Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 001

Friday, September 26 2003

• RE: Aseres Ymei Tshuva (was Re: [Areivim] cholov Yisrael)
• Not Blowing the Shofar - Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim?
• Re: Hashgacha Pratis etc.
• Re: Hashgocha protis - non chassidic view
• [none]
• [none]
• RE: Aseres Ymei Tshuva (was Re: [Areivim] cholov Yisrael)
• To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group
• Re: Why is Bee Honey Kosher?

On 26 Sep 2003 at 8:21, Ari Kahn wrote:
> I think it is the aimas (fear) of the din - we don't want to rely on a heter
> during the 10 days - we wish to go beyond the letter of the law - so that
> Hashem will judge us lifinm mishuras hadin

But it still sounds like an attempt to 'trick' the midas ha'din. I'm 
not saying that it's wrong to be extra careful during the Aseres Ymei 
Tshuva - obviously you should be. But part of tshuva is kabala al 
ha'asid and what you do during the Aseres Ymei Tshuva (AYT) should 
carry over into the rest of the year. Ain hachi nami that if it 
doesn't, it doesn't. But it strikes me as disingenuous to say 
l'chatchila that I'm adopting a certain hanhaga only for the AYT. 

Ksiva vaChasima Tova l'Alter l'Chaim Tovim u'l'Shalom Lanu u'l'Chol 
Beis Yisrael.

-- Carl

Not Blowing the Shofar - Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim?
Rabbi Ari D. Kahn

On Rosh Hashanah which falls on Shabbat we desist from blowing the shofar.
At first glance this is a very strange practice - or non-practice. The
blowing of the shofar is a Torah commandment, which applies but one day
a year. Nonetheless we do not blow the shofar on Rosh Hashanah which
falls on Shabbat. The first approach taken by the Talmud is that the
idea not to blow is also from the Torah:

Whence [in the Scripture] is this rule derived? - R. Levi b. Lahma said:
One verse says, 'a solemn rest, a memorial of blast of horns,' while
another verse says, 'it is a day of blowing the horn unto you!' [Yet]
there is no contradiction, as one refers to a festival which falls on
Sabbath and the other to a festival which falls on a weekday. (Rosh
Hashanah 29b)

While this would certainly solve the problem, the solution is not so
simple. The Mishna already noted that even on Shabbat the shofar is
sounded in the Temple. If there were a biblically mandated prohibition
to blow on Shabbat, then blowing shofar in the Temple would be equally
inappropriate. Therefore Rava explains:

Rava said, 'According to the Written Law it is allowed, and it is the
Rabbis who prohibited it as a precaution; as stated by Rabbah; for Rabbah
said, All are under obligation to blow the shofar but not all are skilled
in the blowing of the shofar. [Hence] there is a danger that perhaps
one will take it in his hand [on Sabbath] and go to an expert to learn
and carry it four cubits in public domain. The same reason applies to
the lulav and the same reason to the Megillah (Rosh Hashanah 16a)

We see that on a Torah level, the shofar should be blown even on Shabbat;
it is a Rabbinic prohibition which prevents the fulfillment of the Torah
law, and our question rebounds with even greater force: If the Torah
commands us to sound the shofar on this day, how could the rabbis say not
to? The technical answers to this question are not necessarily satisfying
in this case, for here our concern is that a singular, unique, once- a-
year mitzvah is frustrated. The question is compounded by a passage in
the Talmud that regards the failure to blow the shofar as an ominous sign:

R. Isaac further said: If the shofar is not sounded at the beginning of
the year, evil will befall at the end of it. Why so? Because the Accuser
has not been confused.

When the shofar is not sounded, deleterious spiritual effects result. On
the other hand, if we consider the origin of the shofar and the spiritual
implications of its message, perhaps we attain the benfits of the sound
of the shofar without actually blowing, and still "confound Satan".

The sounding of the shofar is a symbol of God's benevolence and capacity
to forgive us even when guilty. Through the sound produced by the ram's
horn, we are reconnected with spiritual power of akeidat Yitzchak :
Avraham willingly responds to God's call to offer his beloved son
Yitzchak as an offering, but a heavenly voice instructs him to desist,
and to offer the entangled ram in Yitzchak's stead. Henceforth, the
ram's horn becomes both a reminder, a symbol and a call to respond to
the spiritual challenge and to return to the spiritual standard set by
Avraham. The Midrash says that whenever the Jews become entangled in sin,
the sound of the shofar can be an agent of forgiveness.

