year Round
         [Batya Medad]
Vocalization of Mordechai (2)
         [Jack Gross, Mark Symons]
Zchus or curse?? (8)
         [Bill Bernstein, <rubin20@...>, Leah Perl Shollar, Joshua
Meisner, Dick Kleiman, Elazar M Teitz, Nathan Lamm, Eitan


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 11:45:14 -0500
Subject: Re: Daylight Savings Time

There was a great article on daylight savings time (when and where it
works best based on what you are trying to accomplish, # hours daylight
and how you wish to distribute them during the day, etc.) several years
back in Scientific American.  (Warning: The Orthodox issues re davening
and the time shabat starts is NOT a concern to the authors.  :-)


From: <Smwise3@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 21:28:36 EDT
Subject: Re: Kashrus and Water

<< We had a similar problem some years ago in Manchester, England. The
crustaceans were visible as small dots that seemed to move in the water
but their identity could only be ascertained using a magnifying
glass. Since they were visible to the unaided naked eye, there was a
kashrut problem, the lens was only used to check on the suspicious
Martin Stern  >>

What did people do before there was water purification hundreds of years
back?  Not drink water?



From: Richard Schultz <schultr@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:19:47 +0300
Subject: Parodies

In mail-jewish Vol. 42 #74, Moshe Koppel writes:

: This past Purim a poster went up on this topic (see
: http://www.usajewish.com/pure-water.pdf).  It was supposed to be a
: joke.This is why one can't do parodies any more.

"Any more"?  How do you think the Na-Nach-Nachm-Nachman me'Uman mantra
got started?

Richard Schultz


From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 20:58:00 +0200
Subject: Re: Summer Time All-Year Round

When we were on shlichut in England we made havdalah for our then young
daughters on Sunday morning.  A friend from France said that they went to
sleep hungry on Tisha B'av, because waiting for the fast to end was too



From: Jack Gross <ibijbgross2@...>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 19:17:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Vocalization of Mordechai

From: Meir Possenheimer <meir@...>
<...and, anyway, the dalet of Mordochai has a dagesh which of itself
requires the sh'va na.>

"Vayyihad Yitro" (dagesh kal, shva nach) is a counterexample.  Similarly
"Vayyishb", "Vayyevk", and "Al Tosp".

So it's at best an "almost always" rule.

From: Mark Symons <msymons@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 06:37:52 +1000
Subject: Re: Vocalization of Mordechai

Meir Possenheimer  wrote...
>I would be very interested to know how else one would have >pronounced a
>second sh'va in the middle of a word other than by a sh'va na, >with or
>without the "rules of the medakdekim", and, anyway, the dalet >of
>Mordochai has a dagesh which of itself requires the sh'va na.

Perhaps it was foreshadowing the yiddish "corruption" of Mordechai,
which sounds something like Mordcheh or Mortcheh, which does sound as
though it has a sh'va nach under the D, and so was warning the relevant
future generations not to do this. But slightly more seriously, the
yiddish version may suggest that that pronounciation flows more readily,
so needs to be guarded against by the chataf-kamatz's extra emphasis on
it being a sh'va na.

Mark Symons


From: Bill Bernstein <bbernst@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:08:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Zchus or curse??

In a recent post about the woman who never revealed her hair Eitan wrote
<<It does seem like the gemara is praising what sounds like an act of piety,
but let's not forget in order for a woman to see all 7 of her sons become
kohen gadol, she must have buried at least 6 of them!>>

Not at all.  In addition to the Kohein Gadol anointed for war, any KG
who became posul lost that office but was still obligated in all the
restrictions pertaining to it.  Thus one could have seven living Kohanim
Gedolim.  The Gemora discusses this in the context of those exiled to
the irei miklat, who were to remain until the death of the KG.  The
verses allude to three separate KGs and are explained this way.

Bill Bernstein
Nashville TN

From: <rubin20@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:31:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Zchus or curse??

Rashi explicitly states that they were disqualified for various reasons
with out dieing. As an aside , Tosfosh comments that the walls never saw
her hair " when it was possible [to ensure that her hair was covered].

From: Leah Perl Shollar <leahperl@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:47:26 -0400
Subject: Re: Zchus or curse??

Actually this very issue is discussed (not sure where) and as I recall,
it was concerning the Yom Kippur avoda, that at the last second, each of
them became tamei and could not do the avoda, but they were still very
much alive (otherwise, what kind of a zechus is it?)

Leah Perl

From: Joshua Meisner <jam390@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 10:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Zchus or curse??

