Sunday, February 11, 2007

Coercion, part two

When I was 23, a couple of friends did me a big favor and made me a baked ham. It was delicious!

That was the first time I'd ever eaten baked ham.

It was also the last.

I don’t remember exactly how old I was, but I think I was still in my twenties when I decided to give up eating what some of us call “hard-core treif,” meaning pork and shellfish.

I was not raised in a kosher home. In point of fact, it was we kids who started it. One fine day, we came home from Hebrew School and laid down the law to our mother: “Jews aren’t supposed to eat pork.” There went our bacon for breakfast.

It would be years before Mom and Dad stopped bringing home shrimp salad, and I was already in my twenties when my parents finally kashered the kitchen. You can imagine the confusion when I came to visit. “Um, Mom, which one’s the dairy drawer?”

That’s why I decided, after our son was born, that a kosher-style kitchen—one without separate dishes, etc., for meat foods and dairy foods—would no longer suffice. I figured that it would be a lot easier for him to keep a kosher kitchen as an adult, should he choose to do so (we hope), if he’d grown up with a kosher kitchen as a child.

I didn’t make the final big move, though, until about eight years ago. I had been eating non-kosher beef, lamb, and poultry ("soft-core treif") in restaurants and in other people’s homes. But, when one of our rabbis packed his bags for greener pastures, I gave him a rather unusual farewell present: I promised not to eat non-kosher meat anymore. Well, after the second or third time that I accidentally bought chicken salad at a salad bar, thinking that it was tuna salad, I concluded that I could never buy “tuna salad” in a salad bar again. And, to the best of my knowledge, I haven’t eaten treif meat since.

Now, Rabbi Paul Plotkin, of the (Conservative) Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Laws and Standards, is trying to end a long-standing practice among many Conservative Jews of eating cooked dairy food in non-kosher restaurants.

And now it’s my turn to complain about coercion.

I started out completely treif (non-kosher).

Then I began to observe what some call “biblical kashrut,” avoiding pork, shellfish, and meat and dairy combinations, in accordance with laws that appear in the Bible (Torah sheBiCh’Tav) itself.

Then I began to keep a kosher kitchen, taking on the further rabbinic laws requiring kosher slaughter and the complete separation of meat products from dairy products, which entails the use of separate pots, plates, utensils, tableware, etc.

Then I gave up eaten non-kosher beef, lamb, and poultry altogether.

I’m sorry, Rabbi Plotkin, but I’ve already taken on as many dietary restrictions as I’m willing to accept in the name of tradition.

With apologies to Shlock Rock, I’m not ready for the Kosher Police. When I choose to observe certain aspects of Jewish tradition, I choose of my own free will, not because someone's watching me.

61 Comments:

Blogger Rahel said...

I just don't get this. Even though there's no Halachic justification for it, the ordination of gays and lesbians and offication at same sex unions is OK, but eating hot dairy dishes at non-kosher restaurants isn't? This seems like picking and choosing to me. And what about that bit about Halachah following the people? The turkey example is, as far as I'm aware, a rarity. What if the majority says "Let's eat pork." will that become OK too? Last I checked, Halachah isn't a democratic system. We do, or don't do things because God said so.

Mon Feb 12, 10:49:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I agree with part of the comment in the post above about why is the Conservative movement is starting with this mitzvah of all things, I am compelled to say - that I wholeheartedly support the Movement's direction.
In the interest of full disclosure, I was brought up in an Orthodox home, and spent a lot of time teaching in Conservative and Reform Hebrew School/after-school programs.
The more information and education about what is ok and not ok that is provided to the people, the better off we all will be. I think it has been a failure of the Conservative Movement not to provide any hard and fast rules for the the lay people in an attempt not to "hurt anyone's feelings." While right-wing Orthodoxy has made the mistake of expecting whole communities to function at a very stringent level of practicing halacha, Modern Day Conservativism has made the same mistake, but on the opposite side of the spectrum in putting little emphasis on practical halacha: neither one is providing a path for individual growth.
I applaud the steps that Shira has taken in making her home a kosher one.
Don't take steps to raise the communal bar as an unappreciative 'dig' by the establishment.
Keep it Kosh

Mon Feb 12, 07:46:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Rahel, I agree that inconsistency is a problem in the Conservative Movement. I must clarify my own personal position, though: Since I, myself, am not a literal believer in Torah MiSinai (that Jewish law was given by God on Mount Sinai), I don't base my decisions concerning what traditions to observe or not observe, or the degree to which I observe them, on what the God in whom I'm not sure I believe said. To be honest, I suppose that that makes my decisions and observance as inconsistent as those of many other Conservative Jews.

Anon., there have been complaints from committed Conservative Jews that the Conservative Movement tends not to be as supportive of observance as it should be. (The fact that I'm far more likely to find an answer to a question of Jewish practice by going to the Orthodox Union's website than to the website of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism is a symptom of that problem.) It's true that the Conservative Movement puts "little emphasis on practical halacha." I will admit, though, that I'm sufficiently inconsistent in attitude and observance to be willing to say definitively that that's always a bad thing (from my perspective). When it comes to observing halachah, ambivalence is my middle name.

"Don't take steps to raise the communal bar as an unappreciative 'dig' by the establishment." Okay, maybe I am taking this a bit personally.

The reality is, though, that Conservative Jews don't always live in places where observance is relatively easy. Personally, I'm in no position to complain, since I can hop on a subway and come home with a cooked glatt-kosher meal, soup to dessert. But I suspect that not too many Conservative Jews would be willing to cross the state line and drive at least an hour (in each direction) to the nearest kosher restaurant to take a couple of buddies out to dinner, as one Orthodox blogger did a few months ago.

Mon Feb 12, 09:34:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

uh? How is saying "one can't eat dairy out" coercion? If it's against the rules, it's against the rules, someone can go against the rules if they choose to.

Is it coercion to say its against the rules for someone to eat pork? If it is, the entire religion is coercion.

Mon Feb 12, 11:15:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Rahel said...

I suppose I should clarify my position, especially the part about how I determine what's binding and what's not. First, I believe in God wholeheartedly, and I believe the written Torah is from Sinai, and I believe the oral Torah is based on ideas that come from Sinai. That's the only way I can swallow the belief that the oral Torah is from Sinai, or rather the idea that one cannot use the written Torah as the sole source of law. When it comes to same sex unions and the secular establishment, I wholeheartedly support it. However, it's not like we're dealing with a prohibition that can be interpreted in a number of ways. The strictures concerning kashrut are largely rabbinic in origin. Because I don't hold that the oral Torah was delivered to Moses from God's hand at the same time as the Written Torah, nor do I hold that the oral Torah was delivered in its current form, I believe that the strictures about eating meat and milk together, or that dairy and other kosher-by-default foods such as vegetables or non meat stuffs, need to be verified as kosher isn't on the same level as "don't eat pork." There's no way the Conservative movement can call itself Halachic in any sense if its willing to throw out the prohibition against same sex intercourse. I think there needs to be some sort of clear definition of the methods and standards of Conservative Halachic interpretation, and then some sort of easily accessible source of Halachic rulings for the layity. Kind of like an online Shulchan Aruch for the Conservative movement. But to say that we follow the Shulchan Aruch, unless the Rabbinical Assembly states otherwise, is disingenuous, and it's what got us into this mess in the first place. Saying that Halachah has to follow the masses just because is a very bad way to go about it, and it's a slap in the face of anyone of us who is striving to be more observant.

Tue Feb 13, 08:20:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Sheyna said...

