Kosher Blog

As much as the institution sometimes annoys me, I have to admit that this is a good argument for seeking out reliable hashgachah.

I think that the kosher-keeping guests were too trusting. Why should they expect the hosts who don’t keep kosher to ask the right questions when seeking out kosher food? Most things that would be red flags to us won’t be to them. A lot of people think that any deli or bagel place is kosher. Whenever I have gone to events hosted by people who don’t themselves keep kosher and was told that kosher food would be provided, I politely as possible asked who the caterer would be or where the food was from, then call the establishment and ask them whose hashcagah they are under. I started this after I went to a bar-mitzvah at which I was told that kosher food would be provided for me and it turned out to be a vegitarian option from the same treif caterer.

I would think that the contract should say that the meal is kosher on there clearly. For our wedding, we were unable to get a kosher caterer; however, our contract stipulated the use of only kosher meat, no dairy products and new pots/pans, etc. That satisfied our level of kashrus and since our wedding was so far away, there were none of our more observant (and most of my non-observant) friends around to worry about. :-)

After reading the update, I still of course feel bad for the unsuspecting guests that ate treyf seafood, but I can’t feel very bad for the hosts. They cheaped out and didn’t order a specifically kosher meal and you get what you pay for. I think its funny that so many people with money coming out of their ears have treyf simchas due to cost, yet Orthodox Jews who make $35,000 a year and have ten kids have no trouble buying kosher meat for Shabbos and family simchas.

A few thoughts…

I will be getting married within the next year. The caterer I am using is a DC area caterer with a kosher division supervised by Metro-K. In my case, there is only two “slight” differences between my decision and the one made by the plaintiffs. First, I’m actually using the caterer’s kosher division. Second, I’m not using Ridgewells. My caterer even uses different letterhead for his kosher catering contracts. Kosher supervision is prominently listed in bold print on the contract.

I’m doing this, because I keep kosher. The fact that the synagogue where my wedding is being held requires a kosher caterer is of secondary importance to me. This means that a mashgiach temidi will be present at ALL times during food preperation and service.

The caterer was keen to show me one of his events. All food was sealed while in transit. Signs listing the supervision were prominently displayed there. I also ran into the on-site mashgiach overseeing and enforcing kashrut at the event.

All of the Metro-K certified caterers I have visited during the course of caterer-shopping were keen to point out to me that they cannot even enter their own kosher kitchens without the mashgiach. The mashgiach’s key is required to unlock the door. For obvious reasons, there are valid reasons for this practice.

My question is, if the plaintiffs didn’t use Ridgewell’s Kosher Division, how could they even think that their event even remotely resembled anything kosher?

The caterer which I am using was more than happy to put me in contact with Metro-K. Their rabbis and mashgichim were quick to answer all of my kashrut questions. These included kashrut questions regarding my menu as well as their input over chocolate favors I am planning to hand out to my guests.

Ridgewells is a very high priced caterer, and their stamp on an affiar seems to have some snob appeal. It also seems to give them carte blanche to charge very high prices on everything. For example, for a 120 person dairy affair, the mashgiach fee was nearly $2900 or more than $24/person.

In contrast, my whole affair only costs $65.10/person including staff, food, (including hors d’oeuvres hour, main buffet with an additional station and wedding cake with additional dessert), non-alcoholic beverages, china, silverware, glass and linens, tax, along with the mashgiach fee, of course.

My question is, why does Ridgewells charge so much money for the mashgiach when both Ridgewells’ Kosher Division and the caterer I’m using are both supervised by the same supervising organization???

If anyone has the answers, I’d love to read them.

My guess is that Ridgwells charges so much for a mashgiach because they don’t want to be bothered and the feel that having one is an inconvenience to them. The high fee serves to disuade the customer and also to “reimburse” themselves for the inconvenience. This is just conjecture.
As an aside. I believe that the Metro-K is under Conservative auspices and might not be acceptable to everyone and could potentially be a problem if you have any Orthodox guests. It is certainly your decision what caterer to use but you should be aware of those potential ramifications. Mazel tov!

Thanks for the mazel tov. I am certainly aware that Metro-K is a conservative hashgacha. I am not orthodox and neither are 97+% of my guests. I believe that since my affair is dairy, the kashrut issues should be minimal, in light of the fact that my orthodox guests do not restrict themselves to cholov israel products and that the event is occuring neither on shabbat or yom tov. I have been keen to keep them informed of my decision, and to request their input if they had any specific concerns.

