Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 12

Trigger warning! I will now tell a horror story. If "The Godfather" was too difficult for you to watch, please skip this post.
The story begins about seveneen years ago, in a community that had for many years, followed a very liberal, albeit Orthodox, halachic line. In recent years, however, they began a "get tough" policy. Conversion policy, for example, that had essentially been "come Tuesday at three. By five you will be a Jew" now became extremely strict. This went even further in the area of Kashrut. The council of community rabbis, agreed to a new policy. Anything in THEIR city without THEIR supervision, would be declared non-Kosher. There was a restaurant in town. The owner was both devout and learned. Even the most pious members of the community freely ate there. One day, the rabbis came to him. "You need our supervision, or we will declare you non-kosher. " The proprietor said "I have been in business for many years. There isn't a Jew in this city who doesn't trust me. Why should I give you several tens of thousands of dollars a year for your supervision?" "Believe us; you need it". The man scoffed. A few days later, a large ad appeared in the local Jewish newspaper: "It has been determined that this restaurant can no longer be considered  kosher". The man soon went out of business. He lost his livelihood, as well as the respect of the community. I soon heard this story, and could scarcely believe it was true. A relative of mine (I say this with deep shame), was a rabbi in that community. I asked him if the story was true. "Not only is it true, but I was on the committee that made that decision and went to speak with the owner". Seeing my jaw drop, he added "we HAD to do it. That was the only way we could get a unified kashrut policy". What I still don't know is, if the rabbis meant it; a unified policy was so vital that it didn't matter who was destroyed on the way? Or was it the income generated by the supervision "service" ($40,000/year for the agency; Mashgiach [kashrut supervisor] paid separately). Most people think that "kosher" always means rabbinic supervision. This is pure fiction. What is clear from the Talmud, as well as legal codes, is if the people preparing the food are not to be relied upon (e.g. people who themselves didn't keep kosher, or otherwise lacked credibility), a trustworthy person must supervise. Until the mid 1980s, rabbinic supervision was rare, with the exception of wine and meat, and in many places cheese (to be discussed in a later post). Canned and frozen fruit and vegetables, all kinds of packaged goods, were assumed to be kosher, unless a suspect item appeared on the ingredient panel. Everything began to change in the mid 1960s, taking over the Jewish community over the next two decades. Now, even bleach (which few sane people ingest)  has  supervision. A booklet appeared, put out by an Orthodox student group, under the auspices of a rabbi prominent in the kashrut industry. Through a series of half truths, as well as downright lies, the booklet "Proved" that virtually nothing can be kosher without supervision. Various chemicals "might" be used in the manufacturing process which "might" be non-kosher (as discussed in my previous post), machines "might" be dabbed with lard. The booklet even alleged that out of the five species of tuna, only two were kosher (false). If the ingredients read "100% pure vegetable oil", it could, and usually does, contain up to 4% animal oil (false). Any ingredient that is 2% or less of the total package, need not be listed (false. The actual number is two parts per million). The panic spread slowly, but spread it did. In the early '80s, I spoke to a Hungarian Hareidi rabbi of a community that was centered around a Yeshiva. I asked him if canned goods needed a Hechsher (kosher certification). He said "We tell the residents here to buy only with a hechsher. But for the Yeshiva, we get government surplus without a hechsher". The die was cast when Coor's Beer, which had been owned by an outspoken antisemite, applied for rabbinic supervision after the original owner's death. Sales skyrocketed. No other beer had supervision at that time, but had nevertheless been freely consumed. A rumor circulated (and was published in a Kashrut magazine) that some other beers were made from non-kosher wine (!!!!) Most companies then jumped on board. By 1990, nearly anything that could have a hechsher, did. This was a financial boon for the manufacturers, as well as the kashrut agencies. The kosher consumer, who had been dis-empowered by the false information, was now dependent on these agencies. In what ways was this actually good? How was it bad? (besides the reasons I have already stated), and is anyone fighting it?, will be the topic of my next post