	Immediately before the sugya on Yoma 47a praising Kimchit's
modesty, the gemara relates two incidents involving R' Yishmael ben
Kimchit, in which he went forth and spoke with a non-Jew in the street,
and, due to a splash of spittle that went forth from the non-Jew's
mouth, one of his brothers (first Yeshev'av, then Yoseph) had to enter
and serve in his stead (due to the Rabbinic decree of tum'at zavim upon
non-Jews).  Wash, rinse, and repeat four more times, and no untimely
deaths are needed.

From: Dick Kleiman <dick@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 14:46:54 +0300
Subject: RE: Zchus or curse??

Kimchis covered her hair *even* at home, a mida hasida (pious behavior),
since a woman does not need to cover her hair at home. The requirement
for a woman to cover her hair is derived from the parasha of the Sota
(married woman accused of immodest behavior with a man not her husband),
where the priest uncovers her hair.  If part of the sota's public
shaming is having her hair uncovered, it must be that a bas yisrael
keeps her hair covered in public.

Kimchis' sons did not necessarily die in the role of cohen gadol. The
gemara in Yoma describes how on two occasions her son the cohen gadol
Yishmael ben kimchis was in the "shuk" on Yom Kippur "between avodas" to
meet an "Arab king" and the king's saliva hit him, rendering Y ben K
tamei and unfit to finish the avoda of the day.  On each occasion a
different brother stepped in for him to finish up as cohen
gadol. Possibly something similar happened with the other four.

Per the magi shiur where we are learning Yoma (I won't name him as I did
not ask his permission), Kimchis is described in the Yerushalmi as being
like soles (fine flour) compared to other women, i.e., particularly
tzanua, thus the name Kimchis (from kemach, or flour).  Our rav pointed
out that the sota brings kemach (flour) of barley, the only"kemach"
brought as an offering, and it is an inferior sort of flour, reflecting
the sota's status. All other flour offerings are based on the finer
wehat-based soles.  Kimchis, being compared to soles is a kind of
antidote for the sota.  -

From: Elazar M Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 08:24:04 -0400
Subject: re:  Zchus or curse??

        Not necessarily; it could have been because of tum'ah (ritual
impurity) or because of a physical imperfection, even a transient one,
which disqualified the kohen gadol from doing the service and
necessitated a temporary eplacement.

        Interestingly, no one who quotes that g'mara bothers to say what
the sages retorted to Kimchis when she gave the hair-covering
explanation: "Many did so, and it did not avail them," indicating that
our Sages rejected the reason.


From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 05:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Zchus or curse??

Eitan Fiorino wonders if having seven sons who were kohanim gedolim was
a zchus or a curse.

Actually, the story in the gemara runs that one year, the kohain gadol
had to meet a foreign king (one of the Arab tribes, I think) for
diplomatic reasons on Erev Yom Kippur. While they were talking, the king
accidentally spit on the kohain gadol (like when he said the letter "p"
or something). That made him tamei (I'm not sure how), and so his
replacement was called in- and it was his brother. And then the
chachamim (in a "Saving Private Ryan" moment, l'havdil) realized that
all seven brothers had served in the office.

So it's theoretically possible that none of them died- especially in the
times of the Second Bayis, with political matters being as they were and
kohanim gedolim being replaced for various reasons, and possibly new
(kosher) kohanim taking over when the Perushim regained control. Tumah,
temporary mumim, retirement, seganim, meshuchim milchama- lots of things
could have happened. Of course, it's quite likely that deaths were
involved, making it something of a curse- I've long wondered that
myself. And how their mother could still be alive to see it is also
difficult to grasp.

I know that there are lists (possibly apocryphal) of every kohein gadol-
I think Artscroll has it in their gemara. Do these lists reference this

I recall reading this story in a book of stories (one of a series)
produced (guessing by the anachronistic garb of the chachamim in the
pictures) for chassidish kids. One thing that struck me was the picture,
in the story, of the chachamim sitting with their backs to the mother as
she talked to them. (I think the foreign king was a bit of a grotesque
too, but that may just be the artist's style.)

Nachum Lamm

From: Eitan Fiorino <Fiorino@...>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 09:32:30 -0400
Subject: RE: Zchus or curse??

OK, OK I goofed - I did not consider the other reasons besides death for
a a kohen gadol to lose his staus.  Though I must thank Rabbi Teitz for
also reminding me that the gemara nevertheless does not seem too
impressed with the practice:

> Interestingly, no one who quotes that g'mara bothers to say what the
> sages retorted to Kimchis when she gave the hair-covering explanation:
> "Many did so, and it did not avail them," indicating that our Sages
> rejected the reason.



End of Volume 42 Issue 77