A serious question emerges from the biblical passages surrounding the
akeida: While the command to offer Yitzchak came directly from God, the
order to desist came from an Angel. We might ask: whose command takes
precedence, God Himself or His messenger? While we may say that the
command to take a life is something only God Himself has the authority
to issue, an angel's order to save a life is sufficient. However, if we
analyze the entire akeida episode in terms of the theme of Rosh Hashanah,
a clearer explanation emerges. The fundamental aspect of Rosh Hashanah is
the idea of God's kingship. It is a day of coronation, and we are called
upon to take our role in this coronation. The main theme is Kabbalat
ol Malchut Shamayim - accepting the kingship of Heaven, as heroically
demonstrated by Avraham, who was prepared to follow the divine command
even though it contradicted his every emotion, every sensibility. The
Word of God had come to him, had commanded him, and he knew that he must
accept the Yoke of Heaven.

God regarded Avraham's willingness to obey as equal to actual performance
of the deed; He regarded the willingness to comply as fulfillment of the
letter of His command. There was no need for Yitzchak to die; the test
was passed. Avraham accepted the word of the Angel; Yitzchak was saved,
the ram was used in his place, and the shofar became the symbol of this
shift. In every sense, the word of the angel is also "from heaven":
obeying the angel's command is also Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim.

When Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbat and the shofar is not sounded,
we experience another intriguing repercussion of the Akaida and of
the sacrifice that was not made. The slaughter of Yitzchak was voided,
yet God considered it as having been performed in full. Similarly, when
we do not blow the shofar, we are essentially performing an identical
gesture and hoping that God accepts our lack of performance of the
Mitzvah in a similar vein. This, too, is Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim;
in fact, it is an even more profound acceptance of God's rule. For when
we blow the shofar, we hear and accept God's Word, but when we desist
from blowing the shofar on Shabbat, we show concern for God's Shabbat,
and we are effectively accepting not only the words of the Torah, but
the words of the sages as well. We, too, are obeying the directives of
God's messengers. This, too, is Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim.

The ominous portent associated with not blowing the shofar applies only
when Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim is diminished by the absence of the
spiritual awareness awakened by the shofar's blast. Therefore, it is
even more important when we don't blow the shofar to concentrate and
focus on how we accept God as King, how we adore and safeguard Shabbat,
how we unswervingly accept the words of the Torah and the authority of
the Rabbis. By not blowing the shofar, we can bring about even greater
Kabbalat ol Malchut Shamayim.

It is our hope that in this merit the coming year will be delightful
from beginning to end.

May we all be inscribed in the Book of the Living for a year of spiritual
growth, material comfort, health and happiness.

Shana Tova!

Ari & Naomi
Matityahu, Hillel, Yishai, Yosef, and Elisheva
Kahn

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 01:01:42 +0000 Micha Berger wrote:
>: I assume you agree with me that there is a world of difference between
>: these two positions. R' Bechhoffer seems to subscribe to the latter.

> You're mistaken. Last Shabbos, RYGB rejected someone's appeal to having
> a personal relationship with HQBH by recording all the tovos that come
> your way for a coupld of weeks. His reason: But what about those of us
> who hold like the Rambam and would not be zochim to total HP?

> I /think/ RYGB isn't convinced one way or the other.

Reb Micha's characterization of my view is accurate!

[Email #2 -mi]

[R Daniel Eidensohn:]
>I think we need to differentiate between 1) a group having many great
>people and therefore they are deserving of respect and 2) because a group
>has so many great people I must submit to their superiority or at least
>not disagree with them.

I was not arguing #2.

>The issue is my ability to maintain my hashkofa, nusach tefila, minhagim
>etc., in the face of another group of people which possesses some
>(or even many) high level people. Perhaps we are simply disagreeing
>what "mach avek" means....                  It is a question of to what
>degree am I allowed to make public pronouncements which disagree with
>a widely accepted position - even though I have a very clear mesora to
>rely upon. Do I have to switch to nusach sefard because the majority
>of people in my neighborhood daven sefard? ...

I did not say "kablu da'as ha'Besht." I did say one cannot dismiss them nor 
state with certainty that they are incorrect.

>> Halachah requires hachro'oh. This issue doies not.