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 11

When is a part of a non-kosher animal kosher? When it is no longer food. It is clear in the Talmud that although a dead bug is not kosher, a bug that has turned to dust is of no consequence. We also find that the hooves and horns of non-kosher animals may be ingested, if there is no flesh attached. Presumably, these things were for some medicinal purposes, much as Traditional Chinese Medicine (a hobby of mine) uses these things even today. There is a question raised in the Talmud if earth needs to be considered a non-kosher substance, since it contains the remains of countless creatures. The ruling is that it is not a problem, as the creatures have long ago decayed. This is all based on Deuteronomy 14:21, that tells us to give non-kosher meat to the GER (Toshav), or sell it to the pagan (Nochri, literally "stranger"), and he shall eat it.. The implication is understood that one can only give it, or sell it, if it is edible. One may not eat any non kosher flesh, until it is no longer food. However, if non kosher food should fall into kosher, if it is spoiled, or even if it does not taste good in that particular mixture, the kosher remains kosher. The non-kosher needs to be removed and discarded, but it has not contaminated anything else. This is called "Noten Taam LiFgam" (imparting a bad taste). So, you would not be able to eat pork, until it had essentially turned to dust. But if edible, yet bad tasting pork fell into your soup, just take it out and throw it away. This may seem like a very unlikely scenario. But in modern times, this has become a major bone of contention(no pun intended). For example, what is gelatin? It can be made from many things, but usually from pig bones and calf skins. Yikes, isn't that non-kosher?!?! Not necessarily! In the U.S., most rabbis forbid it. In Israel, most rabbis permit it. Nearly all Sepharadic rabbis around the world permit it.How? What it is made from is not the end of the story! It is soaked in an acid bath, until it becomes a colorless, tasteless powder. At that point, it is no longer food! Afterwards, other processes are done, which makes it again edible. Does this resurrect its non-kosher standing? The policy of the American Kashrut agencies is that it does. But if we check their references, we can see that they actually say "It's theoretically kosher, but better not to use it". This idea extends to a host of other food products and additives, that are made from non-kosher sources, but have undergone significant chemical changes. One would never guess where they come from! So, one controversy in the Kashrut field, is the issue of a vastly altered non-kosher substance. Another issue is "how altered makes it vastly altered?" A good example is whey. When milk is broken down, with the solids separating from the liquid portions (remember Little Miss Muffet?), the liquid part is called whey. But another solid part can be extracted from the whey. This is known as whey powder. It tastes and smells like vomit. But, besides being flavored and sold to athletes and heath food addicts as "protein powder", it plays a number of vital roles in the baking industry. Is it Kosher? Sure. But is it dairy, and hence forbidden to have with meat? Virtually all commercial bread has it. Is the final, disgusting powder still milk? These are the kinds of things rabbis love to fight over, and this remains a point of contention. However, there are certain people who have much to gain by declaring all of these things to be problematic, or even forbidden. They are called the Kashrut Industry, That will be the topic of my next post.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 10

The story of bugs in fish is a fascinating one. Rabbis differ on the issue, depending on their understanding of the nature of Talmud and the Oral Torah. I have already written in another series, that there are those who regard Talmud as a revealed text; always infallible and true. Others regard Talmud as the main repository of the Oral tradition regarding halachah, but the Aggadah (narrative parts) are primarily allegory, legend, or, in the case of scientific and medical information, simply the best knowledge of the day. This has been a source of contention since at least the early tenth century. But what do we do if a halachah is based on such a "scientific" concept, which is now known to be untrue? The Talmud states that there are two types of parasites that invade fish. One is aquatic creatures that the fish have ingested. Whether these creatures are alive or dead, they remain forbidden to eat. The other type is creatures, especially worms, that form in parts of the fish that are decaying because of an illness. Bugs formed by spontaneous generation are not