Volume 47 Number 91
                    Produced: Fri May 13  5:20:09 EDT 2005

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

Daylight Saving Time
         [Perets Mett]
Eating Challah Today
         [Hosseinof, Joshua (Exchange)]
Hametz After Pesach
         [Stephen Phillips]
Insurance Query (Car Damage)
         [Bernard Raab]
Interesting Letter From MiAvdut LeHerut-Kitniyot Project
         [Fred Dweck]
         [Perets Mett]
Minyan and the Great Divide
         [Jeanette Friedman]
Proposed new US Daylight Savings Time Rules
         [Martin Stern]
Second day Yom Tov
         [Bernard Raab]
Unnecessary Pesach Foods
         [Jeanette Friedman]


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:22:09 +0100
Subject: Daylight Saving Time

Eliyahu wrote:
> Presumably, the proposal to extend DST is based on either economic
> logic, public safety or both.  It would be unfortunate indeed if
> religious Jews were seen to be lobbying against a measure that could
> improve the general economy and/or keep everybody's children safer in
> order that the times for davening shaharit would not be halachically
> inconvenient.  >

Why assume that changes to DST are driven by ''improve the general
economy and/or keep everybody's children safer"? On the contrary,
changes to DST are mostly driven by faulty logic, or no logic at all.

Just ask residents of Belgium, barely east of the Greenwich meridian,
who have been forced to have DST in the summer despite being on European
time.  Midday throughout the summer is just before 2pm. Does that sound
logical to you?  Or Gibraltar., which is west of Greenwich, and has the
clock as Belgium, with midday after 2pm so that for most of the year it
is dark until at least 7am.

DST in most countries is driven not by logic but by political

No amount of fooling around with clocks will change the number of hours
of daylight in a day. That is one thing that no political party, and no
Government, can change.

Perets Mett


From: Hosseinof, Joshua (Exchange) <JHosseinof@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:41:50 -0400
Subject: Eating Challah Today

In researching a question about separating challah I stumbled across
what is written in the Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 322:5.  Here is my

"Challah outside of Israel, since it is only a rabbinic mitzvah, is only
prohibited to be eaten by a kohen that has 'tumah' coming out of his/her
body such as a ba'al keri, male or female zav, niddah, and yoledet.  But
kohanim with other forms of 'tumah', even 'tumah' of a dead person, are
allowed to eat challah.  Therefore, either in Syria, or other places
outside Israel, one may separate a single challah, by setting aside
1/48th, and this may be eaten by a minor who has not yet seen 'keri' or
a female minor who has not yet become a niddah.  And one does not need
to take a second separation (to be burnt).  And even an adult Kohen who
has been to the mikveh during the daytime, and nightfall has not yet
arrived, even he may eat this challah, and a second separation of
challah does not need to be taken outside of Israel."

The Rema adds that the custom in their countries is that the "challah"
is not eaten even by a minor since "challah" is not eaten in Israel, and
the custom is to take just one separation of challah and burn that.  The
Shach distinguishes between all year round and during Pesach, where on
Pesach apparently some do have the custom to give the challah to a minor
to eat (perhaps out of a concern that burning it in the oven might cause
it to become chametz).  And according to the Chochmat Adam Shaarei
Tzedek 14:4 in Vilna they did have minor kohanim eat the "challah" on
Pesach following the Gr"a.

With that background in mind, is there any reason to prevent an adult
Sepharadi Kohen/eshet kohen who has gone to the mikveh and is not a
ba'al keri/niddah, or a minor kohen/bat kohen under the age of 9 from
eating "challah" outside of Israel?  The rabbi I spoke to about this
indicated that it would be wise to check what the minhag was in the
various communities, but he would not recommend an Ashkenazi to eat the
"challah" because of the Rema's statement.  I seem to recall hearing
that among the North African Jews (maybe Tunisia) their Kohanim did eat
"challah".  I am curious to knew if there is a record of Jews in any
other communities where the "challah" was given to the kohanim to eat.

Incidentally, the beracha for eating "challah" as brought down in the
Rambam and the Rema is to first say "hamotzi" or "mezonot" as
appropriate and then "asher kideshanu bikdushato shel Aharon v'tzivanu
le'echol terumah".