I don’t want to put a damper on your wedding plans, but speaking as someone who is Orthodox (very modern), nobody that I know would eat at an affair with Conservative hashgacha, even though it’s dairy, not on Shabbat, etc. for the exact same reason that you wouldn’t eat at an unsupervised Ridgwell’s affair — you just don’t know what’s going on in the kitchen. It may sound harsh, but to an Orthodox person, Conservative supervision is exactly the same as no supervision. The fact that the meal is dairy helps a bit, but it doesn’t prevent problems with non-kosher cheese, wine, or gelatin; bugs in the vegetables; the use of products in preparing the food which themselves don’t have hashgacha; or problems with the kashrut of the pots and pans, ovens or dishes.

I’m telling you this only because I’m guessing that your Orthodox guests may not want to trouble you or look prejudiced, but they’ll be eating carrot sticks at your wedding. If you’re paying $65 a person, you might want to make arrangements for them to receive sealed meals with an Orthodox hashgacha.

Lving in large orthodox community I can assure you, Karen, that you are completely wrong in your broad swath assumptions.

I know more than a few shommer kashrut orthodox folk in my area who wont attend services in a conservative shul, but will eat not only dairy but also meat products under conservative supervion.

Then again I also have conservative friends who wont accept certain so called “orthodox” kosher certifications.

I dont know anything about the MetroK, but it could very well be that they are not as liberal as you seem to assume.

Insofar as I am aware, the supervision is not as liberal as some may think. Cheese is not an issue. Metro-K will not accept hashgachas like Tablet-K, and the caterer I’m using uses OU certified cheeses.

Gelatin is not on the menu and I’m providing my own mevushal wines. If someone is so distrustful of my standards of kashrut, I wouldn’t invite him/her to my wedding PERIOD. We all have to make judgements in our own best interests, and I believe I have done so for me.

For the record, it’s just that type of thinking which, in a sense, stops me from shopping at kosher butchers under va’ad supervision. Why should I spend a premium to purchase poultry and cheeses as well as other grocery items such as tofutti, pasta sauces, cereals, etc. at a va’ad supervised store where my yiddishkeit is not respected, when I can go to Trader Joe’s and purchase the exact same items, in sealed containers, and supervised by the the same nationally recognized hashgacha, for 30-35% less?

One other thing. I wouldn’t have thought that someone who did not trust a particular hasgacha would even eat carrot sticks at an event supervised by it, given that the carrots could be sitting on a “non-kosher” plate or dish.

While Karen’s suggestion that “Conservative supervision is exactly the same as no supervision” certainly comes off as harsh, it is defensible to say that Conservative interpretation and execution of the laws of kashrut differ significantly enough from any normative Orthodox system that, in general, those who subscribe to the Orthodox system should find it unkosher. Karen provides some useful examples, regarding cheese, wine, and gelatin.

For reference, the Rabbinical Assembly’s teshuvot on those subjects are available online: Davar Hadash (regarding gelatin), The Use of All Wines, Kashrut of Microbial Enzymes (mentions the 1972 Klein Teshuva allowing any cheese whatsoever).

Thus, we know that it is well within the realm of possibility for a Conservative hashgacha or synagogue to serve what the Orthodox would consider unkosher cheese, unkosher wine, and unkosher foodstuffs containing gelatin. As such, without knowing in graphic detail the practices of a particular hasgacha, caveat emptor and “Ask your rabbi” are in full effect.

“Soon to be married,” though, should be lauded for informing friends about the kashrut situation and building dialog on the matter.

“What might be right for you, may not be right for some.”

It is not a question of distrusting your standards, but simply of having different ones. Should I have not have invited people to my wedding who keep pas yisroel because I don’t? Or not invited people who keep yoshon because I don’t? Certainly you can’t please everybody, but accomodations can be made. In your case it doesn’t seem to matter, as 97% percent of your guests are Conservative and you feel confident that there won’t be an issue for any Orthodox guests you might have. It is your wedding and you can do what you want, but respect for another’s yiddishkeit is a two-way street. I have been to more than one non-Orthodox simcha at which I couldn’t eat. It is a very uncomfortable feeling -worse than at secular events- with people staring pointing and snickering about the “food not being kosher enough for him”
As for the carrot sticks on treif dishes: it is not an issue because it is cold.

With respect, I must disagree.

I have seen on too many occassions where two or more fervently orthodox rabbis disagree on kashrut standards. I have seen where an orthodox rabbi will reject a particular hashgacha and another, equally learned one will accept it. Unfortunately, too many people have different views on what kosher is. Cholov Israel vs. non-Cholov Israel, Pas Israel va. non-pas Israel. Glatt vs. non-glatt are only a small part of this equation.

It gives the distinct impression that on some level, those who enfore the claim of a “higher” level of kashrut are doing it out of financial self-interest, and that those who pay for it are suckers on some level. The reason why I am using the term “higher” level of kashrut is because it is generally assumed that those with standards are seen as “sub-standard” will still eat in a location with the so-called “higher” standard while the opposite is not true.

