Volume 45 Number 26
                    Produced: Tue Oct 19  6:28:31 EDT 2004

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Joshua Hosseinof]
Beautiful Theory on Chapter Divisions
         [Andrew Marks]
Bentshing (aloud)
         [Perets Mett]
Berov 'am
         [Shlomo & Syma Spiro]
Friday night angels
         [Perets Mett]
         [Isaac A Zlochower]
Kiddush again
Kiddush Customs
         [Ben Katz]
Kosher/Travel Site
         [Eli Turkel]
Religious schools and math reasoning
         [Shmuel Himelstein]
State of YU?
         [Janice Gelb]
T'filos Ha-Shachar
         [Martin Stern]
Yerushalayim Solar Time
         [David Prins]


From: Joshua Hosseinof <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:59:34 -0400
Subject: re: Bachur

This reminds me of a shiur I heard many years ago at Yeshivat Kerem
B'Yavneh given by Rav Rivlin, the mashgiach ruchani.  He used to give a
Thursday night shiur on the Parashah and sometimes on Nach.  One shiur
discussed common ways that the words in Nach have be mistranslated and
he focused specifically on the words "Na'ar" and "Bachur" which are
usually translated as teenager or youth.

However he showed us otherwise from the story of Mefiboshet in sefer
Shemuel Bet where first in chapter 4, Mefiboshet is 5 years old.  Then
in Chapter 9 David meets Tziva the "na'ar of Shaul".  And in the same
chapter 9 Mefiboshet is listed as having a young son by the name of
Micha.  So at this point Mefiboshet must be at least 18 years old at a
minimum, and Tziva had been serving Shaul and his family for presumably
more than 20 years, and yet Tziva is still referred to as a "na'ar",
even though he must have been in his late 30's or 40's in age.  Metzudat
Zion writes that "Na'ar" here means assistant, and he is called "Na'ar"
because generally the "na'ar" assists the "zaken".

Another example is the word "Bachur" in Tanach.  In cases where Bachur
is used in connection with the term Betulah (literally "virgin"), then
Bachur connotes either the male form of the word virgin, or it means a
youth or teenager.  However in other contexts ("Shesh meot rechev
bachur", or "bachur ka-arazim") it means elite (soldiers), choice, or
chosen, from the hebrew root word "bachar", "to choose".

I had to reconstruct the proofs for the term na'ar from memory and
reference to the Bar Ilan Responsa, so I can't guarantee that these
exactly match the words that Rav Rivlin spoke all those years ago.

Josh Hosseinof


From: Andrew Marks <machmir@...>
Subject: Re: Beautiful Theory on Chapter Divisions

> This is actually advice
> brought down in Jewish law: One should preferably not study new material
> on sabbath but rather review the weeks learning.

I've never heard of this before.  Is there a source where I could find
more on it?


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:05:09 +0100
Subject: Bentshing (aloud)

Yakir wrote:

> I have been known to engender various responses (including polite
> indifference) when I make a point, if given the honour of zimmun, of
> reciting the first bracha of Birkat HaMazon aloud.

The source is O. Ch. 183:7 where the Mechaber notes that [although the
strict rule was that the mezamein alone bentshed and the others were
yoitse his brokhos] "it is proper for each person to say the words
quietly with the person who bentshes" and the ReMO adds "and he should
finish a little before the person who bentshes in order to answer omein"

The Mishno Beruro elaborates in note 28 that, for the first berokho at
least, each participant should say the words concurrently with the
mezamein, failing which zimun has not been performed; so the mezamein
should say the the first berokho (at least) aloud.

