Kashrut: Fact, Fiction and In Between part 13

 

Up until about 1970, kosher restaurants in the United States, and most other countries, were either 'self-supervised" or had a local rabbi pop in for a spot check, usually once a week. For canned and other packaged goods, the consumer relied on ingredients, especially as to the oil content. If it read "shortening", it meant lard. If it said "vegetable shortening", it was assumed to be kosher. The booklet to which I referred in my last post, slowly had the effect of educating that much more could go wrong with the ingredients besides oil, but also indoctrinated the public into believing that essentially nothing was kosher that didn't have a qualified rabbi carefully examining everything. Butcher shops, at that time, generally had a rabbi or Mashgiach (supervisor) make a weekly visit. From around 1970, that mostly vanished. Supervision was now understood to mean, especially in the case of meat, constant supervision. Those rabbis who were running "Kashrut Agencies" that didn't follow the new guidelines were mostly discredited. Actually, what kind of supervision is halachically required is a moot point. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), run by rabbis of the Rabbinical Council of America, the RCA (the same folks who, since the 1980s have accepted and promulgated the new and stricter conversion standards), jumped on the new and stricter standards of kashrut. Their Kashrut agencies, once tiny, now became a huge business, with influence on virtually every aspect of food production. What was positive about this, was that they set uniform standards. What was negative about this, was that they set uniform standards. On the positive side of the ledger, charlatans were largely put out of business. Also, since most people did not really understand the ingredient panel of products, there was now no need to worry. The OU on the packaging was all that was needed. The layman, who could not be expected to know that "suet" meant beef fat, would be able to rest assured. On the other hand, standards were set by their own board. Questionable areas, where rabbis disagree, were given a single answer. Local rabbis had their discretionary power taken away from them. Some areas, like cheese production (to be discussed in a later post), have rabbinic opinion stretching from one extreme to the other. For most Orthodox communities, the OU's answer became "THE" answer. More right-wing groups, however, were dissatisfied with the OUs standards, which they saw as too lax. The Satmar Rabbi was reported to have made a bilingual pun; "Der U? Nem you!" (The U? You take it!). Although other national Kashrut agencies have sprung up, none is as influential or powerful as the OU. However, as it is also a business; non-halachic considerations also take a part. Competitors need to be fought (again, like in the story of the restaurant in my last post). I choose not to elaborate. A major problem not just with the OU, but virtually all agencies (other than Satmar and a few others) is that there is an inherent conflict of interests when it comes to the Mashgichim. The way hechsherim (Kashrut certifications) work, is that a representative of the agency first visits the plant, and decides what, if anything, needs to be done to make it kosher. Once an understanding has been reached, a Mashgiach is assigned to the plant. The Mashgiach may or may not be a rabbi, but has been trained in what to look for. Although the agency takes a substantial fee (typically $40,000/year), the Mashgiach gets, in most cases, close to minimum wage. Furthermore, the Mashgiach is paid by the plant, not the agency. If he finds something improper and informs the agency, the plant manager can, and usually will, fire him. The agency will endeavor to place him in another plant, but that is not always possible. Every time a Mashgiach points out a problem, he must put his meager livelihood on the line. Some ultra-Orthodox agencies, on the other hand, pay their Mashgichim directly, thus avoiding this problem. (I was told by one of the top OU executives that if the Mashgichim were not paid by the plants, it would be "too difficult" to ensure the agency's reimbursement). Other conflicts of interest also exist. In the early '80s, the largest producer of poultry products in the U.S., Perdue, was in talks with the OU about becoming Kosher. This would have drastically lowered the exorbitant price of Kosher poultry. The major producer of Kosher poultry found out about this, and told the OU "We made you! For thirty years, we supported you, and essentially put you on the map. Now you're going to put us out of business, and set up a competitor?" The OU dropped the new project, citing a sense of loyalty to their long-standing client. But many consumers were outraged. "Is your loyalty to that manufacturer, or to the Kosher consumer?" The protests were to no avail. One man, adored by many, but hated by many more, especially in the establishment, has been a feared opponent of the Kashrut industry for over fifty years. In my opinion, he is the greatest halachic figure alive today. That will be my next post.