For example, why would Star-K administer Star-D, when Star-K expressly prohibits non-cholov israel products. Doesn’t this seem odd to anyone?

Too many people, in order to placate a small fraction of their guests, are forced to make exceptions for them. These include vegan, specific levels of kashrut, gluten free diet, food alergies, etc. Given the unreasonable price of putting on a simcha, expecially for someone with a relatively small income and a tight budget, what type of expectations are reasonable? I’m putting on the best kosher simcha I can within my budget. After examing the standards of the certifying agency, I am satisfied with their level of oversight, but I’ll be DARNED if I’ll be put through the humiliation of having to explain to guests, especially non-jewish ones, that my level of kashrut isn’t up to someone else’s standards. It would give the distinct impression that I am somehow deficient as a Jew, a notion I wholly reject, ESPECIALLY on my wedding day.

Amen. The notion that this is Conservative versus Orthodox is a smear by those who dont understand the Conservative community has varients within and are unwilling to acknowledge that there are disagreements, some of substance others merely politcal, within the Orthodox community. Neither is a monolith to be treated with a broad brush.

I understand that there is a huge amount of variation within the Conservative community, just as there is within the Orthodox community. I also freely admit that many kashrut disputes are political/financial. However, the fact remains that in matters of kashrut, those who consider themselves Orthodox trust (or should trust!) only those who, at a minimum, identify themselves as subscribing to Orthodox standards and keep those standards in their own lives (don’t violate Shabbat in public, for example). Someone who poskins that you can drive on Shabbat as long as it’s to shul may in fact keep kashrut standards that are just as strict, or stricter, than mine — but the problem is that I can’t trust him in matters of kashrut, period. That’s what I meant when I said that I consider Conservative hashgacha to be the equivalent of none — the Conservative mashgiach may in fact be a fine human being who is very knowledgeable about kashrut, but by definition his supervision isn’t of value to me.

When you say that you wouldn’t invite anyone to your wedding who doesn’t trust your kashrut, I have two responses: 1) that hardly demonstrates you openness to differing levels of observance — you’re saying that you’re not interested in having someone as a friend who keeps different standards, and 2) even if I knew and trusted YOU, you won’t be in the kitchen. You’re not asking your guests to trust you, you’re asking them to trust the hashgacha of your caterer.

The smear continues…on one hand you suggest an understanding of divergent opinion within the Conservative community, then you proceed to state you wouldnt accept any Conservative hasgacha because of the views of another member of the same league. And the notion that you blindly accept Orthodox oversight wiouth unique inquiry shows the same blind acceptance on the other pole.

It’s not about views, it’s about the supervising individual’s personal level of religious practice. I have a presumption — not an irrebutable one, but a presumption — in favor of trusting those who keep Shabbat in public, and distrusting those who don’t. Both sides of that can be changed when I have individualized information. As for not trusting someone who is fully observant, as you point out, there are a lot of political reasons that people point fingers, and therefore my personal practice is to trust all Orthodox hashgachot unless told otherwise by my particular rabbi, who is very sensitive to these sorts of issues. As for trusting someone who does not fully keep Shabbat in public, the problem is that that person has, by definition, taken themselves out of the group of observant Jews as I define it, and therefore I can’t assume that their food is kosher.

Both of these generalizations will be both under- and over-inclusive, but we can never know what really goes on in someone else’s kitchen, particularly someone that we don’t even know. Unlike many others, I don’t generalize by whether his wife wears opaque stockings or whether he has a TV — my question is simply whether the person himself holds himself out as being fully observant, and the very minimal standard of whether he keeps Shabbat fully in PUBLIC. Someone who drives his car down the street on Shabbat has made a very public statement that he does not feel bound by Torah. If that’s a “smear,” then so be it.

Without a doubt, there are differences between Orthodox hashgachas… “Ask your rabbi” is always the name of the game. So, Harlan, let’s stop ‘playing the sect card’ and have an open discussion of the matter. I specifically included RA teshuvot in my last comment so there was something concrete we could address: there are, broadly and specifically, significant differences between what the Conservative movement will accept as a legitimate interpretation of kashrut and what a majority of Orthodox poskim will accept. I am making no judgements of anyone’s character, nor am I calling Conservative interpretations deficient. I am merely identifying real, arguable differences that are altogether of a more severe degree than typical differences between Orthodox hashgachos (like the chumra of cholov yisroel, as has been pointed out).

Those differences, Harlan and ‘Soon to be married’, are the basis for my overall message, which I try in earnest to convey with the utmost care: we, individually, have standards by which we live, and others have standards by which they live, and we must be willing to accept that our personal feelings, interpretations, and practices of kashrut may not be universally reciprocal. Some folks won’t eat my cheese because it’s not cholov yisroel — I don’t mind, that’s their choice. I won’t eat cheese that isn’t inculcated with rennet by an observant Jew — I hope that my friends in the Conservative movement can understand and respect that choice.