However (as pointed out by the Chazon Ish O.Ch. 31:2 - printed in an
appendix to some editions of Mishno Beruro) this requirement holds only
when bentshing with less than minyon. If a minyon bentsh together, the
birkath hazimun itself includes the shem "elokeinu" and therefore that
completes the requirements of zimun. It is therefore not necessary to
say the brokho "Hazon" aloud with a minyon. [based on Tur O.Ch. 200 and
Mishno Beruro there, note 9)

Perets Mett


From: Shlomo & Syma Spiro <spiro@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 19:22:40 +0200
Subject: Berov 'am

bh, 2 Heshvan

A case where berov 'am is applied even though there is no pirsume nisa
[Publicizing a miracle - Mod.].  In Menahot 62a: Two kohanim are
sufficient to bring the organs to the altar and yet a third kohen is
involved because of berov 'am.  And the Haye Adam uses this gemara
lehalakha to rule that even though there is no minyan it is proper to
gather three Jews to pray together rather than pray alone.


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 09:15:11 +0100
Subject: Friday night angels

Nathan Lamm wrote:

> It should also be pointed out in this context that there are issues not
> just with the third verse ("Barechuni") but also the fourth,
> "Tzeitchem." After all, why bid the angels farewell when they've just
> arrived?

The Sfas Emes (Vayeitsei 5661) says that there are distinct angels for
weekdays and Shabbos. We say "tseithekhem lesholoim" to the weekday
malokhim. However, before taking their leave we greet the Shabbos
malokhim "boakhem lesholoim", as they descend from heaven before the
weekday malokhim depart.

Perets Mett


From: Isaac A Zlochower <zlochoia@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:12:43 -0400
Subject: Glassware

In response to comments made on my note (and a correction) to the issue
of glass ovenware vs. "ordinary" glass utensils.  First, I do not claim
to be an expert on glass.  I only mentioned that I once worked as a
chemist for a glass company.  That experience certainly provided more
than a nodding acquaintance with glass properties, but not expert
knowledge of glass manufacture.  Besides, I haven't worked in that field
or kept up with the literature in over 20 years.  I also make no claim
nor do I have the requisite credentials to offer any halachic guidance
arising from my purely technical comments.

With the above disclaimer, let me note my puzzlement at some points
attributed to Rav Moshe Tendler.  He is cited as requiring tevila with a
bracha for Pyrex, Corningware, and other glass utensils.  However, it is
my definite understanding that the status of glass was deemed uncertain
by Chazal since it is not mentioned in the verse dealing with tevila for
the klei Midyan (only the 6 metals of antiquity are mentioned). Yet, it
had one property of metals in that it could be remelted and reformed.
Its indefinite status therefore required 2 stringencies; tevila - but
without a bracha.  Hopefully, someone more qualified will comment on the
beracha question.  Rav Tendler is also cited as positing that
borosilicate is the original glass material known to Chazal.  That can
not be correct.  To my knowledge, borosilicate glass was not known
before the 19th century.  The glasses of antiquity were similar to what
we now call soda-lime glass which is the composition used for cheaper
glass utensils that are not intended for higher temperature use.  As I
mentioned earlier, however, both soda-lime and borosilicate (e.g. Pyrex)
are made mostly of quartz sand and both are non-porous and remeltable.

As to the adsorptive (as opposed to absorptive) properties of these 2
compositions, I can offer no quantitative comparisons.  Qualitatively,
they are roughly similar for common liquids.  I should note that Pyrex
glassware is used in chemical laboratories to contain all types of
liquids (both aqueous and organic) that are heated to boiling without
producing any staining of the glass.  Only the production of solid
residues upon heating can lead to a cleaning problem - just as it does
during home baking.  In the laboratory, care is taken not to scratch the
glass since that weakens the object.  Soaking in strong acids or alkalis
may be needed to loosen the soil.  A non-abrasive cleanser such as Babbo
may do the trick.  The status of residues that remain on the surface of
glass bakeware is best left to a Rav to decide.

Yitzchok Zlochower  


From: Yakir <yakirhd@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 10:35:31 +0200
Subject: Kiddush again

A number of posters have suggested that one (optimum) solution to the
multiple kiddush issue is for the "mekadshim" to recite it together.