>Why doesn't hashkofa (or hashgacha protis) require hachro'oh? How do
>I determine what to teach my children or students? How do I know what
>to think about my life? How do I react to happiness or suffering? A
>person who accepts every position in essence believes in nothing.
>Hashgocha protis is the foundation of bitachon and reward and punishment.
>Why isn't hachro'oh required?!

You teach all positions and note that we cannot know which is correct but 
everyone agrees that Avodas Hashem is paramount...

[Email #3. -mi]

At 03:38 AM 9/24/2003 -0700, [RWAC] wrote:
>RYGB wrote: "Sevara. Hashem would not allow so many people to have a
>mistaken belief and not change his hanhogo as a result."

>How do you reconcile such an "assumption" w/ Malachi 2:6 (See also Rambam
>Yesodei HaTorah 1:11) ?

Sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more explicit...

YGB 

[Micha:]
>On Wed, Sep 24, 2003 at 06:26:56PM +0200, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>: We are in agreement that 1) at least up till the time of the early
>: achronim there was a basic consensus concerning hashgocha protis. 2)
>: the major chidush of the Besht concerns HP for non-man.

>I disagree with #1. There were few, if anyone other than Nachum ish
>Gam Zu, who held like the Besht later did. But there was significant
>disagreement between them.

I don't understand your point. The consensus I am talking about is
the idea that 1)HP increases with spiritual level(deveikus or seichel)
and that the absence of HP is chance/mazel/Teva. 2) HP only applies
to man -except perhaps where the animal or object is relevant to man.
Where do you see that Nachum ish Gam Zu held the BESHT's shita? I don't
see a significant disagreement - where and between whom?

...
>1- Either you're learning the sugyah, and *all* shitos should be in scope.

>2- Or, you're writing about one's personal beliefs in a forum where most
>readers follow a different postulate. So there too, the Besht's position
>is going to enter the discussion.

I don't understand your view. When I am teaching or talking about HP I
don't see that I need to present the view of the BEST since it is not
part of the hashkofa that I have been taught. I similarly don't deal
with sherayim when talking about relating to one's rebbe. In fact I just
spoke with a very distinguished talmid chochom/poseik - close talmid of
Rav Ruderman - and he had never even heard of the position of the BESHT.

There is something called mesora - at least pre Artscroll. I don't
need the mishmash which passes for hashkofa today. I don't see that
hashkofa is a supermarket that you pick and chose what you resonate with.
Chassidim and Sefardim don't have such an attitude and educated Litvaks
don't either. Concerning the fact that the masses have adopted the
view of the Besht - we learned in yeshiva that when in doubt one should
ask a bal habayis and do the opposite. I don't understand why we aren't
concerned solely with the views of gedolei Torah. What did R' Yisroel
Salanter do with this shitah, what did R' Aaron Kotler? Puk chazi is
not l'chatchila but only when there is no mesora and no way of resolving
the issue amongst gedolim. As Tosfos in Eiruvin points out - in such a
situation you can even rely on Bas Kol. Can you conceive of the Alter
of Slabodka resolving a hashkofa issue by taking a survey of what the
masses held?! I believe R' Yerucham stated that even though there is
a view that HP simply means that G-d observes what is going on without
intervening - he dismisses this as irrelevent because it is the view
of women i.e., the ignorant. Similarly the Rambam dismisses the views
of the masses because they are wrong. Chinuch dismisses the view of
the BESHT as being absurd as does the Rambam.

In sum, I don't understand the point you are making

>There is no issue of pseudo bas qol, or acharei rabim. It's just a simple
>issue of how to maintain a dialogue. You can't ignore the posulates of
>the majority of participants and still maintain a discussion with them.

>: I assume you agree with me that there is a world of difference between
>: these two positions. R' Bechhoffer seems to subscribe to the latter.

>You're mistaken. Last Shabbos, RYGB rejected someone's appeal to having
>a personal relationship with HQBH by recording all the tovos that come
>your way for a coupld of weeks. His reason: But what about those of us
>who hold like the Rambam and would not be zochim to total HP?

>I /think/ RYGB isn't convinced one way or the other.

If so- his uncertainty should not be turned into a rule of hashkofa
for others. As I pointed out if this "Pluralism" is a tactic for shalom
bayis amongst Jews with diverse hashkofa I have no problem with it.
However as presented in the criticism of Prof Levi it is rule that today
no one has the right to decide between views or at least not to reject
a view that is widely accepted by the masses.