There is just so much here to think about, far too much for me to handle at the moment. I live in one of those areas where there simply are no kosher restaurants. The nearest one is in Chicago, a seven-hour drive away. We're lucky we can purchase kosher meat here.

I keep to a far stricter level of kashrut at home than I do out, and I eat only dairy or vegetarian out. If I started considering what pots/pans the fish or pasta was cooked on/in and the dishes involved, I wouldn't be able to eat out at all. I do ask detailed questions about soup stock, what else is cooked in a fryer, etc.

Already my insistence on dairy/veggie meals in restaurants limits where I can go and has put stress on my social life. There are folks in my local MOMS Club who will simply not invite me so they can go to a steak house that offers no non-meat entrees.

More I could write I'm sure. I may have to work on a post of my own soon.

Tue Feb 13, 05:23:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Wow, I got so many comments (thanks!) to which I couldn't reply until I got home from work (I'm afraid to "out" myself as a blogger at the office) that I think I'd best reply to one at a time.

"If it's against the rules, it's against the rules, someone can go against the rules if they choose to.

Yes, I suppose so, and I choose to.

"Is it coercion to say its against the rules for someone to eat pork? If it is, the entire religion is coercion."

It could be legitimately argued, I think, that just about *any* legal system, secular or religious, is coercive. The difference is that one has no choice when it comes to obeying secular law, unless one is interested in spending some time in prison and/or paying the price fiscally. When it comes to religious law, whether or not one has a choice depends on whether one *believes* that one has a choice, or whether one believes that religious law is binding.

Tue Feb 13, 09:00:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"I think there needs to be some sort of clear definition of the methods and standards of Conservative Halachic interpretation, and then some sort of easily accessible source of Halachic rulings for the layity. Kind of like an online Shulchan Aruch for the Conservative movement."

Amen, Rahel. I've complained before about the paucity of information available on the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism website, and I hereby complain again. I suppose that, technically, this sort of information would be more likely to be available on the Rabbinical Assembly website. Then, again, if the RA is calling the halachic shots for the USCJ, there should be more coordination between the two websites.

"But to say that 'we follow the Shulchan Aruch unless the Rabbinical Assembly states otherwise' is disingenuous, and it's what got us into this mess in the first place. Saying that Halachah has to follow the masses 'just because' is a very bad way to go about it, and it's a slap in the face of anyone of us who is striving to be more observant."

In defense of the Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, they're trying to walk a fine line between 'modern' and 'halachic.' It appears that they don't always succeed in being both.

Tue Feb 13, 09:12:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Sheyna, I imagine it can be tough maintaining a little Jewish house on the prairie. (Sorry, I couldn't resist :) ) I rarely eat soup in non-kosher restaurants because I don't want to grill the waiter about whether the soup stock is vegetarian or whether it's chicken-, beef-, or pork(eek!)-based. I should be more diligently about asking about the fryer. Thanks for focussing my attention on that.

"There are folks in my local MOMS Club who will simply not invite me so they can go to a steak house that offers no non-meat entrees." Bummer. :(

That reminds me of one of the more unpleasant surprises that we got when we visited my late mother-in-law in Florida--I had no idea how difficult it would be to get a non-meat meal in a southern restaurant. Every cheese sandwich seemed to come with ham, and tuna sandwiches seemed not to appear on every coffee shop/diner menu, as they do in the New York City metropolitan area. One thought that I had when reading about Rabbi Plotkin's campaign to enforce the rules was that he might be an ivory-tower rabbi who's never lived in a place where the nearest kosher restaurant was a day's drive away. Frankly, it's tough enough for you to observe the laws of kashrut to the degree that you observe them already, much less 100%. I suppose that my (kosher) beef with Rabbi Plotkin is that he doesn't appreciate the sacrifices that many Conservative Jews have already made in the name of kashrut observance. Anon.'s right in saying that I take this rather personally.

Tue Feb 13, 09:40:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Whoa, that name just registered: Agnoxodox?! Cool name. I guess that makes me Agnoxoserv. :) So nu, when are you starting a blog?

Tue Feb 13, 10:08:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Larry Lennhoff said...

"The purpose of religion is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable." Traditionally, the C movement has not regarded the second half of that sentence as desirable at all. It has been much more interested in validating people's practices than in increasing the level of observance, and has been rewarded for its concern by an ever declining level of observance by its members.

I personally don't see anything wrong with saying "Keeping kosher, both in and out of the house is required by halacha. We understand that in many places there aren't enough restaurants, or even enough homes, for many of our members to be willing to keep to this. We welcome them to our synagogues regardless - they are still good Jews, but they are not obeying the halacha. We expect our synagogues and members to work to improve the kashrut situation wherever necessary, while recognizing that in some places it may never come to pass."

On a different note, the responsum by Rabbi Barry Leff does not base its leniency on the majority of C Jews eating hot dairy out, but rather on a survey that shows the majority of C Rabbis eat hot dairy out. C Rabbis are taken as a proxy for committed C Jews, or 'Catholic Israel' if you prefer. Rabbi Leff has a blog at Neshamah.net.
His own blog entry about the article is called
Cheese Pizza anyone?

Wed Feb 14, 07:31:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Larry, as I said here, "I suppose a rabbi’s gotta do what a rabbi’s gotta do. It’s just a bit tough to have come so far in my observance and be told that it’s still not enough."

"Traditionally, the C movement has . . . been much more interested in validating people's practices than in increasing the level of observance, and has been rewarded for its concern by an ever declining level of observance by its members." I suppose that one could make a case for that. The flip side of my discomfort with feeling "coerced" is that, when I *do* try to become more observance, I feel as if I'm in the minority in my own congregation. I find myself in the rather odd position of being, I suspect, more observant than most of those members of my local synagogue who complain that I'm such a radical.

Wed Feb 14, 08:23:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Bit of a hypocrite, aren't I? Sigh. Guilty as charged.

Wed Feb 14, 09:13:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Tzipporah said...

It's kind of a damned if you do, damne if don't scenario, right Shira? My only consolation: this tension exists because we HAVE a liberal Judaism that still cares about halacha. Better this than throwing halacha out completely, or living in Borough Park and having NO choices (no offense to those who live there). :)

Wed Feb 14, 01:01:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comments about Conservative Judaism being inconsistent or a "pick and choose" approach assume that everything about the Torah (revelation, interpretation, application) is binary - black and white, right or wrong, one answer only. Looking through that kind of lens certainly makes CJ look a bit random.

But that's not doing justice to God, the Torah, or human beings. A legal system that has been "bequeathed" to humans, where the Lawgiver is not around to give a thumbs up, is going to be messy.

In such a system some things are "for now" or "tentative" or "to the best of our knowledge and abilities" but can be revisited. That's why the Mishna and Gemara list minority opinions.

While there are some internal/educational challenges within the Conservative MOVEMENT, the approach of Conservative JUDAISM is much more authentic than the increasingly fundamentalist approach within Orthodoxy.

People often confuse external behavior and piety for being intellectually correct and "better" but shame on us if we fall into that trap. Change is messy, but it's real...and real hard.

If the Law Committee is looking at homosexuality or eating in restaurants, the goal is not to make anyone miserable, but to hear God's voice anew. Perhaps the issue isn't the lenses we use, but (to switch metaphors) our ability to listen...and understand.

A Conservative Rabbi

Wed Feb 14, 01:18:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Better this than throwing halacha out completely, or living in Borough Park and having NO choices (no offense to those who live there). :)" Tzipporah, you have a point.

