Re: The end of the conservative movement...
Craig Winchell
I'm posting this separately, because it doesn't really follow a tangent of
the original thread. I just that it's interesting that conservative as an
institution has never had an official policy regarding this. I read
somewhere else that teshuvas have not yet come out for or against the eating
out in nokosher restaurants by the conservative community, much less their
rabbis. I read in another place that this situation illustrated among
conservative rabbis has prompted Rabbi Paul Plotkin to begin to compose a
teshuvah opposing the practice. I don't know anything about the man, but it
certainly seems high time that someone identify just what is proper
conservative practice. I wonder if there will be competing and
contradictory teshuvos as well.
It's well known that conservative rabbis as a group are not well versed in
yoreh deah. Their priorities lie elsewhere, with basic hashkafa and
community pastoral training, to fulfill the basic requirements of their
jobs. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to see the potential for mistakes
to be made, certainly by the widespread community who by and large don't
care about such things, and by the rabbis (who may indeed care) as well.
Given the propensity for many conservative congregants even to knowingly eat
nonkosher, faced with rabbis who may not have the requisite training in this
particualr area, it's high time that the institution sets down just what is
and isn't considered proper from a kashrus perspective, and what is and
isn't expected of a rabbi. In past, it seems way overdue.
Craig Winchell
KarenElizabeth
first (IIRC), dating from the 50s or so, permits eating broiled fish
and/or veggies at non-kosher restaurants. Another relevant ruling
relates to the kashrut of cheese. O, of course, hold that it needs a
hecksher, and that most cheese is *not* kosher. C disagree, and
approve eating all cheeses (again, IIRC -- I wouldn't rely on me, so I
suggest that others don't either).
There was apparently an attempt made to go beyond that, but it never
came to fruition (probably due to too much disagreement as to what the
limits are). that left lots of gaping holes for C Jews. Eg, if a
restaurant is vegetarian -- meaning that it does not use any products
containing any meat whatsoever -- can you eat hot food there? If not,
what about a vegan restaurant? Is there any circumstance in which a
pizza that is made of wholly kosher ingredients, but at a non-kosher
pizza place, can be eaten? (Actually, I think they did answer that
one *no* because of the risk of *steam* from non-kosher ingredients
contaminating the pizza.)
So you're absolutely right -- the C movement does need to get its act
together and provide more guidance.
Karen Elizabeth
Eliyahu
wrote:
> Is there any circumstance in which a
> pizza that is made of wholly kosher ingredients, but at a non-kosher
> pizza place, can be eaten? (Actually, I think they did answer that
> one *no* because of the risk of *steam* from non-kosher ingredients
> contaminating the pizza.)
>
The risk is a lot more than just steam contaminating the pizza. My
daughter is assistant manager in a pizza restaurant in Southern
California, and I've visited her at her workplace. The same
equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork? Very
frustrating to this pizza lover... The only kosher pizza I've ever
seen up here was an Amy's Pizza with a K-D mark recently, and aside
from the price (higher than most), it was cheese with spinach. Almost
as bad as the idea of cheese with okra... Oy!
Eliyahu
Craig Winchell
"KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171388126.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
BS"D
IF what you say is true, why is this thread even in existence? If
conservative halacha was codified to permit eating fish and veggies in
nonkosher restaurants, and eating nonkosher cheese, then why should it be so
farfetched to have conservative rabbis eating such things? In fact, why
would they even take a poll to see the practice of the conservative
rabbinate if whatever they practice as far as eating such things in treif
restaurants is already codified as being ok? Everyone already knew there
were differences between orthodox halacha and conservative halacha in terms
of either interpretation or codification. So what's the big deal? So what
I heard is that the question was neve really asked officially, so it was
never really answered officially, so there is stuff happening at odds even
with conservative halacha. But if it's already been asked and answered,
where's the basis for this thread?
>
> There was apparently an attempt made to go beyond that, but it never
> came to fruition (probably due to too much disagreement as to what the
> limits are). that left lots of gaping holes for C Jews. Eg, if a
> restaurant is vegetarian -- meaning that it does not use any products
> containing any meat whatsoever -- can you eat hot food there?
But there's a kal vachomer here. If you can eat broiled fish and veggies in
a nonkosher restaurant, then why not hot vegetarian food in a vegetarian
restaurant?