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 twenty 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 disempowered 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? That 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 since decayed. This is all based on Deuteronomy 14:21, which 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 health 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 bone 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.

Stringencies part 5

 We have seen that while some rabbis and groups see stringencies as part of our true devotion to G-d, others see stringencies as a distraction from serving G-d, an expression of ego, and a major source of depression when we do not meet the higher standards that we ourselves have created. Another artificial function of stringencies is to create a sense of community, based on a holier-than-thou attitude. Some groups follow great stringencies, far exceeding halachic strictures. Examples include, but are not limited to, refraining from consuming green vegetables for fear of ingesting an insect, resurrecting long-forgotten rules that were, centuries ago, ruled to be no longer applicable, such as refraining from new grain even outside of Eretz Yisrael, many stringencies regarding shaatnez (forbidden mixtures of wool and linen), as well as standards of kashrut that go way beyond the halachic requirements. Also included in this area are those who have "discovered" an obscure statement in a classical source (RAMBAM, ARI, Rabbi Judah the Pious), and openly defy accepted practice, with an arrogant attitude of "how can you NOT do this?" (I am not speaking of reinstituting older practices when well-founded and logical, but rather extreme opinions that are NOT part of the halachic system. These practices provide a false sense of comradery (I'm a follower of this or that group, and we don't eat that. We are so special!), as well as providing an ego boost to the individual. If these were consistent, uniformly following the opinions of figures like the above named rabbis, I would not criticize. But these groups are rarely consistent, and often ignore much more basic principles espoused by these rabbis.  For example, many Hasidic communities emphasize rulings of ARI, but ignore the adherence to halachic times of prayer, stressed both in Halachic literature, and even more in ARI. Of course, rationalizations are offered (I'm not ready yet for prayer, and need to prepare). These arguments hold no water. If I'm not "ready' for Shabbat on Friday afternoon, can I put it off for Monday? In the Yeshivish community, many take great leniencies with prayer, so as not to diminish the time for study. In all of these instances, I would argue that the stringencies are more directed at self-aggrandizement, rather than a desire to serve G-d. I believe that such behavior is an example of being so right, that we are wrong. Wo must always question our motives. Are we trying to please G-d, other people, or our selves.  