"A legal system that has been "bequeathed" to humans, where the Lawgiver is not around to give a thumbs up, is going to be messy.

In such a system some things are "for now" or "tentative" or "to the best of our knowledge and abilities" but can be revisited. That's why the Mishna and Gemara list minority opinions."

Conservative Rabbi, thank you so much for contributing to this discussion. We could always use a voice of reason around here.

"While there are some internal/educational challenges within the Conservative MOVEMENT, the approach of Conservative JUDAISM is much more authentic than the increasingly fundamentalist approach within Orthodoxy." I, too, am distressed by the increasingly rightward turn of some within the Orthodox community--but then again, so are many Modern and Centrist Orthodox Jews. In one book by an Orthodox Jew that I read last year, the author even expressed the opinion that Orthodox Judaism seems to get around to adopting the Conservative position, but on a much slower basis (say, two generations later).

I suppose only time will tell how the Conservative Movement will fare, and whether Conservative Jews will continue to drift away from traditional practice or reverse the trend.

Wed Feb 14, 07:25:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

By the way, there’s a pretty lively discussion on this subject going on at Apikorus Online. Check it out!

Wed Feb 14, 07:30:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Sigh. Why do my hyperlinks so often go astray? Conservative kashrut post at Apikorsus Online, take 2.

Wed Feb 14, 07:40:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, I'm not a conservative jew, wasn't raised a conservative jew, and even I know there's a "kitzur shulchan aruch" for conservative jews.

Isaac Klein, one of the preeminent halachist in the conservative movement and a rabbi of a congregation in Buffalo, NY wrote the book "Guide to Religious Jewish Practice".

If a conservative jew would follow that book fully, they could easily be confused with an orthodox jew, heck, even if they followed it mostly.

On the issue of no kosher restaurant, I was invited to give a talk in Japan. I didn't expect to be able to get much processed kosher food there (though to my surprise I walked into a supermarket and noticed enough stuff with OUs!) and fresh food is relatively expensive there, so I brought a suitcase full of food with me (mostly labriut meals, the beef stew isn't that bad, most of the rest aren't worth the money spent on them). If I would have needed I could have perhaps bought sushi (albiet the rice is problematic due to bishul akum, some would argue that it's not something that would be served on a king's table, I'm unsure that really applies to anything sushi in japan).

In the end, I don't see what the big deal is to not going to restaurants. Growing up, eating out was a luxury, we would do it at most a few times a year. If I lived in a place that had access to kosher food, but didn't have any kosher restaurants, I don't think my life would be miserable (based on the few times I've stayed extended periods of time in places w/o kosher restaurants), though it would make one have to be much more creative in finding places to take dates (which is a good thing overall).

Though I should clarify my original comment, while I wasn't raised a conservative jew, I was raised with a healthy knowledge of Heschel, Gretz, Liberman, Ginzberg and Kaplan. You should see how many "heretical" books my parents have in their home. :) My father's alway joked that if my sister's brought home someone too right wing, he would take out his books on Kaplan. :)

oh and postscript, I used to have a blog, decided it was counter productive for my actual goal of doing mitzvot.

Wed Feb 14, 11:25:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Tzipporah said...

I don't think it would make anyone's life "miserable" not to go out to eat, but it sure does help if you:
- are a businesperson where taking clients out is expected
- are a new mom (or any mom) who occasionally doesn't want to cook
- socialize with others (including non-observant Jews) who DO regularly eat out as part of social life

Thu Feb 15, 02:40:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Based on my own personal experience, a person can take out people to non kosher restaurants be they clients or friends and not eat, and just get a glass of water or a beer (speaking as someone who doesn't particularly care for beer).

Thu Feb 15, 06:47:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"I'm not a conservative jew, wasn't raised a conservative jew, and even I know there's a "kitzur shulchan aruch" for conservative jews."

How embarrassing--Isaac Klein's "Guide to Religious Jewish Practice" is sitting right on our own bookshelf--a former rabbi gave a copy to my husband as a thank-you gift for leading Junior Congregation. (We seem to have switched places, for a while--first he led, then I led; sad to say, there's no Jr. Cong. anymore.) Maybe I should take a closer look at Klein's book.

I'm particularly interested in your tales of keeping kosher in Japan. My son studied there for six weeks this past summer, and his own impression was that even the very concept of kashrut is so completely alien to the Japanese that it would be impossible to find kosher food there. (Okay, being in his rebellious phase at the moment, he didn't exactly look, but still . . .)

Kaplan, huh? Does anyone in the Orthodox community read Kaplan anymore, or are they afraid their kids would be expelled from yeshiva if such reading habits became known?

Re blogging and doing mitzvot, blogs can be used for chinuch (education). I've picked up a lot of new vocabulary and information from the Jewish blogosphere.

I'm with Tzipporah on the challenges of not eating in non-kosher restaurants, mostly, to be honest, because I love to eat but I hate to cook. :) Seriously, though, given my husband's and my culinary skills (such as they are) and our pleasure in getting together with friends over a good meal, eating out is both a treat and part of our social life. I guess, too, that you're much more self-disciplined than I--I can't imagine buying a meal for someone else and watching him/her eat while I drank a Coke.

Thu Feb 15, 10:47:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

as my nickname should indicate, kaplan's judaism as a civilization speaks to me on some level. Except that at the end of the day (unlike my understanding of Kaplan), I actually do believe in god, just feel very distant at the same time.

On the issue of food, 6 weeks is harder than 10 days, but if one knows how to keep kosher, one can keep kosher almost anywhere (at least if one can cook and has a pot or two). For the 10 days I lived on assorted instant oatmeal, labriut meals, canned tuna fish and some fruit I bought fresh there. But if I would have wanted to cook, its obviously very easy to get good fresh fish, rice and the like.

I'd write more now, but I have challah dough that's finished rising and need to form it and bake it (how's that for a single guy, it's actually very easy to make if one has a kitchen aid mixer).

Fri Feb 16, 12:25:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

In my son's defense, I don't know what kind of cooking facilities he had in the student housing in Japan.

As for me, I'm sorry to say that there's a good reason why cooking and I just don’t get along. You, on the other hand are a single guy who make his own challah from scratch? Have I got a few nice single Jewish gals for you!

Fri Feb 16, 07:07:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

And again, the link didn't work! !#$%^&*()!!!!!!!!!!

Take 2.

Fri Feb 16, 07:12:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ok, just read your japanese food post. I walked into a few sushi bars while I was in japan, and based on a conservative view of halacha, I doubt there would be an issue considering it kosher. (though not being an expert on conservative halacha, nor orthodox halacha for that matter, I can't really say)

Basically, you sit around a round bar, with the sushi chef in the middle. The sushi chef has cut up seafood (fish and crab and the like) (possible problem even for the kosher fish), rice and wasabi. He basically spend his time putting pieces together (sushi rolls didn't seem to be that common in japan, it was mostly piece of fish on clump of rice). He puts the sushi on a colored plate (each plate color means different price) and there is a conveyor belt that takes the plates around the bar. You take the plates you want, and you're charged at the end. From an orthodox pov there are probably lots of little issues, but if one views eating cold dairy out to be ok, this is probably similar. If one views this as ok, one can easily survive on sushi and fruits and veggies.

In regards to japanese culture, when I was hiking around kamakura (lots of buddhist xen temples, very pretty). This old japanese guy thought I was a priest (due to the kippa I guess) and he when I said "no, jewish". He was like "dewish? dewish? OH! Dewish!" and the hotel I was staying at had never seen a jew so when I asked if there was a way for me to take the stairs on shabbat, they were very accomedating even though they had seemingly never met an orthodox jew before.