I have not seen that anybody raised the issue of whether "trai kalai lo
mishtamai" (can each of two simultaneous voices/sounds be heard).  As a
an example if there are a number of families, each husband intending to
"be motzi" his wife etc., the wife who intends to be "yotze" with her
husband's kiddush might have difficulty (objective and/or halachic)
doing so if there are other, possibly louder, recitations being
performed simultaneously.

Always another angle / consideration :-)

-- Yakir.


From: Ben Katz <bkatz@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:41:18 -0500
Subject: Re: Kiddush Customs

>From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
>Where the host is inaudible for other reasons, the same should apply.
>However, there may be a problem of 'malbin p'nei chaveiro - embarrassing
>the host' in such circumstances. The morning kiddush, which really only
>requires the berakhah on wine, the pesukim being merely customary and
>can be omitted if necessary, can be said without drawing attention to
>one's action. It is only the evening one which could be
>problematic. Perhaps one should consult ones rav as to what to do if one
>normally follows Minhag A.

         I think Mr. Stern brings up a fascinating topic about which, I
believe, little has been written (probably because times have changed --
see below): what to do when a beyn adam lamakom rule and a beyn adam
lechavero rule conflict.  Am I allowed to embarrass my host and make my
own kiddush, in the example cited above?  Chazal were very careful about
both types of laws.  It seems to me that now, since (probably) less Jews
are observant and we have better relations with our nonJewish neighbors,
that this issue is more relevant.  Any comments or better yet, sources?

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: Eli Turkel <turkel@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:14:19 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Kosher/Travel Site

A new site with kosher/synagogue/mikvah travel information is

Another site with kosher general information (Hebrew) is

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


From: Shmuel Himelstein <himels@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:57:27 +0200
Subject: Religious schools and math reasoning

In searching for an entirely different topic on the Internet, I found a
1997 article of Science News which claims that Talmudic reasoning makes
"ultra-Orthodox" students do better in their math studies.

This fascinating article is to be found at

Shmuel Himelstein


From: Janice Gelb <j_gelb@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 09:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: State of YU?

Someone forwarded me this link to an article in a national Jewish
student magazine regarding YU's turn to the right and lessening of its
vision of Torah U'Madda. I'm curious what people closer to the situation
might think of the statements in the article:



From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2004 06:42:33 +0100
Subject: Re: T'filos Ha-Shachar

on 17/10/04 3:44 am, Joseph Tabory <taborj@...> wrote:
> The tradition was that everything up to yishtabach was said privately.
> The difference between the private prayers and the beginning of communal
> prayer is emphasized in many shuls by the change in hazzan which takes
> place just before yishtabach, especially on shabbatot an hagim. The
> shulchan aruch has the laws pertaining to the hazzan just before the
> laws of yishatabbahc. That is why birkhot krait shma start with barchu,
> a call to prayer.

In this context it is perhaps interesting to note the custom of German
Jews on the Yamim Noraim for the Ba'al Shacharit to recite Barukh
Sheamar aloud from the amud and then go to his seat until HaMelekh,
someone else keeping the community in sync by reciting the ends of each
mizmor etc.

Martin Stern


From: David Prins <prins@...>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2004 10:41:50 +1000
Subject: Yerushalayim Solar Time

Akiva Miller (v45i20) referred 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

Yerushalayim is located in the same time zone as Cairo. Therefore, on a
clock set to secular time, midday occurs in Cairo at exactly the same
time as in Yerushalayim, and similarly for any other specified
hour/minute of the day.  However, the actual solar time differs slightly
- and therefore midday occurs in Yerushalayim some minutes before it
occurs in Cairo.

It seems to me that this can give a simple explanation of the difference
in Parashat Bo between two expressions: Moshe announces (11:4) that the
final plague will occur at "about midnight" but the plague actually
occurs exactly at midnight (12:29).  G-d can be expected to work to
Jerualem time, so He brought the plague at exactly midnight Jerusalem
time, but to Pharaoh who worked to Cairo time the plague would appear
only to have started at about midnight.


End of Volume 45 Issue 26