The example of Star-K’s administration of Star-D may seem peculiar to you, ‘Soon’, but it may actually be an example of how the Star-K understands and accepts that many Orthodox Jews don’t adhere to the stringency of cholov yisroel like they do. They are making an alternative heksher available to the companies and consumers who desire it, and they also fully distinguish from their own normal practice. That’s fine with me.

Well said, Jabbett.
Harlan and an Soon should realize, that with a few exceptions Orthodox Jews do not view different kashrus standards within the Orthodox community to be “treif.” Most people who keep cholav yisroel will eat off of non cy dishes; most people who eat only pas yisroel will eat off of non py dishes, etc.
It is Soon’s wedding and she can do what she wants, but I am honestly baffled by the approach of refusing to admit that her kashrus standards might not meet someone else’s. I’m perfectly willing to admit that mine don’t meet everyone’s!

I don’t think there’s any inconsistency at all in my argument. Although it would be great to be able to accomodate everyone, it is simply not possible to do so. Kashrut is different than other dietary standards in this respect.

For Hallal, generally speaking, so long as you don’t serve pig products, you’re alright. For vegerarian, so long as you don’t serve animal products, you’re alright. For vegan, so long as you serve neither animal or dairy products, you’re alright.

But with kosher, so many different interpretations and opinions exist that it’s impossible to please everyone.

This leaves me with one of three choices:

First, I can create a different different menus for different people to accomodate their level of kashrut. Creating exceptions for established menus is expensive, especially if the aim is to give someone an equal food experience as other guests. We simply cannot afford it. Serving a $5 microwavable meal is not an acceptable option for me, given the type of event.

Second, I can use a caterer who is supervised by a universally accepted hasgacha. This is unrealistic, given their fees, my budget and certain stringencies which I reject, specifically an insistence on Cholov Israel not only for the menu, but also for the wedding cake. We specifically wanted a dairy wedding cake, therefore the dairy meal. This choice also helped drastically reduce costs.

The third choice is to create a menu with a hashgacha I personally trust and to treat all guests equally. It is as if people would come over to my house. Simply put, in my house, MY rules apply. More importantly, I am not attempting to hide my decision. I have made it abundantly clear to my guests and have told them they are free to contact the organization if they have any queries.

I am not at all unwilling to accept that my kashrut standards don’t meet everyone’s standards. However, with all respect to David and Karen, it is wrong to try and impose your kashrut standards on me, especially in what is, in effect, my house. I look at it this way. If I have trusted these people with food I am serving, it is as if the food is being served in my house. If you are uncomfortable eating my food, don’t. While it might not seem that spending a couple of hundred dollars to placate a couple of guests is that big a deal, when the budget does not allow for it, and when the simcha is being self-financed, those dollars are very hard to come by. Ufortunately, fiscal realities have become my over-riding concern, once my personal kashrut concerns were placated. I really wish I could satisfy everyone’s individual needs, but I can’t. In the end, I do believe that my fiance’ and I have succeeded in making the best possible choices for us.

I can certainly understand that cost is a significant factor in the final decision and that you can’t please everybody. At my wedding, there were people who ate fish or vegan who ordinarily would have loved to eat meat. There were people who would not eat the baked goods at the tisch. The most accepted caterer in the area I felt was too expensive.
What you said/implied that shocked and slightly offended me was that you would simply not invite someone who was not comfortable with the level of kashrut provided and wouldn’t eat there. Should my treif-eating relatives not invite me to their simchas because I keep kosher? What if someone’s level of kashrut is not eating pork or shellfish yet eating unschechted meat; should they refrain from inviting Conservative friends who refuse to eat unschechted meat even out of the home?
Also, speaking from the point of view of an Orthodox guest who has both gone hungry at events and had his share of shrinkwraped sandwiches and $5 microwave meals while everone one else eats “fancy,” it SURE beats going hungry. You made it sound like this is not an issue for you and your guests, though.
Mazel tov again.

Hi my wedding was ‘kosher style’ we had no shell fish or pork. For main entires guests had either salmon or chicken. however, the cake was dairy in the ned and we had icecream. The glat kosher guests got complete meals (poached salmon) with deserts that were prepared by strictly glat kosher catering. We also had separate hour d’oerves for them markes “kosher’ that included vegetables and a dip. Unfortunately, we could not accomodate them with more hour d’oerves. Also we had kosher wine upon their request and of course beer (which is mostly always kosher).
Kosher weddings are expensice, and unless you have a lot of glat kosher guests this is the best thing to do.

