Volume 45 Number 20
                    Produced: Fri Oct 15  5:21:00 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Eliezer Minden]
Chumrot At Other's Expense
Glassware (2)
         [Isaac A Zlochower, Shayna Kravetz]
         [Perets Mett]
Molad Zokan Tidrosh (4)
         [Elozer Reich, Ben Katz, Kenneth G Miller, Ira L. Jacobson]
Not benefiting from work done by Jew on Shabbat
         [Immanuel Burton]
Shaking the lulav
         [Mike Gerver]
Simchas Torah
         [Meir Possenheimer]


From: Eliezer Minden <phminden@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:46:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Aleinu

Martin Stern wrote:
> This explains why (German) Ashkenazim are particular that someone should  
> always say this particular kaddish.

The custom of saying kaddish after oleinu isn't minneg Ashkenez (German
custom). It is a recent introduction, and the extra psukem, beginning
from "kakosuv besourosoch/-echo" have not been added. Generally, the
benei Ashkenez tend to heed "ein leharbes bekadeishem shelou
letzourech".  There's a lot of literature about this and other oleinu

Best, KT,
Eliezer Lipman Phillip Minden


From: <D26JJ@...> (Jeff)
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 16:11:42 -0400
Subject: RE: Chumrot At Other's Expense

 Eitan wrote; "Perhaps someone could verify but I have heard that Rav
Moshe was strict in his own home with regard to the laws of yashan but
would routinely eat breakfast at MTJ even though the yeshiva was not."

A few years ago I heard a public shiur given by Rav Reuven Feinstein
called "how to be machmir". Rav Reuven gave some guidelines when it is
appropiate and when it is NOT appropriate to be machmir. During the
shiur Rav Reuven said that Rav Moshe was makpid on yoson - "but not that
makpid". If Rav Moshe was served yoshon at a simcha, he would first ask
if everyone was being served the same thing. If not, he would eat the
regular food.  



From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:21:27 -0400
Subject: Glassware

I find that my description of Corelle dinnerware is inaccurate.  The
process of inducing internal crystallization in appropriate glass
compositions for the purpose of increasing resistance to both thermal
and mechanical shock is used to make Corningware - not Corelle.  Corelle
appears to be a composite of thin layers of glass thermally bonded to a
conventional ceramic.  I don't know if halacha would distinguish between
Corelle and conventional glazed stoneware (the latter also has a glass
surface produced when the glass powder (frit) applied to the "green"
clay melts in the kiln while the clay is fired).

In any case, my statement about the generic similarity of "ordinary"
soda-lime glass and borosilicate glass (e.g. Pyrex) remains.  Both are
non-porous and non-absorptive, and can be remelted and reformed.  What
is the basis then of speculating about a possible halachic distinction?

Yitzchok Zlochower

From: Shayna Kravetz <skravetz@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 00:05:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Glassware

Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...> argues the case for treating
Pyrex like other glass, with considerable chemical knowledge on display.

>A few respondents have alluded to the view that Pyrex or other glass
>than can be used in the oven may not have the status of non-absorptive
>glass.  I have seen an article on this which cites the Tzitz Eliezer to
>that effect.  However, as a chemist who was once employed by a glass
>company, I question the physical basis for such a view.  Pyrex is a
>borosilicate glass that is made basically from quartz sand and borax.
>Ordinary glass is soda-lime glass, which is made basically of quartz
>sand together with sodium and calcium carbonates.  The melting
>temperatures of these two mixtures is somewhat different and their
>thermal expansion properties are different (borosilicate undergoes very
>little expansion with temperature).  Otherwise the two glasses are
>quite similar.  If anything, borosilicate glass is more inert and
>non-absorptive than soda-lime glass.

Allow me to contribute a little "kitchen wisdom" that may justify the
widespread view that Pyrex should be treated differently.  Because Pyrex
is used for baking, in the nature of things it becomes stained with
baked-on bits of food.  Commonly, removing these bits requires soaking
and often scrubbing with metallic scrubbers or steel wool pads.  These
wear away the smooth surface of the glass and create tiny scratches,
chips, and crevices.  So, although the actual glass itself may begin
with similar properties, use impairs this similarity and leads to
practical differences in how clean and smooth Pyrex is.  Ordinary glass,
not used for baking, is obviously not subjected to the same kind of
staining and cleaning pressures.

