Shavuot: An all-nighter, standing on one foot

After the Tikkun at our local synagogue--with so many seniors, we rarely run past 11 PM--a few hardy souls headed for the Tikkun at the JCC in Manhattan, where we broke up to follow our own interests. I ended up first in David Kraemer's "Israel as Converts: The Conversion Ritual & Standing at Sinai." The text that he taught showed the rabbis taking two totally different approaches to conversion: Either it consisted of (milah and) t'vilah (circumsion, for a man, and) ritual immersion, making one a member of the Jewish family, or it consisted of a committment to accepting the mitzvot (commandments), as at Sinai, making one a part of the covenant with G-d. As far as I can determine, both seem to be required, though the current conversion controversy seems to pit an emphasis on one against an emphasis on the other.

In passing, (Rabbi?) Kraemer said that Moshe Rabbeinu (Moses our Teacher) did the women a favor by declaring that men couldn't come near women for three days prior to the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai: He said that there was some concern that both women and men be ritually pure, so that all, male and female alike, could receive the Torah. I told this to a female rabbi of my acquaintance the next night--she didn't buy it. But I like the idea.

The next session I attended was taught by Congregation Ramat Orah Associate Rabbi Moshe Grussgott. He was scheduled to speak about the "cheter m'chirah," the permission/leniency to sell land in the biblically-defined Land of Israel to a non-Jew so that one could continue to farm it during the Shmittah (Sabbatical) Year. At the last minute, though, he decided to speak about the AgriProcessor kosher-meat-processing-plant controversy instead. There was much talk of violations of halachah/Jewish religious law, ranging from "dina m'dina dina" ("the law of the country is the law), which would make it halachically forbidden to violate U.S. immigration laws, to questions of g'neivah (theft) because workers were not being paid adequately and/or on time for their work, to causing a person to sin through deception or the withholding of information (lifnei iver lo titein michshol--in front of a blind person do not put a stumbling block), to the chilul HaShem (desecration of G-d's name) of being involved in one of the largest illegal-immigrant mass arrests in the history of the United States, not to mention the prior allegations of cruelty to animals (tzaar baalei chayim). I'm sure I've forgotten one or two more points.

Concerning the question of whether a boycott of AgriProcessor products would be appropriate, especially prior to a trial, Rabbi Grussgott said that no business has an absolute right to any person's patronage, and that one can simply choose to buy from another business at any time. He did not seem to think it necessary to wait for a verdict.

This point was vehemently disputed two days later by the teenaged son of some members of my Manhattan synagogue, who insisted that to boycott AgriProcessor before a verdict would be to commit an act of lashon ha-ra (malicious gossip). He was also quite adamant that, if the Orthodox Union wished to withdraw its certification of the kashrut of AgriProcessor products, they state quite clearly that they were withdrawing it not because the company's products weren't kosher, but because they did not wish to be associated with a company that conducted itself in a manner that might be deemed unethical. He took a very narrow view of kashrut, with which I disagreed, but ended up in the same place in the long run, which was that a boycott and/or withdrawal of kashrut certification might be appropriate if properly explained and occurring after a guilty verdict.

I'll happily respond to comments when available to do so.