The Train Wreck part 7

We will now go back to the immediate aftermath of the Shabbatean debacle. As I have written previously, few rabbis of the time dared oppose Shabbetai Tzvi. Most either supported him, or else took a wait and see attitude. The primary opponents to the new heresy were Rabbis Yaakov Sasportas and Tzvi Ashkenazi. Their lives were under constant threat from the Shabbateans, even well after Shabbetai's apostasy, as it was felt that the failure of Shabbaetai's mission was due to their opposition. After Rav Tzvi Ashkenazi passed away, his son, Rabbi Yaakov Emden (named for a city he had lived in, but more commonly known as Yaavetz; Yaakov Ben Tzvi) took up the cudgel of fighting the holdouts of Shabbateanism. One of his targets was Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzato (RAMCHAL), whom historians have exonerated. His other main target was Rabbi Yonatan Eybeschütz, who served as rabbi of communities in Poland, Moravia, Bohemia, as well as several important German cities. Both men published extensively on matters of Halachah and Kabbalah. Rabbi Emden was the center of controversy, as he challenged the antiquity of the Zohar (although he steadfastly defended its doctrines), and declared RAMBAM's "Guide" to be a heretical forgery, that could not have been written by the same author as RAMBAM's legal code. He also accepted Christianity as an excellent alternative to Judaism for non Jews. Rabbi Eybeshutz was long rumored to be guilty of Shabbatean leanings. Already suspicious, the controversy erupted full blown, when there came into the hands of Rabbi Emden, some amulets allegedly written by Rabbi Eybeshutz, which upon examination were seen to contain numerous reference to Shabbetain Tzvi, declaring him to be the Messiah. Rabbi Eyebshutz denied having written the amulets. The 1750s was marked by declarations of excommunication from both sides. Even German nobility entered the fray. Rabbi Emden accused Rabbi Eybeshutz of incest, and the resulting issue was now a Shabbatean leader. Defenders of Rabbi Eybeshutz countries that he had, years earlier, been on a Beit Din that excommunicated the Shabbatrans. Others suggested that this was a ploy, meant to take the heat off of Rabbi Eybeshutz. In the meantime, several students of Rabbi Eybeshutz's yeshiva were outed as active Shabbateans. His own son declared himself to be a Frankist "prophet".  Many documents have come to light in the intervening centuries, that showed many of Rabbi Emden's accusations to be true. Many claim that these are forgeries. In any case, nearly all historians completely accept the accusations, as well as most Orthodox historians, although the latter tend to play down the incident. In strictly Orthodox circles, the accusations are considered to be utter nonsense. One Modern Orthodox rabbi wrote a  book on Rabbi Eybeshutz, calling it "Bechor HaSatan" (The First Born of Satan), thus giving away his stance already in the title. The after effects of this dispute were several. For one, Shabbateans and Frankists were now out in the open, and it was perfectly acceptable to oppose and censure them. Secondly, the spectacle of two Jewish leaders out to destroy each other, caused a great decline in respect for rabbis, and even for Orthodoxy itself. This paved the way for greater acceptance of Reform. In addition, Rabbi Eybeshutz's approach to halachah was, ironically, very strict. A number of modern day groups base their approach on him. Was his strictness merely a means of driving people away from halachic observance, by making it very onerous? Theories abound. One additional aspect of the controversy was that one famous rabbi defended Rabbi Eyebshutz to the hilt, even granting him a letter of ordination. That document, however, is filled with Shabbatean catchphrases. Again, some argue "forgery", albeit without a shred of proof. I will not say who this defender was. If you know, please don't say, as it would draw me into a fight I am not strong enough for. A prominent Orthodox historian, speaking on condition of anonymity, told me "we know all of this, and are doing out best to keep it quiet". Yes, the influence of Shabbateanism and Frankism continues.