considered to be true bugs, and, in the case of bugs found in the flesh of fish, they are completely kosher. This has been the accepted halachah for at least 1800 years. Faced with the undeniable fact that there is no such thing as spontaneous generation, rabbis have had to deal with this issue. Many of the more conservative (small "c") rabbis have said "No! Science is wrong! Since it is said in the Talmud, spontaneous generation is the truth, science is a lie". The first rabbis I studied under took this approach. An alternative view, close to the first, but with a different conclusion, is that "things have changed. The bugs that were produced by spontaneous generation were real, but are now extinct. The ones we see now are new ones (evolution?), and are therefore forbidden to eat. Some right-wing rabbis, therefore, forbid worms in fish flesh, which is actually a departure from the Talmud and normative halachah. A third view, which is the most widely accepted, is that although the worms and other parasites that we find in fish are not from spontaneous generation, but nevertheless hatched in the fish,  are therefore to be considered part of the fish, and hence kosher. This is the policy of the OU, and most other kashrut agencies. However, there are some rabbis within the OU who are pushing for a ban on these bugs, as the concept upon which the leniency was built is now known to be erroneous. Their view is that newly discovered facts can, indeed, change a long-accepted halachah. This view is being considered by halachic authorities, but few have been so bold as taking upon themselves the giving of a ruling based on such a revolutionary idea. In practice, however, these parasites should not be a problem unless seen. Like most common problems that exist in the kashrut area, if they do not constitute a majority of the cases, we are not required to look for them. In addition, we would have to see if these parasites remain intact after cooking. In this regard, sushi, made as it is from raw fish, is, theoretically more problematic. But even there, most are lenient. This issue of scientific concepts challenging traditional ones has many applications in other halachic areas as well. In the absence of a Sanhedrin, it will take a long time to resolve them. One more hotly debated topic is bugs, as well as other forbidden items that have undergone a fundamental transformation. I will go further into that question in my next post. However, it has been known since almost forever, that figs are pollinated by a species of wasp that then dies inside the fig. By the time the fig comes to you, it has been digested by enzymes in the fruit. Occasionally, you can detect an outline of the late wasp. There is absolutely no question that the wasp is no longer an insect of halachic concern. Nevertheless, I have seen many warnings about the fig wasp over the last few years. I suspect a new stringency is now hatching. Once the consumer is concerned, the kashrut industry, seeking to appeal to the customer's sensibilities (or insecurities), will often arrive at far-reaching conclusions, well beyond the boundaries of halachah..

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 9

At the end of my last post, I mentioned that a huge portion of the bug problem is alleviated by the simple fact that a bug, unless whole, is not a problem in most cases. The exception would be if one were to eat an entire bug, without any other food accompanying it. (YUM!) Let me explain. There is no question that eating an entire non kosher creature is Biblically forbidden. However, there are extensive laws regarding "Bittul" (nullification). Let's say a small piece of pork somehow fell into my steaming hot glatt kosher beef stew. If the pork was less than one sixtieth of the mixture, the mixture is kosher! If we can still see the pork, it should be removed. If it is no longer visible, it too becomes kosher. If, however, the pork was more than a sixtieth of the mixture, the entire pot of stew is not kosher. In fact, neither is the pot. (The laws of nullification are complex, and a qualified rabbi should be consulted in each case. In fact, it is in these laws that one is tested in order to become an Orthodox rabbi. I get several phone calls a day in this area). Now, this rule would apply in most cases. But bugs are an exception. An entire creature is never nullified. But if the bug is missing a wing, a leg, an antenna, it is nullified. However, this rule is of rabbinical rather than Biblical origin. Biblically, the bug would also be nullified, unless eaten by itself. So, contrary to my friend's wife's statement to Sima, if inadvertently there had been a bug in her salad, she would have violated one rabbinic law, rather than five Biblical laws. OK,, but rabbinic law is also binding! However, there