> If not,
> what about a vegan restaurant? Is there any circumstance in which a
> pizza that is made of wholly kosher ingredients, but at a non-kosher
> pizza place, can be eaten? (Actually, I think they did answer that
> one *no* because of the risk of *steam* from non-kosher ingredients
> contaminating the pizza.)
Here again, it's a kal vachomer. Because broiled fish is not double-wrapped
and baked, and it's no doubt broiled on the same broiler as treif meat
and/or seafood.
Craig Winchell
KarenElizabeth
> "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Oh, lots of reasons. First and foremost, this is SCJM, and people
here like to argue!
Second, the ruling about eating grilled (my bad ... its grilled, not
broiled ... I warned everyone not to rely on me!) fish and veggies is
not without its detractors, and does have limitations. So there is
still a lot of discussion about it. In fact, I think that in the
article that you originally referred to, there's mention of a rabbi
who believes that this leniency was a mistake, and would like to
reverse it.
Third, the ability of C consumers to eat in non-kosher restaurants is
limited by the ruling, but its a situation where people have taken it
and run ... in other words, they've taken *grilled fish* and expanded
it to all kinds of other things and situations.
Finally, and related to (3), given the lack of definitive rules,
rabbis have had to make decisions at the congregational level, and
people have made decisions for themselves without rabbinic input.
IMHO the survey shows that the C movement really needs to address
these issues more centrally.
But from my perspective, it really isn't surprising, in light of the
very different take that C has on kashrut, that C rabbis and observant
C Jews would be eating things and eating in places that O Jews would
find completely unacceptable.
In fact, why
> would they even take a poll to see the practice of the conservative
> rabbinate if whatever they practice as far as eating such things in treif
> restaurants is already codified as being ok?
See above.
Everyone already knew there
> were differences between orthodox halacha and conservative halacha in terms
> of either interpretation or codification. So what's the big deal? So what
> I heard is that the question was neve really asked officially, so it was
> never really answered officially, so there is stuff happening at odds even
> with conservative halacha. But if it's already been asked and answered,
> where's the basis for this thread?
>
>
>
> > There was apparently an attempt made to go beyond that, but it never
> > came to fruition (probably due to too much disagreement as to what the
> > limits are). that left lots of gaping holes for C Jews. Eg, if a
> > restaurant is vegetarian -- meaning that it does not use any products
> > containing any meat whatsoever -- can you eat hot food there?
>
> But there's a kal vachomer here. If you can eat broiled fish and veggies in
> a nonkosher restaurant, then why not hot vegetarian food in a vegetarian
> restaurant?
>
Good question; I don't know. Perhaps because vegetarians often eat
seafood? The fact is that AFAIK its simply never been addressed by
the C movement.
In other words ... (a) under certain circumstances, its OK to eat
grilled fish and veggies in a non-kosher restaurant; (b) its still
obviously unacceptable to eat non-kosher meat or chicken; and (c)
whatever else is acceptable or unacceptable has never been
determined. Big gap there.
Karen Elizabeth
Yisroel Markov
<karenel...@yahoo.com> said:
>On Feb 13, 7:46 pm, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>> IF what you say is true, why is this thread even in existence? If
>> conservative halacha was codified to permit eating fish and veggies in
>> nonkosher restaurants, and eating nonkosher cheese, then why should it be so
>> farfetched to have conservative rabbis eating such things?
>
>Oh, lots of reasons. First and foremost, this is SCJM, and people
>here like to argue!
>
>Second, the ruling about eating grilled (my bad ... its grilled, not
>broiled ... I warned everyone not to rely on me!) fish and veggies is
>not without its detractors, and does have limitations. So there is
>still a lot of discussion about it. In fact, I think that in the
>article that you originally referred to, there's mention of a rabbi
>who believes that this leniency was a mistake, and would like to
>reverse it.
>
>Third, the ability of C consumers to eat in non-kosher restaurants is
>limited by the ruling, but its a situation where people have taken it
>and run ... in other words, they've taken *grilled fish* and expanded
>it to all kinds of other things and situations.
I suspect that this is why many decrees of the Sages seem so broad
("What, someone will think that it's OK to cook meat with milk if it's
not also forbidden to cook poultry with milk? Ridiculous!"). They knew
their public, and its tendency to "expand" on things.