"A flaw in the book, is Prof. Levi's tendency on occasion to advance
resolutions in areas in which we may not have the right to advance
a resolution. A good example of such an area is the issue of Divine
Providence. A scholar of Chassidus, Rabbi J. Immanuel Schochet, once said
to me that the greatest revolution that the Baal Shem Tov succeeded in
accomplishing was in the area of Hashgachah Pratis (specific or special
Divine providence)... As the Rebbe Reb Bunim of Parshischah put it,
anyone who does not believe that when a person draws a stick out of the
sand, that God dictates where each particle of sand falls into the hole,
denies Divine Providence...I do not dispute the rational character of
Prof. Levi's suggestion. I think it has much merit. But I do not know mi
ya'aleh lanu ha'shomyma - who will go up for us to Heaven to ascertain
if God acts accordingly!"

kesiva v'chasima tova

Just found out that Rav Eliyahiv will be home for Rosh Hashanna - he
should have a refuah sheleima

I ask mechila from any and all that I might have offended or upset during
the year and I likewise am mochel anyone who might have offended me.

Daniel Eidensohn

for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:21:25
-0500
[192.114.47.13])
	by heras.host4u.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h8QBLNj06369
	for <Avodah@aishdas.org>; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 06:21:24 -0500
h8QBRL41015889; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:27:22 +0300
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
To: Ari Kahn <kahnar@mail.biu.ac.il>, Avodah@aishdas.org
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 14:21:17 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: RE: Aseres Ymei Tshuva (was Re: [Areivim] cholov Yisrael)
Message-ID: <3F744B5D.31659.1D91059D@localhost>
In-reply-to: <NFBBIOFJALGPGNHHFNMNKEHHCHAA.kahnar@mail.biu.ac.il>
References: <3F742ED0.31878.1D217DDB@localhost>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v4.11)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-description: Mail message body
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

On 26 Sep 2003 at 12:21, Ari Kahn wrote:
> If someone  went to court I assume they would dress a little
> nicer. Maybe drive a little nicer in the area of the court - it
> certainly lets us focus on the spirit of din and then change the
> things we really need to.

Ain hachi nami. But I can see trying to 'fool' a human judge. How do
you try to 'fool' HKB"H l'havdil.

> Take a look in the Rambam Teshuva 3:3 - the only thing
> which can save the beinoni is Teshuva - nothing else. Yet in the
> next halacha the Rambam writes that during these days we do more
> mitzvoth - why bother? Apparently it helps US with the main goal -
> Teshuva If you like I can send you a chapter I wrote about this

I have no problem with doing more mitzvos. I have no problem with
learning extra and giving more tzedaka and seeking out more mitzvos
aseh to do. My problem is with changing hanhogos to a way you
perhaps  SHOULD be behaving, when you know well that you won't
continue it. It  feels dishonest.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 07:53:41
-0500
ESMTP
          id <20030926125437.HOTM22186.fep4@012.net.il>;
          Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:54:37 +0300
Message-ID: <3F7444D8.9050808@012.net.il>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:53:28 +0200
From: Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4)
Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: avodah@aishdas.org
Subject: Re: Hashgacha Pratis etc.
References: <200309230340.h8N3eDAe010594@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
<200309230340.h8N3eDAe010594@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
<5.2.1.1.0.20030926001033.00bbd3f8@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
In-Reply-To:
<5.2.1.1.0.20030926001033.00bbd3f8@casbah.it.northwestern.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

>> You're mistaken. Last Shabbos, RYGB rejected someone's appeal to
>> having a personal relationship with HQBH by recording all the tovos
>> that come your way for a coupld of weeks. His reason: But what about
>> those of us who hold like the Rambam and would not be zochim to
>> total HP?

>> I /think/ RYGB isn't convinced one way or the other.

> Reb Micha's characterization of my view is accurate!

Fact #1 RYGB is undecided between the old mesorah and the new view
of  the BESHT

> [R Daniel Eidensohn:]
>> I think we need to differentiate between 1) a group having many
>> great people and therefore they are deserving of respect and 2)
>> because a  group
>> has so many great people I must submit to their superiority or at
>> least not disagree with them.

> I was not arguing #2.

I did not say "kablu da'as ha'Besht." I did say one cannot dismiss
them  nor state with certainty that they are incorrect.