“Most people who keep cholav yisroel will eat off of non cy dishes; most people who eat only pas yisroel will eat off of non py dishes, etc.”

Sadly, in my experience, this is not always true. People who polish their kashruth observance to the level of a fetish are rarely looking for a way to permit such “heters”, rather, they seek to isolate themselves from others, including Jews with a more rational approach to kashruth. They set themselves aside against the good of the Jewish people; they practice ‘Frumkeit’ , not Yiddishkeit, which is ultimately narishkeit.

As for the Conservative movement, the closest thing to truth I’ve read so far is that you can’t tell anything about any congregation, not matter what their affiliation, from the outside. I can personally attest that the Conservative shul I attend does not allow gelatin products (even though there are notable legal positions permitting various forms by known Orthodox rabbis over the last century); nor do they allow swordfish, nor do they allow cheese without supervision (strict level). Many of us walk to shul on Shabbat (because we can safely do so thanks to sidewalks in this area); others drive, as so the folks that park around the corner from the Orthdox shuls. The rabbi also forbids, BTW, veal - the meat banned by R. Feinstein that I see my Orthodox friends eating at the local (OK supervised) Chinese Restaurant. My friends only seem to remember R. Feinstein’s thoughts on why Conservative rabbis are the scum of the earth; funny how these things work, eh? Perhaps they are distracted by the uncovered hair of (the majority of) their wives? My Conservative rabbi surprised and annoyed local Orthodox frumies that made the mistake of thinking that he didn’t know his gemara and couldn’t hold his own in halachic debates.

I assure you, the distrust of kashruth supervision goes in many directions; Orthodox supervision by no means gets an automatic pass in my book. There are no products from Postville in my (kosher) house because we don’t believe we can trust their supervision, and because we think there are kashruth dangers that abound in large-scale factory slaughter. Then again, I find the strict position on cheese supervision taken by most Orthodox rabbis unnecessary and a burden on kosher consumers. We enjoy both kosher and stam wine, each in their proper time without guilt, because we’ve studied carefully the history involved in the halacha and have made our stand based upon knowledge, not dogma.

We all have different places we draw our lines in the sand. Mine may be different than yours, but you’ve got another thing coming if you believe that my standards are “less good” than yours because I attend a Conservative shul. Our kashruth is not the problem you need to fear; rather, it’s that we’ll try to call up your women for the “bat cohen” aliah (arggggggggggggggggggg!)…

Fascinating discussion. Underlying many comments is the assumption that Orthodoxy is “correct” and that Conservative Rabbis and halakhic decisions are “variations” that need to be “examined” on a case by case basis (in the light of “correct” Orthodox views and rulings). The root of the word “orthodox” indeed means “correct” and was chosen on purpose: to show the errant ways of Reform’s in the 19th century.

I’d like to suggest that Conservative decisions regarding kashrut and other halakhic issues, are neither “variations” nor leniencies. Rather, the Conservative approach is the true continuation of Rabbinic Judaism and it is Orthodoxy that needs to explain itself.

While individual congregants (often) and even Rabbis (sometimes) make choices that diverge from the mainstream, Conservative Judaism (as an articulated system, not how each person meets the standards) is normative Judaism. Orthodoxy has veered from the path.

For better or worse, many Conservative congregants do not have the background to understand these issues; they mistakenly see Orthodoxy as “authentic” or the “real thing”. I admit that this is a true educational failing of Conservative congregations (not the day schools, however).

Therefore, questions about Conservative practice in terms of Kashrut are often asked in a way that assumes that the Orthodox practice is the gold standard. I would suggest that the burden of proof should not be on Conservative “to be like Orthodox” but the other way around!

How can you say that the Conservative movement has not made variations and leniencies in kashrus?
For example the the prohabition of bishul akum is was an established halachah. It is brought down in the Gemarah and the Shulchan Archun among other sources. The C movement has decided to abolish it. They have done away with an established halacha of kashrus. This is a lenenciency and a variation. Same thing when they did away with gevinas yisroel.
The main gist of the previous discusion was NOT the Orthodox kashrus is good and that Conservative is bad, but that they are different. There are certain differences in standards that have already been mentioned ad naseum that make it difficult if not impossible for most Orthodox Jews to rely on Conservative hashcagah. If you really want me to list all the issues again that I can think of, let me know.

David’s comments about “established halacha” assume that rules that have been around for several centuries cannot be re-examined. This is simply not true and not in line with authentic Rabbinic jurisprudence.

Bishul Akum and Gevinat Yisrael were responses to specific cultural realities which no longer exist. In other words, a “standard” established centuries ago does not have to remain a standard forever. For instance, most competent halakhic authorities rule that milk supervised by the USDA is kosher. The reason for this “innovation” and “leniency” is a change in a cultural reality: tough standards of government supervision which alleviate our fears of other kinds of milk being mixed in with cow’s milk.

