Volume 6 Number 25

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

         [Boruch Kogan]
Chatan on Wedding Night
         [Joel Goldberg]
Gelatin Update
         [Elliot Lasson]
Name Replacement and Shiluakh HaKan
         [Len Moskowitz]
Sending Away the Mother Bird (3)
         [Josh Klein, Danny Skaist, Benjamin Svetitsky]
Shul Takkanot (2)
         [Manny Lehman, Justin Hornstein]


From: Boruch Kogan <U13828@UICVM>
Date: 19 January 1993 22:20:59 CST
Subject: Chadash

I don't understand, since when is the fact that "many frum Jews" do or
don't do something in a certain way is a criterion in halocho?!  Minhag
Isroel Torah hu (the custom is the law) is most probably of the nature
of any decree of the sages -- the establishment of the minhag is often a
reaction to the outside world, brought to strengthen the community.

The example of that is cholov Isroel. It used to be a real problem, now
it's not anymore, and there are reasons to be lenient. Drinking milk
which is not cholov Isroel will not be a threat to proper observance,
nor will it pose any threat to the community. (Yet, as someone has
recently pointed out to me, there is much more controversy around cholov
isroel then around chodosh, which according to a majority of rishonim
and achronim is prohibited by the Torah itself).

People were lenient about chodosh at the time as TaZ points out when
their "lives depended upon drinking of beer". It was a hardship, so they
relied on Or Zarua, a rishon who allows eating it. But nowadays, there
is no reason not to be stringent about, even if the majority isn't. The
majority can be wrong too.
                                      Boruch Kogan


From: <goldberg@...> (Joel Goldberg)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan  07:01:54 1993
Subject: Chatan on Wedding Night

Richard Schultz (<schultz@...>) writes:
...the rule that a chatan [bridegroom] is patur [exempt] from
the mitzvah of kriat Sh`ma only applied to earlier times.  Now that
none of us ever have the kavvanah [depth of intention] that they 
did, even a bridegroom who marries a virgin (as opposed to a widow or
divorcee) is required to say the Sh`ma.

   But what about the question of whether even the usual level of
kavanah can be reached? Recent experience suggests that this is a

[I would like to wish Joel a Mazal Tov! Avi, Your Mod.]


From: <Elliot_David_Lasson@...> (Elliot Lasson)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:41:04 -0500
Subject: Gelatin Update

In this past week's Jewish Press, there is news about a company which
has started production of kosher gelatin.  This is being made from
animal hides and bones which have been "shechted" properly.  Thus, this
does not use the controversial "heter" derived from the Achi-Ezer.  This
gelatin is being called "Kolatin" and will be under the OU.

Elliot D. Lasson, Ph.D.
Wayne State U. - Dept. of I/O Psychology - Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 968-5958
<Fc9q@...> (e-mail address)


From: Len Moskowitz <moskowit@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:00:25 -0500
Subject: Name Replacement and Shiluakh HaKan

On the subject of name replacement, Finley Shapiro writes:

> I'd like to know about the tradition of saying "HaShem" instead of
> "Ad-nai" in non-prayer situations.  "Ad-nai" itself is used in the place
> of TheName which we do not pronounce, so it seems surprising that we use
> a replacement for a replacement.  In addition it is common to say
> "Elokim" for "E--him" in some situations.  This is also surprising,
> since "E--him" is used in many places for other nations' gods, so it
> would seem unnecessary to protect the word's sanctity by not pronouncing
> it exactly.

Along with "Y-H-V-H," the Hebrew versions of "A-D-N-Y" and "E-L-H-Y-M"
(and a few others) are truly Names of God.  These Names are treated with
the utmost respect.  The word "HaShem" is not a Name and so is rightly
used when a Name is inappropriate.

The pronunciation of "A-D-N-Y" for "Y-H-V-H" is done purposely.  There
is a tradition that in the future it will be done differently.


On the subject of shiluakh hakan (sending away the mother bird), Laurent
Cohen writes:

> Ben Svetitsky says that this mitswa should apply only for someone
> starving. Does it mean that one fulfilling the mitswa has to eat the
> eggs? and by the way is this mitswa possible only on kosher species of
> birds?

I once knew a Rav who told of performing this mitzva in Yerushalayim.
He looked out on the ledge of his hotel balcony and there was a pigeon
(or a dove) with her eggs.  He said a brakha (without shem and malkhut),
shooed the mother away and took the eggs.

When I asked him about the use of the eggs he said that they could be
used for whatever you pleased and didn't have to be eaten.

(This should not be mistaken for a psak.  CYLPosek.)