For me, the interesting question is the case of measuring cups which are
made of Pyrex to resist hot liquids but are generally never used for
baking.  Is the hava-amina here that they are more like plain glass
(i.e., they never go into an oven) or more like baking Pyrex (because of
their composition)?  Inquiring cooks need to know. (Well, not really,
but I am wondering now!)

Kol tuv.
Shayna in Toronto


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:24:51 +0100
Subject: Kiddush

Bernard Raab wrote:

>  2. At the Pesach seder. At this occasion, in the interest of saving
>     time, it has become our custom that all say the kiddush together.
> Is this wrong?--Bernie R.

It is certainly not wrong. In fact it is a widespread custom for all
participants (men, women and children) to say Kiddush in unison, like
the rest of the Hagodo.

Perets Mett


From: Elozer Reich <lreich@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:39:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Molad Zokan Tidrosh

Noticing that the forthcoming Molad Cheshvan lands precisely on the
hour, it was enquired when this last happened.

This can be calculated fairly easily. One Molad follows another after an
interval of 29 days, 12 hours and 793 Chalokim. (There are 1080 Chalokim in
an hour.) For the purposes of this computation one can ignore complete days
and weeks and say that the distance from one Molad to the next is just 793

A mathematical rule tells us that when we have two numbers like our 793 and
1080 which have no common factor (divisor) apart from the number one, the
following situation occurs. If one divides successive multiples of 793 into
successive multiples of 1080, there will always be a remainder until one has
reached the 1080th multiple of 793.

In our practical example this means that once a Molad has landed
exactly on the hour, it will take another 1080 Molados or months, i.e about
87 years, to hit the same spot. The last  Molad which landed exactly on the
hour was that of Tammuz 5677 (June 1917).

I have a program written by my son which, if any molad is input, prints out
as many future ones as you want.


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:02:53 -0500
Subject: Re: Molad Zokan Tidrosh

>       Molad Zokan Tidrosh: Has anyone noticed that the Molad for the
>       forthcoming Marcheshvan lands precisely on the hour. This is not a
>       common occurence.

         There are 1080 chalakim (=3 1/3 seconds) in an hour, so roughly
1/1080 months (= once every 90 years) the molad will be exactly on the
hour, it seems to me.

Ben Z. Katz, M.D.
Children's Memorial Hospital, Division of Infectious Diseases
2300 Children's Plaza, Box # 20, Chicago, IL 60614
e-mail: <bkatz@...>

From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:06:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Molad Zokan Tidrosh

Art Kamlet asked <<< In recent decades, every few years a Leap Second is
added to the official "clock" due to a change in rotation time of the
earth. So with several leap seconds added over the past few decades,
would that change the calculation? >>>

No, it would not.

The time of the molad, as announced in shul, is not in terms of the
Standard Time Zones which are only a little more than 100 years old.
Rather, they are according to Yerushalayim Solar Time, where 12 noon is
defined as midday in Yerushalayim. Since Yerushalayim is located in the
eastern portion of its secular time zone, midday occurs about 21 minutes
before the conventional "12:00" appears on everyone's clocks and

Therefore, since the Leap Second affects only those clocks which run
according to Standard Time Zones, it cannot affect the calculation of
the molad. At the most, it might possibly affect the calculation used to
convert from one system to another. But my feeling is that it would not
affect even that, because the Solar Time system is constantly
self-adjusting. (Depending on how one defines "midday" halachically, it
is possible for there to be slightly more or less than 24 hours between
midday on two consecutive days, because of various astronomical reasons,
such as the earth's orbit not being a perfect circle. This would mean
that the conversion factors are only approximate, and would overshadow
the Leap Second factor.)

Besides, Chazal realized to begin with that the length of a molad is only
an approximation anyway!