Anyways getting back to the eating out portion, I am far from perfect, I certainly sin and I've given into temptation more times that I would care to admit, but I don't justify the action as being "ok". That's what bugs me, I have no more of an issue with someone eating out, then with my own sins, I only have an issue with justifying the behavior due to difficulty.

Fri Feb 16, 02:42:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

If I were into raw fish--which, other than "Jewish sushi," that is, pickled herring, I'm not--I'd probably be able to survive in Japan follow my current practice.

"I have no more of an issue with someone eating out, then with my own sins, I only have an issue with justifying the behavior due to difficulty."

So I should just admit that I'm still at the "sinner" level and stop kvetching. Sigh. As I said, it's just so discouraging to have come so far in my observance and be told that it's still not enough. Call me spoiled, but since I hate to cook and love to eat out, I honestly don't think I'll ever get past the "sinner" stage and stop eating altogether in non-kosher restaurants. In all seriousnes, if one has to worry about the pots, about the plates, about possible bugs on the lettuce, and even about the religious identity of the cook, there's absolutely nothing that a Orthodox Jew could possibly consume in a non-kosher restaurant other than a kosher soda in a paper cup, and, even assuming that the Conservative Movement is willing to be lenient with regard to uncooked food, I'm not prepared to give up vegetarian lasagna and broiled fish. So I guess that eating out will remain on my Al Chet list.

Sat Feb 17, 10:18:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sigh. As I said, it's just so discouraging to have come so far in my observance and be told that it's still not enough.

you think that might be the problem? To quote a middle school rebbe of mine, one is either growing or falling, you can't stay in the some position, one can never be complacent. The only time one reaches "enough" is when one dies, as one can't do anymore.

Now I'm not saying that the "chumra of the month" club is the way people should go as another saying I learned is that "one can't be machmir on one thing, without being meikil on something else". For instance, if I'm machmir to not eat something where almost all sources say its permitted, I could easily insult someone by refusing to eat at their house, all I'm saying is that one should never be satisfied with problems one sees in oneself, but should take a step back and say what can I do to fix this (this applies equally to me, and I can also say its hard to take a step back and view oneself and fix ones problems, because if it was, I'd be complacently perfect).

Sat Feb 17, 11:11:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Agnoxodox, I guess kashrut is not a priority for me at this time--I've gone as far as I'm currently willing to go. I've long since decided to concentrate on my davvening. There are whole chunks of various services, including biblical quotes, prayers, and psalms, that I've learned or am in the process of learning that I didn't know a decade ago, or even a few months ago. So I wouldn't say that I'm standing still, Jewishly. I'm just setting my own priorities, rather than having a rabbi (of any denomination) set them for me.

Sun Feb 18, 12:13:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

everyone has their own challenges. Personally, I find it much harder to daven than to keep kosher (be it 3 times a day or even once a day, though shabbos is generally a totally different experience).

Davening is such an existential thing, its a large part of our relationship with God. Wherever I go, I travel with my tefillin, but more often than not, I don't put them on. sad.

Sun Feb 18, 01:02:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Agnoxodox, I guess what it comes right down to is that I feel like a little girl who's knocked herself out doing her homework only to have Daddy ignore all her hard work and complain that she didn't do a good enough job cleaning her room. I'm too cussedly independent to sit quietly with my hands folded and let someone else tell me what my priorities should be. (Not a very good candidate for Orthodoxy, am I?) I made my big commitment to kashrut years ago, when I added no longer eating non-kosher meat to keeping a kosher kitchen. Frankly, that's as much of a sacrifice as I'm willing to make for kashrut, and if that makes me a sinner, so be it. I choose to concentrate my Jewish growth on davenning (praying), both in terms of mastering new prayers/quotes/psalms found in the siddur/prayer book and in terms of the frequency and regularity with which I pray. Eventually, I may get up to the three-times-per-day ideal. I'm far more interested in working on that goal than in worrying about non-kosher pizza. Ultimately, while I can't fault Rabbi Plotkin for his efforts--it's a rabbi's job to set standards--I, personally, prefer to concentrate on my personal commitment to growth in tefillah/prayer than to further changes in my eating habits.

Mon Feb 19, 06:32:00 PM 2007  
Blogger rivkayael said...

I feel that kosher laws are going a bit too far--did Rambam have the luxury of eating at kosher restaurants when he travelled?? Or Daniel? Or Esther, in kings' palaces? This kind of stringency has the effect of cloistering "frum Jews" in isolated communities, nothing wrong in itself EXCEPT when it prevents people from venturing out of the community to go to where they are needed. Being Jewishly literate makes you MORE accountable to be Or l'goyim, not more obligated to stay cloistered in your community.

Tue Feb 20, 01:37:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

RivkaYael poses two totally different questions:

First, what did Jewish travelers do in the days before kosher restaurants, not to mention canned tuna, existed? Benjamin of Tudela went all the way from Spain to Baghdad, for crying out loud, and somehow managed not to starve during a decade or so of heavy traveling.

Second, how the heck can one possibly be a Light to the Nations if one is afraid to set foot outside of one's own ghetto and mix it up in friendly fashion with the neighbors? It's hard to be a good example and sanctify Hashem's name in this world if no one but your own kind ever sees you in anything other than a business or professional capacity. Whatever happened to working with others to promote worthy causes?

Tue Feb 20, 10:02:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Okay, maybe those aren't entirely separate questions. Part of the point of the laws of kashrut is to differentiate Jews from non-Jews. Well, on the one hand, being different can be a positive thing. On the other hand, I agree with RivkaYael that differentiation that leads to excessive separation can be counterproductive.

Tue Feb 20, 11:17:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

1) it was much easier to keep kosher in a day when heavily processed foods didn't exist.

2) Have you ever heard of "Stam Yayin" (i.e. non jewish wine). Chazal extended the prohibition of "Yayin Nesach" (i.e. idol worship wine) to regular non jewish wine to prevent jews from eating meals with non jews. This isn't a modern invention, but something that happened 1500-2000 years ago.

3) On the flip side, 500 years ago do you think a god fearing jew would have drank milk that he found along the way. I doubt it, its a flip side of the modern mechanism and government enforcement that we say the takana of "chalav yisrael" doesn't apply to USDA milk (as the fear of the government is more than the fear of a jewish overseer)

4) If you think the Rambam ate food that was not premitted, you are basically calling him a hypocrite for not following what he wrote in his Mishne Torah.

It seems we regressed in the argument, as we're back to making excuses.

Wed Feb 21, 01:30:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Agnonodox, 1)yes, it was certainly much easier to keep kosher in the days before processed foods, when one could much more often pretty much look at a food and see with your own eyes whether or not it was kosher.

2) This is one of the serious issues that separate Orthodox from non-Orthodox Jews. I have a real problem with the idea that a non-Jew can render something non-kosher simply by touching it (with clean hands), just because s/he is not Jewish.

3) Hmm, probably not.

4) Heaven forbid that I should cast asperions on the Rambam, or any other observant Jew. I think it goes back to what you said, that determining the kashrut of food was easier in the days before food processing. It would be very interesting, indeed, to try and determine how observant Jews maintained their kashrut observance when they traveled. Tradition tells us that Esther survived on beans in the palace of Achashverosh. How did she get around bishul akum? How were these rules interpreted, in the days before kosher food was widely available outside of one's own home and community? I'm not casting aspersions. I'm merely asking whether interpretations have changed. There was a time, after all, not so long ago, when it wasn't considered a major scandal to eat meat that was only "regular" (stam?) kosher, not glatt. And there are still differences of opinion on whether or not chalav stam ("regular" milk), as opposed to chalav yisrael ("Jewish" milk, and, to be honest, I'm not even sure what makes milk chalav yisrael) is permissible or not.