From: Stephen Phillips <admin@...>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:10:00 +0100
Subject: Re: Hametz After Pesach

>From: <aliw@...> (Arie)
> If the company has any form of hashgacha, the kashrut authority (be it
> rabbanut, badatz or an outside organization) will make them sell their
> chametz. and the sell-your-chametz-by-shaliach forms prevalent in this
> country generally have a note attached encouraging one to name some
> specific places where the chametz is to be found, and then to add
> "u'vkol makom acher".  so - if this peanut vending machine owner sold
> his chametz "wherever it is", then his fault is only in not preventing
> its sale on pessach - both lifnei iver and perhaps g'zeila from the arab
> who bought all the chametz - unless he delivers those proceeds to
> him... so perhaps the solution is for you to cover said vending machine
> with paper and LOTS of tape, and explain to your coworkers why.

I'm not sure if the sale is valid if the owner still sells the chamtz
during Pesach.

I recall that the Rabbi of the Shul where my wife comes from in upstate
New York told me that the Golub Corporation (which owned the Price
Chopper chain of supermarkets) sold its chametz through him. A successor
to this Rabbi, however, told me that he would not accept the sale as it
was plainly invalid. Price Chopper never closed on Pesach (they are open

So your idea of covering the machine is quite appropriate.

Stephen Phillips


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:48:36 -0400
Subject: Insurance Query (Car Damage)

>From: Chana Luntz :
>On the other hand, another aspect of this si'if may well not apply,
>given the distinction between horses and cars.  The general rule is that
>if an animal is killed, or a vessel is broken, the person who does the
>damage is only liable to pay the difference between what the object was
>worth before the damage and after the damage.  So that, for example, if
>the ox was worth 200 before it was killed, and its carcass is worth 50,
>the person who did the damage (the mazik) is only liable to pay 150 to
>the owner of the ox, and is not liable to replace the ox with another
>worth 200, and take the carcass (SA Choshen Mishpat siman 403, si'if 1).
>The gemora in Baba Kama (15a) does have a hava mina that in fact the
>mazik should be liable to replace the ox (because in the case of
>somebody who steals something, and then damages it, that person is
>liable to provide a replacement), but concludes that this is not the
>obligation of a somebody merely liable in torts.  So, in our case, if it
>is deemed to be analogous, we would not expect the mazik to provide a
>new fender, that is the responsibility of the owner of the car, all we
>would expect Levi to do is to pay the difference between the value of
>the car before he hit it and the value of it after he hit it, and
>presumably in assessing that initial value, one would need to take into
>account the fact that there was a dented fender due to Shimon's damage.

 ...Which is what I and many others have already pointed out is precisely
what is required by most, if not all, insurance contracts. The fact that
US civil tort law follows much of our halacha in these matters may not
be entirely coincidental. We know that Thomas Jefferson studied Baba
Kama because he had a copy in his personal library (the Vilna edition)
which he clearly was able to read since he made notes in the margins. It
is now in the Library of Congress in Washington (as is Jefferson's
entire library, which was the initial collection of the LOC) and was on
display some years ago. I am just really sorry that I didn't make note
of the pages that he had marked up.

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: Fred Dweck <fredd@...>
Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 19:14:19 -0700
Subject: Interesting Letter From MiAvdut LeHerut-Kitniyot Project

Martin Stern wrote: An alternative way to attain unity would be for
Sephardim to take on the stringency of abstaining from kitniyot.

I'm sure he must be joking! Why would anyone take on a stringency which
by most accounts is a mistake? Does he really feel that the Ashkenazic
way is the "better" way? There is no prohibition to eating kitniyot in
the Mishna and Talmud.

As a matter of interest to Martin Stern, and all those who think like
him, the Beit Yosef wrote the following in Orach Hayim (siman 453):
"There are those who prohibit the eating of rice and all types of
kitniyot, and this is an extreme stringency." Further in the same siman
he wrote: "Also Rabenu Yeruham wrote 'those who have the custom not to
eat rice and types of cooked kitniyot, this is a foolish custom (minhag
shtut) except for those who do it as a personal stringency, but I don't
know why'!"