Akiva Miller

From: Ira L. Jacobson <laser@...>
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 16:52:16 +0200
Subject: Re: Molad Zokan Tidrosh

Since the progression from one month to the next always involves the new
molad being one heleq past the previous one (ignoring days and hours),
and since there are 1080 halaqim in an hour, one would expect the molad
to be exactly on the hour once every 1080 months.  If there were no leap
years, that would make this occur every 90 years.

For a rough calculation, a 19-year period has 12 12-month years and
seven 13-month years, for a total of 235 months.  Thus, 1080 months
would be about 4.6 19-year cycles, or about 87.3 years.  Greater
accuracy would result from taking into account just where in the 19-year
cycle the round-hour molad occurs.

Unless I made an error.

The question is not so much as to whether any of us will bentsh Rosh
Hodesh the next time there is a round-hour molad, but whether anyone
around today (such as my father-in-law, who should live and be heathy)
actually remembers the last time it happened.

IRA L. JACOBSON         


From: Immanuel Burton <IBURTON@...>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:28:35 +0100
Subject: RE: Not benefiting from work done by Jew on Shabbat

In Mail.Jewish v45n15, it was written:

> There's also a very common chumrah in Bnei Brak and Mea Shearim of not
> using electricity on Shabbos, due to the possibility of Jews at the
> electric company doing malachos.  They use lamps with gas canisters,
> battery operated lights or generators.  Using generators is even
> considered "lenient" in those circles because it may "appear" that you
> are using regular electricity.

Am I right in interpreting the last statement as meaning that "marit
ayin" is being applied to a chumrah???

Why does there seem to be a general approach of going for the chumrah?
Throught the Talmud we generally follow Beit Hillel as opposed to Beit
Shammai, with Beit Hillel being the lenient approach.  A friend of mine
once commented that people seem to suffer from an attitude of "anything
you can do I can do stricter".

Immanuel Burton.


From: <MJGerver@...> (Mike Gerver)
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:24:43 EDT
Subject: Shaking the lulav

Martin Stern writes, in v45n15,

      at least in our shul where we all shake in unison as we sing
      'hodu' and 'ana', anyone who does it in different directions to
      the rest of the mitpallelim will 'collide' with other people's
      lulavim leading to general disorder.

It seems to me that a worse danger than having your lulav collide with
someone else's lulav is to have your lulav collide with another person.
And, when you think about it, that is MORE likely to happen if everyone
is waving in the same direction at the same time, than if people are
waving in different directions.

In any case, when I lived in Brookline I usually davened shacharit at
the Bostoner Rebbe's shul, Beis Pinchas, which, having the only 8 am
minyan in town, attracted lots of people from other shuls who davened
nusach Ashkenaz. For that matter many members of Beis Pinchas, including
myself, personally davened nusach Ashkenaz, though the shul itself was
nusach Sephard. I'm pretty sure the people who davened nusach Ashkenaz
waved their lulavs that way, even though it was different from what the
people davening nusach Sephard did. I don't remember this ever causing
any collisions.

On a similar note, the official policy of the shul was not to say Hallel
on Yom HaAtzmaut, and even to say tachanun then (though the Rebbe is
very much a Zionist, and many members of the shul, including the Rebbe
himself and his son Mayer, have made aliyah). If, on Yom HaAtzmaut, I
got up too late to daven at a shul where they say hallel on Yom
HaAtzmaut, I would daven at Beis Pinchas and say hallel when most other
people were saying tachanun. On Yom Yerushalayim, their official policy
was not to say tachanun or hallel. But one Yom Yerushalayim, the shliach
tzibbur, not knowing this, started saying tachanun, and wouldn't believe
me when I told him he wasn't supposed to. That was fine, since it gave
me time to say hallel.

Mike Gerver
Raanana, Israel


From: Meir Possenheimer <meir@...>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 20:34:36 +0100
Subject: Simchas Torah

Can anyone quote a definitive source as to why, of all the Yomim Tovim
(with the exception of Yom Kippur other than when they fall on Shabbos),
Simchas Torah is the only one on which the Shelosh Esrai Middos and the
following Tefillah are omitted prior to taking out the Sifrei Torah?


End of Volume 45 Issue 20