In this particularly case, excuses are not the issue. The issue is that Orthodox and non-Orthodox Jews (or certainly, much of the lay non-Orthodox community, if not necessarily the rabbis) have serious differences of opinion on what's necessary and/or important to observe in the area of kashrut.

Wed Feb 21, 09:02:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Conservative Rabbi that has done hashgacha work and subscribes to trade journals I can tell you that the "criteria for decision making" is not uniform among the various Orthodox kashrut agencies. In fact, people have been pleading for the agencies to publish those criteria so the buying public can decide whose hekshers to follow. Right now there is a lot of misunderstanding, gossip and fingerpointing.

There is also a lot of "oneupsmanship" among people trying to be stricter and prove their worthiness to those on the religious right.

Finally, the "business" side of kashrut is often not very pretty. All of this has, understandbly, led to cynicism among many Jews, as well as questions about what is "really" kosher or not.

In deciding what's really kosher or how strict to be, there are a few questions one should ask:

1. What does halakha really say? The Shulkhan Arukh certainly laid down enough principles to anticipate new kinds of foods and manufacturing processes. A way to understand how halakha copes with these changes is to read some of the articles on the Star K web site. Some of their rulings are on the strict side, but at least you can get a feel for how they apply the Shulkhan Arukch to modern food production. It's kind of like going on the factory tours they did on the Mr. Rogers show.

2. The next issue is to determine where along the continuum of observance you want to be. It is nice to be at the highest level and completely consistent, but people are people and we are all moving (hopefully forward) in our observance, but perfection is not possible. So find a level that's comfortable, with the promise that you'll continue to learn and grow.

3. For peace of mind, I think it's important to decide how much of your observance is aimed at fitting in or pleasing others. For example, if you want people whose kashrut standards are at "level X" to be able to eat in your house, you might consider doing things in a way to make this possible. If not, then don't do it. I have found that for the sake of unity, it makes sense to make some accommodation for people whose practices I might find unnecessary (Note: I did not say "stricter". I think some of the strictness in the Orthodox world is halakhically indefensible, but I respect their spiritual aspirations nevertheless). As long as I'm comfortable in my own skin, I'm okay making other people comfortable in theirs.

4. Finally, two comments about the supposed inconsistencies in the Conservative Movement's Law Committee decisions.

a) It may surprise people to know that of the hundreds of decisions of the Law Committee, only a few really stand out as being "super liberal" and/or in opposition to mainstream Orthodox practice. Being "Conservative-centric" let me say it another way: the Orthodox are spinning out into fundamentalism while the Conservative Movement is holding down the fort in the center quite well.

b) It is precisely the Conservative Movement that willingly takes on the tough issues of the day, including re-examining past decisions (such as eating in restaurants). Given the nature of human beings, it's hard to predict when a topic will rise to the top or demand the attention of the Law Committee. But if you've ever studied Talmud you know that the thinking therein is a divergent, out-of-the-box, in-no-particular-order kind of process. That's what keeps things fresh!

Hope this helps.

Wed Feb 21, 09:41:00 AM 2007  
Blogger rivkayael said...

I personally keep Chalav Yisrael just because I have the luxury of doing so in NYC. However, I do feel that eating only in kosher restaurants is a chumra that can be adopted by the people who have the luxury of doing so. Vegetarian food outside the home should be ok.

Shira: Thank you, you have phrased my comment far more clearly than I have!

Yes--we are called to be separate. However, we are also called to a life of tikkun olam. The problem comes when we start letting certain stringencies prevent us from fulfilling this call.

Or--we could all just move to E"Y =).

Regarding Chalav Yisrael, YU Labrab has excellent posts here and here.

Wed Feb 21, 10:53:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all I agree that kashrut business in the US has major issues. However, part of the problem is due to the fact that it is a business.

i.e. Lets say I'm a community rabbi in Europe and I want to figure out what my flock can eat, I can go to the places and do my own checks, they don't pay me, they just allow me to come in. Since this is the case, they aren't paying me, they aren't producing the food for jews, one can rely on b'diavads ("kosher after the fact" situations) to say something's kosher.

However, if a company goes to the OU or the OU goes to the company, they can't rely on those bdiavads, and everything must be kosher l'chatchila (from the beginning). This seems to be a situation where the conservative movement has had issues with conflating l'chatchila and b'diavad situations and saying that something was only allowed b'diavad is now l'chatchila.

Second, there's only a continuum of observance in regards to chumrot. If you are not observing the halacha, you are by definition not part of the continium of observance

third, the cjls is a joke, I'm sorry to say this, but its the truth. The fact that someone can vote for 2 arguments that contradict each other shows that. The CJLS is supposed to be the psak authority for the Conservative movement. Psak is about making a decision, voting for 2 contradictory positions is the lack of taking position. If one can't take a position, the honorable thing is to abstain, not vote for both.

fourth, the CJLS doesn't revisit decisions. What percentage of the CJLS thinks that the driving teshuva is incorrect (and Ben Zion Bokser's rebuttal is very convincing), this isn't revisiting, this is saying that people have misunderstood things for a long time.

Being more relevant, Taking the Nevins teshuva on homosexuality, they embarrasingly ignore the quotes of Ginsberg they themselves quote. Ginsberg says that kavod ha'briot is only when one is among people (i.e. how can your kavod be infringed in private). So while kavod ha'briot could get rid of d'rabbanans, taking away d'rabbanans that are meant to occur in the privacy of 2 people is logical leap that nothing can support.

ut it goes further than that. Reading the washington jewish week right after the decision was made, most of the rabbis quotes weren't "we have to study these decisions and decide which one makes the most sense" but were "yay, finally they are allowing us to do what we always wanted to do". But this is to be expected. Why? Because JTS doesn't give their rabbis smicha, but instead gives a rabbi/preacher/teacher degree (as opposed to HUC which gives all its grads yore yore yadin yadin). Why? Because they felt the average C rabbi didn't need to pasken halacha. So your average C rabbi does not have the ability to make these decisions as they aren't steeped in "shas and poskim" (to quote a yeshivish'ism) hence the need for the CJLS, except that the CJLS can pass contradictory positions...

personally, I am sympathetic to the conservative movements traditional view of halacha (albiet mistakes have been made in its applications), but I think the lack of education amongst the majority of its laity shows that their approach is a failure. For instance, as a joke someone once said both the C and O jews made halachick logical leaps in how to deal with shabbas. The C allowed driving, while the Orthodox allowed big eruvim. There are multiple differences, two ones to note are a) Eruv keeps a community together near the synagogues that form tight knit communities and b) the orthodox educated their populace about the parameters of eruvim and halacha in general, but the conservative movement did no such education.

Wed Feb 21, 05:52:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Agnoxodox:

Allow me to correct a very common misunderstanding about the Law Committee, especially as it relates to the homosexuality decisions.

The committee, almost as a peer review, validated three different position papers. They weren't trying to decide "the" halakha, but simply decide whether the different approaches were valid ways to look at the issues. In other words: Did the Rabbis do their research? Did they use Rabbinic texts properly? Were their arguments sound? etc.

At the time of the driving T'shuva there were also two opposing opinions that garnered enough votes to be "options" for local Rabbis to follow.