Fact #2 the RYGB Hashkofic Principle [RYGBHP] does not indicate what
needs to be accepted but what one is permitted to reject

> You teach all positions and note that we cannot know which is
> correct  but everyone agrees that Avodas Hashem is paramount...

Fact #3 not only can you not reject but you must teach the full
range of  opinions which are legitimate amongst Orthodoxy and must
also admit that  you don't know which is right

The RYGBHP seems to be the following. there are two major paths that
hashkofic positions can be legitimized. 1)  An ancient mesorah of
gedolei Torah which has been accepted over the ages 2) An innovation
which has been accepted by some gedolim and has become widespread
amongst the masses. When faced with conflicting hashkofic positions
from  these two groups it is prohibited to reject or ignore either
side but  rather both sides must be taught along with the
pronouncment to our  students/children (ourselves?) that we don't
know which is right.

Case 1 Hashgocha protis.  Prof. Levi has no right to state a view
which  implies rejection of the BESHTIAN position. It follows
however that  according to this principle the Chassidim have  no
right to ignore the  pre BESHTian position. I would assume that when
writing a review  concerning Rav Tzadok or the Sfas Emes one needs to
chastise them for  their consistent failure to acknowledge the valid
alternative.

Similarly  I would assume that one must tell the Munkatcher that he
has no right to  prohibit learning the preBESHTian position. There
is no doubt that the  Chassidim have never heard of the RYGB
principle or else reject it.

Case 2 Rebbe as Moshiach after the 2nd coming. Here again we have a
clearly articulated ancient mesorah that rejects the idea  of
Moshiach  successfully completing his mission only after dying and
being  resurrected. As opposed to that there is a chidush supported by
some solid people including the proposed moshiahc himself and the
support of  many people. According to this principle I have no right
to say that  they are wrong!  In fact the evidence I have seen is
that the lack of  public protest is simply a tactic to preserve
shalom bayis but that most  of us have clearly rejected the validity
of the 2nd Coming.

There are other cases  which I leave to the interested reader to
fill in  the facts.

Case 3 Religious Zionism -

Case 4 Secular education

Case 5  Chassidus itself
etc etc

In sum:
Reviewing the historical reality of these cases - which clearly fit
the  preconditions for applying the  RYGBHP - we  see  a strange
thing. No  one seems to be aware of the principle. We do find a
pragmatic principle  of not fighting over issues that don't produce
significant benefits.  Thus the caution not to fight or reject is
typically addressed to one  side not both. I am not aware of gedolim
articulating a shitah of not to  decide what you consider right or
wrong in these cases. If such exists I  would appreciate the
enlightenment. In the absence of such evidence we  can safely reject
the RYGBHP

kesiva v'chasimah tova
Daniel Eidensohn

On 26 Sep 2003 at 12:21, Ari Kahn wrote:

> If someone  went to court I assume they would dress a little nicer.
> Maybe drive a little nicer in the area of the court - it certainly
> lets us focus on the spirit of din and then change the things we
> really need to. 

Ain hachi nami. But I can see trying to 'fool' a human judge. How do 
you try to 'fool' HKB"H l'havdil. 

Take a look in the Rambam Teshuva 3:3 - the only thing
> which can save the beinoni is Teshuva - nothing else. Yet in the next
> halacha the Rambam writes that during these days we do more mitzvoth -
> why bother? Apparently it helps US with the main goal - Teshuva If you
> like I can send you a chapter I wrote about this

I have no problem with doing more mitzvos. I have no problem with 
learning extra and giving more tzedaka and seeking out more mitzvos 
aseh to do. My problem is with changing hanhogos to a way you perhaps 
SHOULD be behaving, when you know well that you won't continue it. It 
feels dishonest. 

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son, 
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much. 

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to: 
http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm 
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm 





This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

R' Chaim Friedlander in his Sifsei Chaim: Pirkei Emunah ve-Hashgachah
writes that when the Rambam referred to teva he meant a hidden hashgachah.
 thus, everyone on every level has hashgachah peratis but those who are
greater have more obvious hashgachah.  I can't imagine he would be cholek
on Rav Dessler.

I pointed this out to someone who learns in the Mir (in Brooklyn) and he
discussed it with the mashgiach (I don't know his name).  He directed us
to R' Shlomo Wolbe's Alei Shur that quotes the Alter of Kelm as saying the
same.

RC Friedlander also points out the machlokes over whether leaves falling
are due to hashgachah peratis but I don't think he takes sides.