is a difference. Where there is a doubtful case of a Biblical prohibition, we are required to be strict. A doubt in a rabbinic prohibition, we may be lenient. Theoretically, I should be able to down a head of lettuce without a second thought. But there is an issue of "Hazakah" (a legal assumption). Leafy lettuce usually has bugs. It has a hazakah of being buggy. Therefore, I need to check. Apples, at least in the U.S., are very rarely buggy. They do not need to be checked...unless I see a hole. Now, many rabbis rule that in the case of a vegetable that has been boiled, it can be assumed that any bug that was present, most likely is no longer whole. One should not rely on this in the first instance, as the laws of bittul deal with B'diavad (ex post facto) (Ashkeanzim usually say "B'dieved" which is a linguistic crime against nature and makes me cringe). Therefore, if I see that the produce is buggy, I cannot rely on boiling to solve the problem. However, if a cursory look shows no bugs, this may be relied upon. Also, in a restaurant, or in the home of a not-so-careful friend, boiled vegetables may be seen as non-problematic regarding the bug question. Frozen vegetables are likewise blanched in boiling water for several minutes, and are therefore permissible.In fact, freezing alone will usually result in the destruction of bug limbs. Could a whole bug have survived the boiling water intact? Of course. But now I have a doubt on a rabbinic law, which is permissible. An individual may be so strict about not eating bugs, that he may not wish to rely on this. But he would be acting on a stringency, which is above and beyond the law; meritorious, but not required. Local climatic and storage conditions can also be a factor. When we lived in Israel, Sima would always check through a box of oatmeal, and find a few bugs. In the U.S, we have never experienced that. When she would bake, she always sifted the flour, and almost always would come up with a worm or two. Again, we never experienced that here. Since oatmeal is cooked, and dough is kneaded, the likelihood of a bug surviving whole, is close to nil. But in a place where infestation is likely, one needs to check first. Where unlikely, there is no need. In my next post, I will deal with the controversy concerning worms in fish. Then on to other issues in Kashrut.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction, and In Between part 8

When we lived in Israel, Sima and I were once invited to a Bar Mitzvah celebration for a Chabad young man (now the Chief Rabbi of an East European country). While Sima was eating dinner, the wife of a friend approached her and asked: "How are you eating the salad? Every bug represents five Biblical prohibitions!" Now, this was a Hasidic family, in a Hasidic synagogue, with a strictly kosher caterer. Yet, my friend's wife was convinced that the lettuce was infested with forbidden creatures, and Sima's eternity was in jeopardy. . Why would she think that? Was she right? Well, yes and no. Indeed, in many cases, eating an insect is a serious set of sins. But one can argue this point from two different directions (at least!). One way would be to say that, just like in checking a slaughtered animal for organic defects, where even Biblically prohibited conditions are not sought after because of their rarity, and only lung conditions are checked, as they are both common and easy to examine, so only foods with a likelihood of being buggy, and whose examination requires little effort need be checked. Evidence for this approach is found in the Talmud. The only situation of bug checking that is referred to is regarding dates. Although bugs in dates are rare in the U.S., they are very common in Israel. About one in four dates will have beetles around the pit. One need only open the date, and one will instantly be able to ascertain the presence or non-presence of these beetles. But, nevertheless, are we REQUIRED to check? After all, there are still a minority of dates that are buggy. The answer is yes, as they are "Mi'ut hamatzui" (a common situation, although still a minority) AND checking is easy and quick. But others would argue that since the invention of the magnifying glass in the thirteenth century, all things are easy to check. This question was brought even more into focus (no pun intended) by the invention of the microscope in the seventeenth century, which revealed the reality that every drop of water is, in fact, teeming with living creatures. This was discussed by rabbis at that time, They concluded that creatures that could not be seen, are not forbidden by either the Torah or the Talmud. Ah, but what is considered "could not be seen"? Does that mean READILY seen? Or if held at a certain angle, and put under a bright light, can, with difficulty be