The members of that committee were indeed honorable and their work is worthy of more respect, even if you don't agree with them.

And yes, they do revisit issues: certain kinds of "chemical kashrut" issues, medical ethics issues, etc. that need to be brought up to date as new science comes in.

Finally, your historical analysis of the origins of the Law Committee is incorrect. It was created specifically because Rabbis in the field felt their wings were clipped by Seminary faculty who were out of touch with real people. In other words, these Rabbis wanted to put their learning to good use and weren't afraid to do so. Some of the finest scholars in the Conservative Movement were also pulpit Rabbis.

This leads to another statement you made that does not fit in with the historical development of halakha: the concept that "the" halakha exists. Not true. There have been a variety of opinions preserved since the time or the mishna and practices have, as a result, varied. In any event, though, the "continuum of observance" I mentioned had to do with a person's level of observance. I wasn't suggesting that halakha is whatever that person wants it to be; but that person's personal behavior is based on their readiness to embrace whatever level of observance s/he wants to. The Heart Association tells me I'm supposed to exercise a certain number of minutes each day. I don't debate that. However, I'm not there yet. I'm on a continuum of exercise (or non-exercise!).

Jim

Wed Feb 21, 09:45:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The committee, almost as a peer review, validated three different position papers. They weren't trying to decide "the" halakha, but simply decide whether the different approaches were valid ways to look at the issues. In other words: Did the Rabbis do their research? Did they use Rabbinic texts properly? Were their arguments sound? etc.

I've read the teshuvas. Personally (and Rabbi Roth would seem to agree) that the Nevins teshuva did not and it was politically motivated. There can be holes in a teshuva that is meant to maintain the status quo, but when one is trying to say the status quo is wrong, your teshuva can't look like miller's swiss cheese.

Anyways, if your analysis is correct, the whole concept of calling it a shayla/teshuva is a farce in the historical nature of shailot/teshuvot. Historical, when someone asked a posek a question they weren't asking for all the possibilities, they were asking what the posek felt the halacha to be.

Now that leads to

The members of that committee were indeed honorable and their work is worthy of more respect, even if you don't agree with them.

Based on the how the shaila/teshuva process works, I can accept that fact that the CJLS has enough members on it to "validate" more than one opinion. However, when there are conflicting opinions, one should not be able to vote on both, doing so in my mind is not honerable, it's cowardly (and in truth there are plenty of cowardly orthodox poskim as well who refuse to take stands).

I wasn't trying to say what the historical nature of the CJLS was, I was trying to say the need for it and a reason why I could never be a conservative Jew, the fact that they don't expect their synagouge rabbis to be conversant in yoreh deah, which again puts them outside the historical nature of halacha and rabbanut. I'm not saying that there aren't knowegable conservative rabbis, I'm saying the seminaries don't expect them to be knowlegeable to become a rabbi. If I wanted to be insulting, I'd say the seminary only expects them to be a glorified social worker. Perhaps that's a problem with the seminaries and not with the movement in theory, but theory and practice mix.

This leads to another statement you made that does not fit in with the historical development of halakha: the concept that "the" halakha exists. Not true. There have been a variety of opinions preserved since the time or the mishna and practices have, as a result, varied.

I don't disagree with that, what I do disagree with is the fact the "the halacha" exists as a system of principles that are meant to applied. Different people can come up with different answers based on how they way those principles (and hence why I'm sympathetic to Joel Roth's view of conservative halacha), but when one misinterprets, corrupts and ignores those principles (as the Nevins teshuva did), it is outside of the halacha framework.

Thu Feb 22, 12:55:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Truth to tell, this comment thread is getting a bit beyond my ability to keep up, due to a combination of limited time (since I'm afraid to blog from the office), limited knowledge (since, not having had the privilege of receiving a yeshiva education, I've never even studied Chumash Rashi, much less Talmud), and personal ambivalence (when I figure out how much of a Conservative Jew I really am [in terms of both belief and observance], I'll let you know.) So please forgive me if I'm not exactly sure how to respond to some of the comments, at this point. Nevertheless, I find this discussion fascinating and informative.

Thu Feb 22, 01:28:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agnoxodox - check out a book by Rabbi J. Newman called "Semikha" published in 1950. Read about what Rabbis had to know from the time of the Talmud to today. You might be surprised.

The "holes" that you see in the "liberal" papers on homosexuality are not lapses in seriousness or reasoning; they are an attempt to re-frame some of the discussion. Hence, they may veer away from outcomes you might think are obvious.

Finally, you don't seem to grasp that the law committee is not always there to make "the one and only one decision." You go to your local Rabbi for that. That's why congregants don't submit questions to the law committee. It's not aimed directly at congregants. It gives guidance to the institutions of the Conservative Movement. Providing shul Rabbis with more than one opinion actually requires them to step up, learn the halakha and make a decision. That doesn't sound like the Rabbis you've described.

Jim

Thu Feb 22, 07:28:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Okay, quick correction: It appears that beans cooked by a non-Jew would still be kosher, if I understand what I've read correctly, because beans are not considered food fit to be served at a king's (or president's) table. Here are links from the Star-K kashrut supervision organization and the OU Orthodox Union’s kashrut supervision department concerning the laws of cooking by a non-Jew.

Thu Feb 22, 07:33:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

So Queen Esther and Benjamin of Tudela, among other travelers and persons in non-Jewish environments, past and present, could have survived/survive on beans, if I understand the halachah/Jewish religious law correctly. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thu Feb 22, 07:36:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

There's still the obvious problem that I don't believe that the religious identity of the cook or producer of food or drink should have any effect on its kashrut--if the ingredients are kosher (under kashrut supervision) and method of producing the food or drink does not taint the kashrut of the product (for example, kosher food couldn't be produced in non-kosher pots), then, as far as I'm concerned, the product is kosher. That's one of the reasons I'm a Conservative Jew.

Of course, the non-kosher pots would make eating would-be kosher food in a non-kosher restaurant problematic. So I'm back to square one in terms of my own observance, or sometime lack thereof.

Thu Feb 22, 07:47:00 AM 2007  
Blogger rivkayael said...

What about eating only cold parve food like tuna salads or veggie sandwiches?

Thu Feb 22, 09:04:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jim, I've described the rabbi's discussed in the washington jewish week article on this. Only 1 rabbi said he had to study the teshuvot, the others said they were happy that there hands were untied and now had to study how to do a comittment ceremony.

The holes that I see are in the language they use. They make the claim that "kavod ha'briot" lets one get rid of ANY d'rabbanan (ok, I'll accept that premise for now). They make the claim that a homosexual's "kavod ha'briot" is being harmed by not being able to engage in things forbidden d'rabbanan (say oral sex). They therefore premit it. (short summary, but that's the gist).

HOWEVER, how can I have "kavod" in private. The only way to make this argument is that I'll be embarrased if I go in public and people know we're not having oral sex, which is a joke of an argument. In fact, Ginsberg explicitly states this principle.

http://www.rabbinicalassembly/docs/Dorff_Nevins_Reisner_Final.pdf
Rabbi Louis Ginzberg discusses the concept of ‫ כבוד הבריות‬in his great commentary on Yerushalmi Brakhot.103
Contrasting this concept with the similar idea of ‫ ,כבוד הרבים‬Rabbi Ginzberg writes, ‫שכבוד הבריות משמעו דבר שאדם מונע‬
‫“ ,עצמו ממנו כדי שלא יתבזה בין בני אדם, וכבוד הרבים דבר שאדם שיש בו נימוס עושה אותו לכבוד הצבור‬For the meaning of kvod
habriot is that a man withholds himself from something so that he not be humiliated among people, whereas kvod harabim is
a thing done by a polite man for the dignity of the public.”


for all the other holes this paper has, the logical leap of applying kavod ha'rabim to homosexuality acts IN private is astounding.