Issues relating to the kashrut of wines and bishul akum had to do with the actual religious practices of non-Jews (idolatry) and fears of intermarriage. Ever since the Meiri we hold that Christians are not idolators; similarly, food prepared by non-Jews is not served in the situations envisioned by the Gemara or Shulkhan Arukh and thus does not have to lead to social integration and intermarriage. Check the sources: it’s not about the kashrut of the food; it’s about blocking access to gentiles.

Think of the realities here: you’re at Dougie’s with Jewish friends; a Jew lights the fire on the stove, but the cooks are still gentiles. Does the social atmosphere of the place now change? Is the threat of intermarriage now “blocked” because a Jew lit the pilot light? You’re at Dougies, for goodness sakes, you’re not in your gentile neighbor’s back yard knocking back a six pack with his beautiful daughter.

Let’s be real. The minimal Jewish involvement in food preparation that is required according to bishul yisrael does not keep you away from gentiles. On the other hand, most Jews who keep kosher live in situations in which it is much easier to keep away from gentiles than did our ancestors. Rules about bishul akum are no longer needed or effective. Keeping them on the books is both unnecessary and ineffective. What does it say about a legal system to have such laws “on the books”?

When the underlying reason for laws no longer exists,changing halakha is not a “leniency” - it’s simply being responsive to changing realities. This is a longstanding principle of Jewish Law, not a Conservative innovation.

Yes it is a Conservative innovation. It is actually a longstanding principle of Jewish law that when Chazal insitute a prohabition, even if the original reason for it ceases, the prohabition stands. The halacha prohibiting eating bishul akum was instituted by Hillel and Shammai! What gives the Conservative movement the right to overturn them when no one else would? Until the Conservative movement came along I doubt there was one single sefer written by anyone seriously suggesting that this halacha could or should be abolished. And why would you think that mixing with Gentiles is less of a problem now than 2000 years ago! The Conservative movement has an intermarriage rate of approx 30% and Rav Moshe Feinstein said that the high interraige rate of non-Orthodox Jews was due in part to lack of observance of bishul akum.

Hey, Jim… the Dougie’s situation you’ve described is something I’ve thought about quite a bit. How exactly do these prohibitions which historically have sought to limit Jewish interaction with gentiles still apply in modern society?

Perhaps, rather than abolish them because they don’t seem to ‘work’ anymore, we should analyze how better to observe them. Maybe we should be doing more than simply having a rabbi light the ovens.

Whereas you seem to advocate for less observance, I think we’d be better off with introspection and rededication to the mitzvot.

I think that David is completely off the mark. The question is, whether or not Jews should operate within the framework of the modern world with the interactions that take place within it.

While I wholeheartedly support Jewish institutions, especially Jewish education, for without Jewish education, there is no sense of who we are as Jews, I subscribe that the Jewish nation is part of and not totally separate from the rest of the world. To the extent that it is possible for a Jew to be part of the world community, without forsaking his Jewish core and identity, my feelings are great! Even Rabbi Pruzansky at Congregation Bnei Yeshurun in Teaneck has said that so long as it was within a torah framework, a Jew should be able to do anything he/she wants.

This leads to the fundamental question of what lies within a torah framework…

Many of the prohibitions that exist within orthodoxy stem from the assumption is that Judaism cannot exist unless the group coerces the individual to keep all of the mitzvot. The assumption is that individual Jews are not able to make their own choices about what is right and wrong; that if I eat Welch’s grape jelly instead of Geffen, somehow, lightning will strike and that I will begin to eat cheese burgers, worship Ra and marry non-Jewish women.

GIVE ME A BREAK!!!

While I actually eat Smuckers, which has an OU instead of Welch’s, I just can’t accept the hypocricy of that argument. The fact that grape jelly is made from processed grapes makes it unkosher, when eating grapes off the vine is kosher is more than strange at some level. After all, jelly is food and not worthy of wine to be offered to idols. People, I’m not pushing the idea of eating treif, but if someone can explain to me the rationale for the for the increased cost of having a “shabbat-observing” be a part of the food chain, besides the desire to employ individuals who would otherwise be unqualified for jobs in the REAL world, I’d love to know what that is.

It seems to me that when it comes to kosher food, there is no trust, WHATSOEVER. I think that this lack of trust is the main reason so many people try to cheat the system. If the system was “simpler and more rational” there would be fewer attempts to cheat.

One other thing. Chazal were geniuses. They were incredible men. That does not necessarily mean that a decision make by them 1500 years ago has to be binding today if circumstances require it. While there is room for legitimate disagreement over what could create such a circumstance, what I don’t think it can be in dispute is that Judaism is a living religion and that as such, certain things can and will change over such a long period of time.