Also the Tur wrote (in the same siman): "There are those who prohibit
the eating of rice and all types of kitniyot in cooked food, because
types of grains are mixed in them, and this is an extreme stringency and
is not the custom.

So given the above, and many more who hold the same opinion, and given
that the Sephardic communities have accepted R. Yosef Karo (the author
of Beit Yosef) as their final authority, why in the world would
Sephardim take on what is considered, by their accepted authorities, to
be an extreme stringency and a foolish custom. Certainly not to be just
like the Ashkenazim! Wouldn't it be the wiser course of action, in the
name of unity, for the Ashkenazic rabbinate to do away with this
senseless custom?

Rabbi Fred (Yeshuah) E. Dweck


From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:29:58 +0100
Subject: kadish

>  " ve-yatzmach purkanei, VI-YEKAREIV meshichei".

In my sidur it says
"yikroeiv meshicheih"
The yud is  a vowel, not  a consonant.
[likewise, in shmone esrei, "lisheinei ofor"]

Perets Mett


From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:41:39 EDT
Subject: Re: Minyan and the Great Divide

        "Only frum Jews can be counted towards a minyan," he said.

Who teaches these people these disgusting lies? Why are they even in
people's heads? Think about what we have done to our future with all
this hatred against each other.

All I can say is this: When Avi Weiss went to the museum in
Bergen-Belsen the Shabbos before Reagan headed to Bitburg, he needed a
minyan on Shabbos morning. He used every spare Jew in the crowd to get
one, including a Polish Jew who was essentially an athiest and was the
10th man.

Avi got his minyan, and since then, 20 years ago, the Polish Jew found



From: Martin Stern <md.stern@...>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:25:42 +0100
Subject: Re: Proposed new US Daylight Savings Time Rules

on 12/5/05 2:52 am, Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...> wrote:
> This ties in nicely to the topic about the Jews of England... they have
> been facing this issue all along.  There are periods there when the sun
> rises after 8:00 a.m.

As a resident of Manchester, in the North West of England, I can inform
Tzvi that the problem is not with sunrise but with misheyakir, the
earliest time for tallit and tephillin, which in midwinter can be after
7:00 a.m., usually around Rosh Chodesh Tevet (Chanukah), but we usually
manage to finish davenning in shul by 8:15 which is a bit late but not
impossible for those who go to work. When we had the double summer time
experiment about 30 years ago, these would have been 8:00 and 9:15 which
meant most workers could not daven with a minyan in the middle of

Martin Stern


From: Bernard Raab <beraab@...>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 01:01:52 -0400
Subject: Second day Yom Tov

>From: Harry Weiss:
>The Place I was this Pesach had Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet as scholar in
>residence.  He said he was told the above Psak by Rav YB Soleveitchik
>and that is what he followed.  I saw him daven the Yom Tov davening on
>the second day (inlcuding Mussaf on the 8th day).  He did say he made
>concession which was putting on tefflilin on the 8th day saying that if
>it was Yom Tov that it was just an ornament and if no if was for the
>Mitzvah of tefillin.

I thought I had heard about all the variations but this is a new
one. Did he make a brocho on putting on the tefillin? If it is an
"ornament(!)", is this not a brocho l'vatala? If not, then doesn't the
Musaf violate the stricture of "ain mosifin"? Just asking...

b'shalom--Bernie R.


From: <FriedmanJ@...> (Jeanette Friedman)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 06:36:00 EDT
Subject: Re: Unnecessary Pesach Foods

       Every year, a friend and I have a contest for the least-necessary
      kosher l'Pesach food and this was an easy winner this
      year. Previous winners have included taco mix, wasabi sauce, boxed
      matzo brei mix (how hard is it by hand?), and blueberry pancake
      mix (Ashkenazim can't have peas because they might chas v'shalom
      be mistaken for chometz but we can have blueberry pancakes...)

And the blueberry pancakes were just awful,  Ichy and disgusting, not to
mention gummy. Feh.

jeanette friedman


End of Volume 47 Issue 91