1) it has to be among people
2) its withholding something.

I'll try to my hands on the book, but you avoided my argument (I think). My claim was that JTS made a conscious decision not to give the (?majority of their?) ordinees something called semikha due to the fact that they felt it was not required by a "Conservative Rabbi".

in regards to totally raw food, unless one can see or taste the non kosher food visible in it, or "possibly" if it had some "charif" item (ala onions, but not 100% sure about this) is probably always going to be kosher b'diavad as things like batel would take effect (if not lachtchnila, but things can't be batel l'catchnila). There are 2 problems though.

1) was the item prepared for you (if that's the case, it has to be kosher l'chatchila)

2) How do you know what's what? Just because they claim something is a kosher raw fish, how do you know that for a fact? How do they know that? There's a concept of "misiach l'fi tumo" (transliterating badly), where we can trust a goy to tell us whats in a product (i.e. ingredients list on a box) presuming they aren't trying to convince us the product is kosher (i.e. ingredients list on a box, or cold calling a place without the mention of kosher). It's a complicated issue.

Thu Feb 22, 11:04:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shira, the religious identiy of the cook does not affect the "kashrut", its something external to kashrut.

For instance, someone pours "non kosher" wine into my glass, heck someone accidently cooks non kosher wine in a pot when trying to make a dish. I doubt it need to be kashered, as "stam yayin" is not a kashrut issue, while still being an issue hasgachot have to take care of.

Thu Feb 22, 11:06:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

"Shira, the religious identiy of the cook does not affect the "kashrut", its something external to kashrut."

Maybe so, Agnoxodox, but it still makes the food or drink forbidden to a Jew, which is my point. If the ingredients don't change, what should it matter who does the cooking/baking/wine producing or pouring? This is an area of halachah in which principles collide. Kavod HaBriyot, respect for all of Hashem's creation, seems to me to contradict any rule of this kind.

Thu Feb 22, 07:44:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you in favor or against assimilation?

As that's why chazal enacted these gedarim. People who drink wine together, tend to get drunk and "make babies" (and there are plenty of hot shiksas out there, unfortunately being a kohein I can't seduce any into yahadut :) ). In some ways, in today's day and age this is even a bigger issue.

Thu Feb 22, 09:24:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Agnoxodox, call me naive, but I don't think that every glass of wine that you drink with a client is going to induce you to do anything that you wouldn't do normally. And what does having your daycare lady cook dinner for your kids have to do with assimilation? I question whether it's absolutely necessary for a "fence around the law" (precautionary measure) to be so high as to result in (even symbolic) discrimination against non-Jews.

Thu Feb 22, 09:50:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

By the way, I wasn't kidding when I say that blogs are a good vehicle for chinuch (education): What are gedarim (singular--geder?)?

Thu Feb 22, 09:57:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

geder is a fence

Basically there's a biblical prohibition of "Yayin Nesach" (the idol's sacrificial wine). Chazal expanded it to say that jews couldn't have any non jews wine (hence the yayin mevushal/cooked wine we generally buy in the US, but one can get wine that isn't cooked as well, as non cooked wine isn't considered wine according to halacha).

Now, being the good conservative jew that you are, you'd point out a logical fallacy here. If one can get drunk on this yayin mevushal, what's the difference? From an orthodox perspective, the difference is that we don't have the ability to repeal the "takana" (in quotes as unsure exactly what it was) of chazal, but we don't have to extend it either. From a conservative perspective, they just get rid of it (and perhaps they have), which the conservative movement would argue is in full tradition of ashkenzic psak halacha, and perhaps they would be right (and hence why I sometimes wish I was a sfardi, I mean between eating kitniyot and having multiple wives, life must be good :) )

But to answer your point, someone who goes out drinking with his non jewish colleagues is setting himself up for problems. We all have temptations, one of my best friends is a very pretty non-jewess, I wouldn't trust myself around her with alchohol in my body, though she knows the rules I play by, though a bit pissed off about the gender separation stuff)

Similarly, a housekeeper doesn't know the laws can easily make mistakes. Since she's making the food for you and might make the decisions, b'diavad doesn't help anymore (i.e. you cant drop a dollop of milk into a recipe on purpose, but if it happened by accident, its considered nullfied, the same would apply to her). As much as you'd teach them, its not who they are. If you don't keep a kosher home yourself, I wouldn't trust one's cooking even with my pots and pans and ingredients unless someone watched them as well.

Thu Feb 22, 10:26:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Btw, the other reason I couldn't be a conservative jew is that I would hazard to say, a large percentage of my peers are at home discussing these halachik issues.

I hosted a friday night meal a few months ago where the issue of cow's milk came up (basically, according to some because of modern dairy farming, a large percentage of dairy cows are "treif" (i.e. if slaughtered, they wouldn't be kosher). Now, milk from a treif cow is treif. We rely on the fact that most cows aren't treif, but what happens if its discovered that most dairy cows are treif.... (and some say that at least of the non chlav yisrael variety that's the case, due to surgeries that are performed on the cows, see my friend's lab rab's post)

If I were a member of a conservative synagogue, how many liked minded people would I be able to interact with? How many would my kids? Thankfully its not an issue for me, but its part of the reason there are these "orthodox" egalitarian people (as in "why not just join a conservative congregation").

Thu Feb 22, 10:43:00 PM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

So the prohibition against drinking the wine of, and/or touched by, a non-Jew is rather like the prohibition against kol isha (that is, the prohibition against a man hearing a woman sing [contested by some, especially when religious music is involved]): Since you don't trust *yourself,* you put the onus on someone *else* to ensure that you behave appropriately. If you don't trust yourself with your pretty non-Jewish female friend, it's not up to *her* to keep *her* hands off the wine bottle, it's up to *you.*

"Similarly, a housekeeper [who] doesn't know the laws can easily make mistakes." True, but that's not the issue under discussion. The issue is that, even if she does everything *right,* halachah still forbids a Jew to eat most foods that she cooks. Even if there's a mashgiach t'midi (a constantly-present kashrut supervisor) in the kitchen at all times continually monitoring the food preparation, much of the food cooked by a non-Jew would be forbidden if a non-Jew turned on the stove. What the heck does that have to do with either kashrut or assimilation? I see no point in observing a takana (? temporary ruling?) if the reason for which it was established no longer exists or makes no sense to me.

"If I were a member of a conservative synagogue, how many liked minded people would I be able to interact with?" Oddly enough, I have a similar problem, and I *am* a member of a Conservative synagogue.

Thu Feb 22, 11:13:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

under your logic, you should go off and make a chicken (chickens dont produce any milk) cheese burger....

If you reject the concept of siyag, you are rejecting a huge portion of halacha. Though it fits with what I've said before, that the conservatie movement is incapable of saying "Halacha V'ein Morein Kein" (yes, this is the halacha, but we don't do it). The whole concept of geder is that "yes if you are perfect, you don't need them, but we are human, we are flawed so we want you to avoid putting yourself in a position where there is a high probability that you will sin".

Also takanot were not temporary, they were permanent (unless overturned by the sanhedrin or a sanhedrin like authority)

A temporary measure is a "horaat shaah" ("a decree for the hour"), the problem with "horaat shaah" is that they tend to become permanent.