Some reactions to the reactions:

To David: (1) When underlying reasons no longer exist for a Rabbinic prohibition there is indeed provision for change; the Rabbis said that a later Bet Din that was “greater in wisdom and number” could change things. One could argue about “who” qualifies to make the change but not whether it’s possible. (2) You quote Hillel as the source of bishul akum and state that his ruling must stay on the books forever. Interesting…it was Hillel who uprooted a law of the Torah (the Torah!) in his famous Prosbul which allowed debts to be maintained beyond the 7th year limit. Why did he do it? Because the law as written could not be “done” - it wasn’t working. The Rabbis worked around the “rebellious son” (this week’s parasha) as well because each and every child would have been deserving of death. What did they do? They set the bar so high that no one would “qualify” (be so bad) as to be a rebellious son. (3) The fact that no one wrote about a law for a long time doesn’t mean what you think. People never questioned the definition of “death” until we discovered the concept of brain waves. After the Talmud no one questioned the chemical nature of food and its halakhic implications for centuries…that is,until we had the microscope and chemistry. You are under the spell of the “historical fallacy” which states that “what was” has to be correct and continue. (4) Saying the intermarriage rate is due (even in part) to bishul akum is like saying obesity is due to the size of forks and spoons we have here in America. Jewish men (just to deal with one half of our people) have always been and will continue to be attracted to popular culture and beautiful women. Please understand: the overwhelming number of people who intermarry don’t have a clue about Kashrut, Shabbat, Halakha, let alone Bishul Akum. They aren’t intermarrying because they haven’t paid attention to this part of Halakha. They are intermarrying because Judaism doesn’t mean anything to them. Pronouncements linking huge sociological trends or tragedies to non-observance is a kind of “magical thinking” (if I do halakha X, then good thing Y will happen…or the even more dangerous formula: if I don’t do halakha X, bad thing Y will happen. This kind of thinking is not a part of normative Jewish theology no matter how many Artscroll books say it is.

To Jabbett: I think you’ve misunderstood. I have absolutely no intention of lobbying for less observance. I want more intelligent observance and fewer unnecessary humras. I also agree that we need more introspection and dedication to the intention of the mitzvot, as well as Rabbinic interpretation that is not afraid of appearing “weak” or “liberal”.

Jim,

A few points -

1) Hillel did not uproot torah law - it only worked because shmitta was mederabbanan at that time (as it is today). In times where it is medorayta - it cannot work.

2) How do you understand the idea that the conservative movement has not abolished the concept of yom tov sheni - the reason clearly does not apply. I f you keep it you are clearly being inconsistant.

3) The conservative movement, by being lenient on almost any issue it can, has not solved any problems of assimilation or intermarriage. And, contrary to an opinion voiced above, most people who attend conservative shuls drive on Shabbos and are not even aware that the conservative movement itself does not sanction driving unless it is to go to shul!! The result: even more chillul shabbos.

Regarding Alex’s post:

1)Whether Hillel’s action uprooted d’oraita or d’rabbanan isn’t the issue. My point was about the ability of the Rabbis to be “active” regarding their own legislation. When it comes to the prosbul they indeed modified their own legislation as time went on. So thank you for making my point. (For an English article check out the Ency. Judaica).

2)Yom Tov Sheni was indeed addressed by the Conservative Movement. And yes, the underlying reason (declaring the new month according to visual verification of the new moon and then notification of the new month by signal flares, took too much time) was acknowledged to be irrelevant. However, the Conservative Movement decided to keep the two days in spite of the “real” reason being null and void because a new reason was found to uphold it: the desire to remind ourselves we live outside of Eretz Yisrael. You see, not every decision leans to the left!

3)Of the 600 plus decisions rendered by the Law Committee, only a handful have to do with Shabbat observance or practices that would lead to intermarriage. In addition, you can’t blame intermarriage or Hillul Shabbat on decisions which are known mostly to the Rabbis (the Law Committee answers questions from Rabbis, not congregants).

Members of Conservative synagogues are a self selected group. Among other things they’ve chosen to do is “not be Orthodox.” Their lack of observance wasn’t caused the Conservative Movement.

If I followed your reasoning I would have to say that the lack of observance among the majority of Israelis is 100% due to Orthodoxy. Why? There’s hardly any Conservative or Reform presence in Israel. It must, therefore, be Orthodox Judaism that is leading them astray. Oh, and by the way, there are a number of Israelis who intermarry. Must be that Orthodox Judaism at work again.

You can’t blame ideology and a few decisions of the Law Committee for intermarriage. Unfortunately, the high intermarriage rate is due to the openness of American society: unlimited housing areas, material wealth, free access to jobs, etc.