seen? Rabbis differ on this point. A few decades ago, it was discovered that the tap water in New York City contains tiny crustaceans that can be seen if held to the light. Some rabbis then issued opinions that the water may not be drunk without filtration. Most, however, ruled that this is more similar to microscope conditions than something readily seen. Why is the Talmud silent about checking leafy vegetables? Didn't bugs exist then? Moshe Feinstein, writing around 1960, said that cabbage in America is non-buggy, and need not be checked; but one who "fears Heaven" will check it anyway. Today, many rabbis will tell us that it is impossible to check cabbage, and therefore it should not be eaten. What about "Reb Moshe's" ruling? He wasn't aware of the methodology of checking cabbage. Others would question the necessity of checking with a special "methodology". One of the advantages of being older is that I have a perspective of how attitudes and policies changed in my lifetime alone. When I went into the rabbinate in 1971, I had never heard of checking for bugs, except on leafy vegetables. Checking meant "look carefully". You don't see any bugs? It's kosher! Certain fruit. like peaches, often had bugs. A special instrument, known as a knife, was employed to cut open the fruit, and look to see if there is a worm present. A few years later, the standard became stricter. All leafy vegetables were put in water with some vinegar and soaked for an hour. (In Israel, dish detergent was substituted for the vinegar). After the soaking, eat up! After another few years, the standard changed again, so that every leafy vegetable had to be held up to the light,. An instrument, called a "lightbox", came in during the late '80s, which would make any bug stand out. This is still employed in many restaurants. A few years later, it was discovered that even after all precautions, some minute bugs would still be there. Many went over to specially grown greenhouse produce, or even hydroponics. Still others gave up on vegetables altogether, and adopted the policy of a very strict nineteenth-century rabbi (Hatam Sofer) who ate no greens. . Many would say that all of this is totally unnecessary. These minute creatures can only be found by knowledgeable professionals, using magnifying glasses. Some say that the standard is "what can be seen". But does that mean by the naked eye? With instruments. we can see things now that couldn't be seen in the past. Many rabbis now forbid the eating of strawberries, which are often infested with tiny mites. My son, who worked in this field, told me that he must check for these mites using a forty-power lens. There is a Talmudic dictum that "the Torah was not given to the Ministering Angels". That means superhuman efforts are never required. Is checking with a powerful lens "superhuman" or simply a way that is available to us today, that wasn't available before?Another issue is that the ancient rabbis believed in spontaneous generation. This was first questioned in the seventeenth century (Redi), but only conclusively disproved in the nineteenth century (Pasteur). Many of the halachot in this area are based on the idea that some bugs come from rot, and are therefore not really living creatures. Do we still accept those halachot, or must we be stricter, with our newfound knowledge? There is much anxiety and insecurity today among the strictly observant because of these issues. We need to find a balance between the concerns that might be real, and the idea that the Torah does not make unreasonable demands upon us. A complicating factor here is that competing companies are anxious to show that their competitors use insufficient means to prevent the presence of bugs in their competitors' produce. They will have vegetables marketed as "bug-free" carefully checked under a microscope, and gleefully publish these blown-up pictures on fliers or in ads. The result is that every company begins to get stricter and stricter, in order to prevent a "scandal". That which five years ago was seen as mere "dirt", must now be seen as infestation. My son tells me that there is no such thing as bug-free broccoli, cauliflower, and a host of other veggies, if we apply these standards In my next post, I will deal with a little-known halachic fact, widely known by rabbis, but little known by laymen. A bug that is not completely intact (no missing legs or wings), is not, for most halachic purposes, considered a bug at all. The implications and applications of this fact remove most of the problems. In addition, the situation of a bug constituting five Biblical prohibitions is a rarity indeed.(You would need to swallow the bug whole, with no other food.) Again, commercial interests are making every effort to disempower the consumer. That will be my next post.

Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 7

Although I always advocate the study of sources in the original (where possible), the fact is that there are many words in the Bible and Talmud whose meanings have been lost. Translations are no more than an educated guess. Some editions will, mercifully, give a footnote stating "meaning unclear". Sometimes, the unknown word or phrase is crucial for the understanding of the text. Results? Huge debates. So is the case with the humble egg. Some heretical groups consider them completely non-kosher. However, the halachah is clear: the egg of a kosher bird is kosher. The fly in the ointment is the issue of blood spots. There is an expression (used only twice in the Talmud) that reads "Beitzah Muzarah". This is translated as either "a strange egg', or "an estranged egg". Close, but far enough apart to spark a debate that continues for over a thousand years, up to this very day. The Talmud states "a beitzah muzarah can be eaten by a baal nefesh" What is a baal nefesh? Literally, it means "One with a soul". Great, what does that mean? It can be understood as an extremely pious person, or, alternatively, as a very rough person who doesn't care about aesthetics. Now come the two interpretations, both of which are post-Talmudic. One interpretation is that it refers to an egg that has been fertilized, and has been incubated for a few days, and then abandoned (estranged). The egg is kosher, but will look disgusting; rather like snot. A rough person who doesn't care about disgusting may eat it. (I'll pass, thank you very much). The other interpretation is that it means an egg that was unfertilized (strange), which is the case with virtually all store-bought eggs today (other than organic). If blood is present in the egg, we know that it is not from an embryo, and hence not a baby chick, which would mean that it is an animal that needs shechitah, and hence is an animal that "died of itself" and thus completely unkosher. According to this view, the blood found in an unfertilized egg is not true blood, and it may be eaten.Even a strict person need have no compunctions. However, "for the appearance of the eye", we don't eat it if seen, but there is no need to check. This becomes more complicated when we see that in one case where the term is used (in the commandment to free the mother bird before taking the eggs from her nest. Deut. 22:7), most rabbis take the first interpretation of beitzah muzarah (that it means a partially incubated egg), while in the question of blood spots, most take the second interpretation (that it is either an embryo, or else meaningless). RAMBAM is consistent, using the first interpretation in all cases, that blood in an egg is blood. Period. Scientifically, after fertilization, a white (not red) patch forms on the yolk, This is known as the blastoderm, which, in three weeks, grows to be a chick.Once the embryo can be recognized, it may not be eaten.A blastoderm will never look like blood. A bloodspot forms from the hemorrhaging of a blood vessel that is feeding the yolk during its development inside the chicken. That means that the blood is actually arterial chicken blood, and Biblically forbidden. The white of the egg forms much later. Therefore, the ruling of the Talmud is that if we find blood on the yoke (Ashkenazim include in this the clear cord-like structure that connects the yolk to the white), the entire egg is forbidden, as the blood, there from the beginning, has imparted a taste to the entire egg. If the blood is found on the white, the egg is kosher, as the blood came at the end, and did not impart its taste to anything else. However, the blood must be removed. According to the one view, because it is actual blood, and according to the other view, it is not "true blood", but is nevertheless forbidden because of "the appearance of the eye", rabbis differ greatly as to the severity of the issue. Several major recent authorities have opined that even on the yolk, the blood is meaningless in an unfertilized egg, except for appearances. and therefore eggs do not need to be checked. Only if seen, must the blood be removed. If already mixed in with other foods, no problem. This is totally unscientific, as an embryo will not appear as blood, or even a red color. Rather, whether fertilized or unfertilized, eggs with blood on the yolk must be discarded, while on the white, only the blood need be removed.If the egg was already mixed in with other foods, or even other eggs, it becomes a severe problem if interpreted as true blood. In practice, in countries where eggs are cheap and plentiful, most people discard an egg with blood. But the halachah is clear that it is OK to remove blood from the white. Technically, one doesn't really need to check, as most eggs do not have bloodspots. But, like the third-century enactment to check the lungs of an animal, since checking is easy, and problems do exist, and in most cases we open up eggs anyway, they should be checked. If one didn't, or if the lighting is not good enough, we dispense with this requirement. In most kosher homes, the eggs are cracked into a clear cup or bowl, and carefully examined. In most homes, eggs are boiled at least three at a time, so that if one is found to contain blood, the others will be unaffected.I personally take the strict view that blood in an egg is Biblically forbidden, as it is the only view tenable from a scientific perspective, and whether the egg is fertile or not, is irrelevant. In my next post, I will deal with the most controversial aspect of Kashrut, which is taken more strictly year by year. The dreaded bug.