Fri Feb 23, 01:08:00 AM 2007  
Blogger Shira Salamone said...

Agnoxodox, what can I say? I'm not consistent in my observance in that I obey some rabbinic decrees (such as not eating poultry with dairy, despite the fact that it's impossible to boil in its mother's milk an animal whose mother has no milk) and not others. Guilty as charged.

In case you've never read any of my 4,564 screeds against kol isha, I, personally, believe that the barriers against sin are often far too high. Bishul akum is certainly one of those too-high barriers, in my opinion. What sin could possibly be avoided simply by having a Jew turn on the stove? As for the prohibition against drinking "non-Jewish wine" being a barrier against sin, the whole argument falls apart once you consider the fact that *no other alcoholic beverage touched by a non-Jew is forbidden to a Jew.* If the "fence" is against drinking with non-Jews, this rule doesn't prevent that.

In my opinion, a takana and a horaat ha-shaa both have the same problem--they aren't, and, in the case of takanot, cannot be, adjusted according to the needs of the age. So, from my point of view, what happens within the Orthodox community, in practice (there being no sanhedrin), is that more and more laws get added, but none ever gets taken away on the grounds that it's longer needed. Say what you will for the Conservative rabbinate, but they, at least, have their fingers on the 21st-century pulse. As Conservative Rabbi Jim said, "It is precisely the Conservative Movement that willingly takes on the tough issues of the day." If the Orthodox rabbinate did likewise, there would be no such thing as an agunah.

Fri Feb 23, 09:16:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regarding gzerot/siyag/takana: I wouldn't mind the use of these "legislative rules" if there were equal attention paid to the social context in which the laws (actually, the extra layer of laws) were enacted.

Interaction with non-Jews (in food and other situations) must be seen in light of how the Rabbis thought of non-Jews back then, and in light of how we see our current situation. Until the Meiri (mid. ages) Christians were thought of as idolators, dangerous, enticing, amoral, etc. Add to that the fears of a pre-scientific era, and you have the powerlessness of the Jewish People, and you'll understand the "circle the wagons" approach.

Nowadays, members of other religions do not need to be feared in the same way. Interestingly, the enticements are of a more diffuse nature, given our open society. Since the enemy isn't physically in front of us I believe that the Orthodox response has actually been to kick up the "fear factor" even more.

It really is tempting to say "I can't trust myself among non-Jews" or "people shouldn't put themselves in situations where they may succumb" such as when eating and drinking. It is much safer. Unfortunately, this physical removal from society leads to insular thinking, prejudice, distrust, and paranoia. It also cuts Judaism off from potential enrichment from other societies.

Interaction with non-Jews has certainly had its low points. But there have been high points too. If it were so bad, why would there be a blessing: "Blessed are You...who shared His wisdom with flesh and blood."? This blessing is said upon seeing a NON JEWISH scholar.

While some of the critiques about the Conservative Movement (it's Law Committee, specific legal writings and its less-than-observant-congregants) have merit, I don't see a realistic engagement with the world in the Orthodox world. Too often there are sweeping generalizations that prevent people from really digging down deep to work through issues.

Regarding non-Jews and food issues: let's be honest. It's about separating Jews from Goyimwhich was, and continues to be among some, nothing more than racism and fear.

If you study the relevant passages in the Talmud about food cooked by non-Jews or eating with non-Jews, there is no mention of kashrut. It's about intermarriage. If you study the rules about "toyveling" (immersing dishes in the mikveh) it's not about kashrut. It's about the "spiritual purity" of Jews' dishes.

One of my teachers in Rabbinical School, a very traditional man, was asked why he taught in a Conservative school and not an Orthodox one. His answer: "I couldn't teach in a place where they have the answers before the questions are even asked."

Shabbat Shalom,

Jim

Fri Feb 23, 09:32:00 AM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

jfeIf the "fence" is against drinking with non-Jews, this rule doesn't prevent that.

I don't disagree, I actually pointed out the logical fallacy myself. But its not if you understand the logic of halacha. Chazal wasn't going to ban something out of the blue, they were only willing to extend a specific ban in this case.

Why should one have to wait 6 hours after eating chicken (probability says it should be a different wait), but they included it under the parameters of meat, so there it is. Same with alcoholic beverages. They were going off of Yayin Nesach, so they could only include wine. However, yayin mevushal would no longer qualify as yayin nesach, and hence also doesn't fall under "non jewish wine" and is therefore ok. Yes, the point of chazal can be defeated, but chazal wasn't trying to micromanage every little aspect of our lives, but lay down the basic principles that they felt important. Today we have a choice in how we understand those principles and extend them to other aspects of communal life, but in some ways we are stuck with the laws. even if we disagree with them (unless the CJLS breaks out one of its "takanot", which is definitely not according to the rambam's definition of how these law can be changed).

If the Orthodox rabbinate did likewise, there would be no such thing as an agunah.

personally, orthodox rabbis have come up with a solution, the pre-nup, the problem is more intertia today than anything else. Are conservative rabbis allowed to marry people without the Lieberman clause in the ketubah? If so, you end up with the same problem.

Nowadays, members of other religions do not need to be feared in the same way. Interestingly, the enticements are of a more diffuse nature, given our open society. Since the enemy isn't physically in front of us I believe that the Orthodox response has actually been to kick up the "fear factor" even more.

based on what you just said, ignoring if these prohibitions can be repealed or not, do they make sense today? I would think yes. One doesn't have to ratchet aything up in this case, and you are mostly looking at it from what seems like an "ultra orthodox/eastern european" perspective. I would say a modern orthodox perspective hasn't really done that. For instance myself, I'm pursuing a phd at a one of the top universities in the country (and getting paid for it, so I call it secular kollel), I've given talks all over the world based on my research, and I'm not really exceptional in that regard, a large number of my peers are in the same position and its not a self selected group of fellow students.

t really is tempting to say "I can't trust myself among non-Jews" or "people shouldn't put themselves in situations where they may succumb" such as when eating and drinking. It is much safer. Unfortunately, this physical removal from society leads to insular thinking, prejudice, distrust, and paranoia. It also cuts Judaism off from potential enrichment from other societies.

its only in how you approach it. I'd hang out with my non jewish friends, I've even gone to kosher and non kosher restaurants with them, however I wont drink when I'm around the ladies, especially ones that I'm close with. On the flip side, I would say the conservative movement's wanting to be fully integrated into society makes it reject traditional jewish values in favor of what ever is the flavor of the day. I'm not advocating cutting oneself off from society (a reason why I could never be chareidi), but at the same time we view ourselves as the "Am Ha'nivchar/the chosen nation" and the laws of how one interacts with a jew are different than how one interacts with a non jew. If we're supposed to be an 'Or La'goyim" it means we are in some ways separate and distinct from them.

If you study the relevant passages in the Talmud about food cooked by non-Jews or eating with non-Jews, there is no mention of kashrut. It's about intermarriage. If you study the rules about "toyveling" (immersing dishes in the mikveh) it's not about kashrut. It's about the "spiritual purity" of Jews' dishes.

Isn't that what I said above? But as I say in this post, halacha has always separated us from goyim.

Fri Feb 23, 12:10:00 PM 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey rahel,
try actually reading the CJLS teshuva. they did not allow same-sex intercourse. they allow same-sex unions with the understanding that if the parties are male, they davka won't engage in anal sex.

Tue Feb 27, 11:58:00 PM 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

<< List
Jewish Bloggers
Join >>