The Train Wreck part 6

Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) was an assimilated, German speaking Swiss Jew. As a journalist for a Swiss newspaper, he was assigned to cover the Dreyfus trial in 1894. Alfred Dreyfus was a captain in the French army. France had just lost a war to Germany. His superior officers, ashamed of their blunders, forged documents showing that Dreyfus, a Jew, had been giving military information to the Germans. Without him, France would surely have won the war. He was tried, dishonorably discharged, and sent to Devils Island under a life sentence. He was finally exonerated in 1906. Herzl was shocked at the sight of mobs running through the streets of Paris, crying "Death to the Jews!". Was this, then, the land of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? If the Jews are not safe in Paris, where could they be safe? He tried, but failed, to have all Jews around the world, present themselves at their local churches, to be Baptised at the same hour of the same day, thus putting an end to antisemitism, by putting an end to the Jews. He had no success in this endeavor. Instead, he wrote a book, Judenstaat, in which he set forth a vision of a secular Jewish state. He organized the First Zionist Congress in 1897. He thought that Jews from all over would rush to the new cause. But Western European Jews, despite Dreyfus, felt reasonably comfortable in their adopted homelands. A responsive chord was struck among the oppressed Jews of the Russian Empire. These Jews were also secular, and sought to create a Jewish worker's Paradise. It was only at the Third Zionist Congress that some religious Jews joined in. They made it clear that they thought the planned State would be secular, but with provisions made for the religious to feel comfortable. They specifically denied that they saw the movement as in any way messianic or representing Divine Redemption. They only needed a country that would be a safe haven. Let us be clear. This was a longing for a secular peoples' G-dless redemption. It was right out of Franlist ideology. Nearly every rabbi in the world opposed the new movement. The Fifth Lubavitcher Rebbe declared it to be "worse than Christianity." Herzl was a great organizer, but a very shallow ideologue. The latter position was filled by Max Nordeau. Nordeau proposed the following. The Jews are a nation, like any other. In order to bind them together, Moses gave them a religion. When they lost their country, the rabbis gave them more religion, in the form of the Talmud. That, it was hoped, would keep them together, even while they were scattered. Now, in the days of every ethnic group forming a nation state (which essentially lead to World War I), a good Jew now is one who works for a state for the Jews. Religion, at this point, only divides, and should be eliminated. I should point out that every major Israeli city has a Herzl and a Nordeau street or avenue. The new settlers in the Holy Land clashed with the Old Yishuv. It must be pointed out that the Hareidim didn't come to Israel, but rather Israel came to them. The irreconcilable differences in ideology are a sore point to this very day. The idea of "Religious Zionism" came in some thirty years later, in the person of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. He boldly claimed that the Messianic redemption had begun. The institutions of the Zionist movement were "the foundation stones of the Divine Throne". What about the fact that the Zionists were not only secular, but deliberate, spiteful sinners. He "explained" that this, the final Redemption, was through "Rachamim Rabbim" (Great Mercies; Isaiah 54:7). The observance of Mitzvot, while still a good thing to do, was no longer a factor in Redemption. We had entered a new era. Sound familiar much?
Next time, well go back to the mid eighteenth century, to a dispute that divided Jewry (and still does), that still raises anger on each side. Guess what? It centers around Shabbaetai Tzvi.

The Train Wreck part 5

We have seen how Shabbatean ideas, through "the Enlightenment", had forged a national identity out of a large segment of East European Jews. Although this movement was secular, religious Jews were not immune. Two Shabbatean works became popular in Eastern Europe, neither being too obvious as to their origin. One was the main propagandist book of moderate Shabbateans, the Hemdat HaYamim ("Pleasantness of Days"), often considered the most beautiful book the Jewish people ever composed. It is a full compendium of Jewish life and ritual. It contains original prayers, some still recited in many synagogues. But it also contains stories, ostensibly about ARI and other great Tzaddikim, putting in their mouths praise for many abominations. Many of the prayers are clear references to Shabbetai Tzvi's life. (Please release him from prison, let him sit on his throne with "'Ateret Tzvi"; a beautiful crown, or "The Crown of Tzvi". This book is so insidious, that it is still revered in some North African communities. Another book that became very popular in Hasidic circles was "Sefer HaTzoref" (The Book of the Refiner). Herschel Tzoref was a Shabbatean rabbi, who ran a court similar to the Hasidic courts of a century later. The Baal Shem Tov possessed a copy. Rabbi Levi Yitzchak of Bardichev tried to have it printed, but the print house refused to touch it. Both of these books inspired many with the immediate need to go to the Holy Land, as the Mashiach was soon to come. Several late Eighteenth Century saw Hasidic leaders moving to Tiberias, anti-Hasidic (Mitnagdim), moving to Safed, as well as outright Shabbateans moving to Jerusalem. In the following century, many religious Jews formed a group called "Hevevei Zion", and left the Russian Empire for the Land of Israel. Their motives were primarily religious. But these motives would probably not have come about if not for the legacy of Shabbatean messianism. They formed what is known as "the Old Yishuv" (the old settlement). The ultra Orthodox communities in Jerusalem and elsewhere are the descendants of these communities, now boasting being nine or ten generations in the Land.  But secular nationalism was about to invade, heavily driven by the Frankist notion of a non halachah bound Judaism, Next time.