Gil Student



This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

--=======309B4D4D=======
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-602B6BCF; boundary="=====================_7040073==.ALT"


--=====================_7040073==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-602B6BCF; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Zoo Torah stated:
>The Gemara says that bee honey is kosher "Because it brings the nectar into
>its body, and does not produce it from its body" (Bechoros 7b - it also
>gives an alternative reason based on a gezeras hakasuv). But bees do add
>enzymes to the nectar, such as diastase and invertase.

Then Ari Zivotovsky added:
>Enzymes in the bee's saliva acts upon the 12-carbon sucrose molecules in
>nectar and splits them each into two 6-carbon molecules, glucose and
>fructose. Saliva also causes a steep drop in the Ph of the honey compared
>to nectar. Finally, the honey is fanned by the bees to concentrate it.
>Robinson agreed that the talmudic distinction was solid. The bee does not
>decompose food into base components and then "produce" honey.


And Areh Stein added:
>The Gemara2 explains that honey is kosher
>as it is not a secretion from the bee; the bee functions only as a carrier
>and facilitator.3 Honey is kosher nectar, which enters the honey sac,
>is transformed into honey, and placed into the honeycomb retaining its
>kosher status throughout the "transformation."

In fact, the bee's enzymes decompose complex sugars into simple sugars, so 
that these arguments seem to be flawed.  Particularly since the enzymes 
remain in the honey after they have completed their task.

With regard to another claim--that materials that come out of a tamei 
creature's mouth are not tamei, and only when they come out of other 
apertures are they so--I would ask an extreme question: would it be 
permissible to eat pig vomit?  Or if you prefer, camel vomit?

I have heard that there is another issue, by the way.  In the processing of 
honey a defoaming agent may be used, and its kashrus is also significant.

IRA L. JACOBSON
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
mailto:laser@ieee.org



--=====================_7040073==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-602B6BCF; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<html>
<body>
Zoo Torah stated:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>The Gemara says that bee honey is
kosher &quot;Because it brings the nectar into<br>
its body, and does not produce it from its body&quot; (Bechoros 7b - it
also<br>
gives an alternative reason based on a gezeras hakasuv). But bees do
add<br>
enzymes to the nectar, such as diastase and invertase. 
</blockquote><br>
Then Ari Zivotovsky added:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Enzymes in the bee's saliva acts
upon the 12-carbon sucrose molecules in <br>
nectar and splits them each into two 6-carbon molecules, glucose and
<br>
fructose. Saliva also causes a steep drop in the Ph of the honey compared
<br>
to nectar. Finally, the honey is fanned by the bees to concentrate it.
<br>
Robinson agreed that the talmudic distinction was solid. The bee does not
<br>
decompose food into base components and then &quot;produce&quot; honey.
</blockquote><br><br>
And Areh Stein added:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>The Gemara2 explains that honey is
kosher<br>
as it is not a secretion from the bee; the bee functions only as a
carrier<br>
and facilitator.3 Honey is kosher nectar, which enters the honey
sac,<br>
is transformed into honey, and placed into the honeycomb retaining
its<br>
kosher status throughout the
&quot;transformation.&quot;</blockquote><br>
In fact, the bee's enzymes decompose complex sugars into simple sugars,
so that these arguments seem to be flawed.&nbsp; Particularly since the
enzymes remain in the honey after they have completed their
task.<br><br>
With regard to another claim--that materials that come out of a tamei
creature's mouth are not tamei, and only when they come out of other
apertures are they so--I would ask an extreme question: would it be
permissible to eat pig vomit?&nbsp; Or if you prefer, camel
vomit?<br><br>
I have heard that there is another issue, by the way.&nbsp; In the
processing of honey a defoaming agent may be used, and its kashrus is
also significant.<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" color="#000080"><i>~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=<br>
IRA L. JACOBSON&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<br>
</i>=<i>~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><a href="mailto:laser@ieee.org" eudora="autourl">mailto:laser@ieee.org<br><br>
</a></font></i></body>
</html>


--=====================_7040073==.ALT--

--=======309B4D4D=======
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-avg=cert; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-602B6BCF
Content-Disposition: inline


---
Outgoing mail is proudly certified "Virus Free."  In most cases, this is an accurate potrayal of the situation.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23-Sep-03

--=======309B4D4D=======--



This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]