Len Moskowitz


From: Josh Klein <VTFRST@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 02:14:45 -0500
Subject: Sending Away the Mother Bird

 Despite what my learned colleague Ben Svetitsky says about the mitzvah
of sending away the mother bird, I don't think that this mitzva can only
be performed by a starving person crawling up a tree to get fledglings
or slithering on the ground to get non-tree-nesting birds. As Ben
pointed out, the tiny birds are not worth the shechita, and the eggs,
since they are presumed to have embryos in them, are treif. Rather, I
would bet that the Tora is concerned with a birdnapper whose intent is
to _keep_ the hatchlings and raise them, thereby getting his own flock
of whatevers (pigeons, doves, partridges) and domesticating them. After
they're domesticated, you can snatch the (unfertilized or
non-blood-spotted) eggs any time you want (the mitzva is only applicable
to wild birds) and still have a flock to replenish your supply.
Alternatively, you can raise the snatched hatchlings to edible size, and
then shecht and eat them. Incidentally, I'll bet that the reason the
mitzva is not applicable to young wild birds that are still in the nest
but no longer fully dependent on their mother is that such birds are
hard to imprint and domesticate (see Konrad Lorenz).

Josh Klein (VTFRST@Volcani)

From: DANNY%<ILNCRD@...> (Danny Skaist)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 04:26:48 -0500
Subject: Sending Away the Mother Bird

>>Gerald Sacks wrote:
>>I thought that sending away the mother bird is considered eminently
>>desirable.  I've heard that people pay large amounts of money for
>>the opportunity to do so.

>Ben Svetitsky        <fnbenj@...>
>              The point is that only a starving man would be interested
>in the first place, and it is he who is commanded to send the mother

How about raising the birds until they are fit for food.
I heard from the Rav in my neighborhood, how, as yeshiva students they used
to take a break, go outside chase the mother bird away, make a kinyan
(assume ownership) on the nest, then make the the whole thing public
property again.  The mother bird would return and the whole mitzva could
start again.

>A friend and teacher of mine who lives in a moshav once had to forcibly
>restrain his housekeeper from disturbing a pigeon's nest.

The problem is that the nest must be on "Public Property" (Baderech Duet
22:6) or you cannot assume ownership (the second half of the mitzva). Since
"property can assume ownership", the owner of the property owns the nest.
If the bird puts the nest on your property, you can only get the mitzva by
chasing the mother away before the mother has gotten off the egg the FIRST
time.  Once she has gotten off, the egg is yours anyway and the mitzva
doesn't apply. (I don't remember why it isn't yours before she gets off).

I recently saw taped to a bus stop in the Shmuel Hanavi neighborhood of
Jerusalem, an advertisement proclaiming the opportunity to perform this
mitzva in exchange for a donation.


From: Benjamin Svetitsky <FNBENJ@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:55:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Sending Away the Mother Bird

Laurent Cohen writes:

>Ben Svetitsky says that this mitswa should apply only for someone
>starving. Does it mean that one fulfilling the mitswa has to eat the
>eggs? and by the way is this mitswa possible only on kosher species of

I guess if you have other uses for the nest, eggs, & birds it's OK.
But if you don't, I think it's plain bal tashchit along with tza'ar
ba'alei chayim [waste, cruelty to animals].  The mitzva indeed applies
only to kosher birds -- see the last chapter of Hullin.

Ben Svetitsky      <fnbenj@...>


From: Manny Lehman <mml@...>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan  10:52:43 1993
Subject: Shul Takkanot

Further to your request re Takanot you might like to take a look at those
of the Golders Green Beth Hamedrash more often known as Munks. I have the
original version (5718) which I would be happy to send you on loan (it's
out of print) if you send me your postal address. It has recently been
revised and the new version should be in print within the next few months
you can have a copy of that when it appears.

Prof. M M (Manny) Lehman - Department of Computing
Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Phone: +44 (0)71 589 5111, ext. 5009 - Fax.:  +44 (0)71 581 8024
email: <mml@...>

From: <jmh@...> (Justin Hornstein)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 09:15:45 -0500
Subject: Shul Takkanot

On a trip to Israel last May, I saw two shul postings of interest. Since
it was Shabbat, I tried to remember pertinent aspects. The only thing I
remember about both was that Jerusalem P.O. Boxes 13 and 1500 were mentioned.
The posting that I remember (but not which P.O. Box to request it from) was
a mi-sheberach (prayers said for congregation at Torah reading) composed by
R. Yom-Tov Lippman Heller for all those who don't talk in synagogue. It was
both fascinating and inspiring. I saw it at the Tikvatenu congregation in
Romema. Can anyone tell me where to find it or request a copy (it think one
of the two P.O. boxes is right, but I don't know how to order).

N.B. Can anyone tell me the name of the Rav of Tikvatenu? I can't remember
his name (obviously, leaving Israel has a serious impact on the memory).

					Justin Hornstein <jmh@...>


End of Volume 6 Issue 25