Should Conservative Rabbis push observance more? Yes. Should they teach more about the details as well as the beauty of Shabbat and Yontif? Yes. Should they insist on more Jewish education? Yes. Have their decisions on bishul akum or gelatin caused people to intermarry? Think again…

Shabbat Shalom!

I don’t get this. Isn’t the official position of Conservative Judaism is that the Torah wasn’t by Hashem through the hand of Moshe but rather “divinely inspired” through multiple authors (biblical criticism)? Before we can even talk about fine points in halacha we have to first accept the 13 principles of faith.

Ari asks about Conservative Judaism’s “official position” about the Torah’s authorship and then points to the “13 principles of faith” as the starting point for any discussion about halakha. I have two answers, in reverse.

1) Read Marc Shapiro’s book “The Limits of Orthodox Theology” in which he questions whether Rambam’s “top 13″ were ever meant to be the bedrock of Jewish belief and how they (mistakenly) became so. Judaism has always been rather flexible in areas of belief and aggadah, hence we don’t “have to accept the 13 principles” in order to talk about halakha. Similarly, we don’t have to accept the motivations of the framers of the Constitution in order to debate it. It helps to know their positions, but the document exists, as does two centuries of subsequent legislation. As the Gemara in Bava Metziah says, “Lo B’shamayim Hee…” the Torah was given, it’s in our hands. Your belief in the Torah’s divinity is not the litmus test for accepting halakha and grappling with it.

2) There is not an “official position” about this in Conservative Judaism because that would go against the point made above: theology is flexible (within limits, obviously). Also, the scholarly (modern) study of the Bible does not necessarily impact Halakha. The kinds of questions Bible scholars ask do not undermine the legislative content of the Torah. No one believes the verses regarding Mitzvot were textual errors, etc. What modern Bible study does, however, is point to the evolving relationship between God and the Jewish People, how cultural realities impact that relationship, and how our response/understanding of God changed back then and continues to change today. I know this is scary to many Orthodox Jews because they immediately think there will be a “domino affect” - if you question Biblical authorship you’ll immediately stop keeping Kosher. I don’t believe that has happened with anyone I know who is serious about Judaism.

There is way too much evidence to believe that the entire Torah was dictated word for word (or that the text we have was the “original” - which is why the Bible Codes books are such a farce). But Conservative “doctrine” in all of its forms believes there is a divine and compelling nature to the Bible. It’s not a book we have simply chosen to follow; there is a Divine “Commander” behind the Book, even if there were human hands involved in its final form.

Sorry to make this more complicated, but it’s too easy for Orthodox Jews to use simple phrases and sound bytes to try to discredit Conservative Judaism. In my opinion, it’s Orthodoxy that has gone off track (again, read Shapiro’s book…by the way, he’s an Orthodox Rabbi!!!)

I’m glad you posted this because you admitted that there is more to Conservative than lack of mechitzas, driving on Shabbos or perhaps “lite Modern orthodox.” We’re talking about core values that define our religion.
Let’s say a messianic Jew wanted to debate halacha. He would claim that he accepts the divinity of the Torah, keeps kosher, etc. oh and he also happens to believe in Yeshke. Would you consider his halachic reasoning? Would you trust his kashrut supervision?
And do you think the first thing we would be scared about is that there would be a domino effect and the messianic Jew won’t keep kosher?

Ari, I’m not sure what you are saying.

The Messianic Jew has adopted Christian beliefs and by doing so has denied a core Jewish belief (the unity of God)in his belief system; he has read himself out of Judaism. His Christian beliefs also lead to him to reject the divinity of the Torah, which means he doesn’t believe in or follow halakha. There is no halakhic reasoning or kashrut standards to debate.

What does this have to do with Conservative Judaism?

Jim

Your points are not coherent. My point about Hillel is that you said he could uproot a Torah law - if he did not all we are saying is that one of the rabbanon uprooted a derabbonon. This is not a machloket.

I think you missed the point about the conservative movement - it gave people an out - “I am conservative and so I can drive on Shabbos”. And no one in the movement says a thing about this. Your point about non and anti-rligious people in Israel is really not relevant.

Furthermore if you do not accept the authority of Chazal there is really nothing to debate (Shapiro’s book is so out of the mainstream of Orthodoxy it is not worth debating - there have been many good rebuttals of his conclsuions - you may want to look at them before accepting what Shapiro says as Dogma).

Just wondering what the status is now on the Siegel vs. Ridgewell’s wedding episode?

Yes, I am wondering what happened to the lawsuit as well. I’ve used Ridgewells before, and have thought them to be a very good, responsible, and reliable caterer.

was the creamy buttercream cake pareve?