[snip]
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Adelle
"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171395809.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Eliyahu - Give spinach pizza a second chance.
We do home made pizza a lot. Our favorite (though made infrequently because
of the prep fuss and cost of artichoke hearts) is drained chopped spinach,
caramelized onions, sautéed mushrooms, and marinated artichoke hearts
(drained). And of course, should be accompanied by one's favorite beer.
Adelle
Art Werschulz
"Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> writes:
> We do home made pizza a lot. Our favorite (though made infrequently because
> of the prep fuss and cost of artichoke hearts) is drained chopped spinach,
> caramelized onions, sautéed mushrooms, and marinated artichoke hearts
> (drained). And of course, should be accompanied by one's favorite beer.
Served at whatever temperature you desire.
--
Art Werschulz (agw STRUDEL comcast.net)
207 Stoughton Ave Cranford NJ 07016
(908) 272-1146
Tim Meushaw
> Hi.
>
> "Adelle" <adNOs...@SPAMcomcast.net> writes:
>
>> We do home made pizza a lot. Our favorite (though made infrequently because
>> of the prep fuss and cost of artichoke hearts) is drained chopped spinach,
>> caramelized onions, sautéed mushrooms, and marinated artichoke hearts
>> (drained). And of course, should be accompanied by one's favorite beer.
>
> Served at whatever temperature you desire.
As long as it's neither warm nor cold.
Shabbat shalom,
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
Herman Rubin
Adelle <adNOs...@comSPAMcast.net> wrote:
>"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1171395809.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 13, 11:30 am, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
.................
The same
>> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
>> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
>> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
>> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
>> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork?
According to the Talmud, if it is at least one part in 60.
Very
>> frustrating to this pizza lover... The only kosher pizza I've ever
>> seen up here was an Amy's Pizza with a K-D mark recently, and aside
>> from the price (higher than most), it was cheese with spinach. Almost
>> as bad as the idea of cheese with okra... Oy!
>> Eliyahu
>Eliyahu - Give spinach pizza a second chance.
I agree.
>We do home made pizza a lot. Our favorite (though made infrequently because
>of the prep fuss and cost of artichoke hearts) is drained chopped spinach,
>caramelized onions, sauted mushrooms, and marinated artichoke hearts
>(drained). And of course, should be accompanied by one's favorite beer.
>Adelle
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Micha Berger
> The same
>>> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
>>> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
>>> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
>>> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
>>> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork?
> According to the Talmud, if it is at least one part in 60.
And not intentionally added. Bitul beshishim (nullified by 60) only
works for accidents. Whether the intent must be a Jew's is a different
subject.
And a pizza is rarely larger than 60 times the size of the oven.
:-)BBii!
-mi
Eliyahu
> In article <m9WdnahLXKGYbkjYnZ2dnUVZ_tern...@comcast.com>,
>
> Adelle <adNOsta...@comSPAMcast.net> wrote:
> >"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1171395809.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 13, 11:30 am, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> .................
>
> The same
>
> >> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
> >> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
> >> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
> >> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
> >> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork?
>
> According to the Talmud, if it is at least one part in 60.
>
circumstances. If it were otherwise, kashrut would be so very simple
to do...
Eliyahu
Eliyahu
> In article <m9WdnahLXKGYbkjYnZ2dnUVZ_tern...@comcast.com>,
>
> >"Eliyahu" <lro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1171395809.6...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 13, 11:30 am, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> .................
>
> The same
>
> >> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
> >> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
> >> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
> >> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
> >> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork?
>
> According to the Talmud, if it is at least one part in 60.
>
circumstances. If it were otherwise, kashrut would be so very
Eliyahu
Joel Shurkin
Well, that will explain why the kitchen stinks.
j
Steve Goldfarb
If a chunk of bacon falls onto a veggie pizza, then that's an accident,
isn't it? The pizza maker would prefer that it not happen - it's not
adding any benefit to anyone.
Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
eating ovens.
--s
--
Micha Berger
> Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
> the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
> food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
> WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
> eating ovens.
There is no prohibition against eating forks either, but we still have
two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
(in some opinions 59) times its volume.
Gut Voch!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
mi...@aishdas.org greater vanity in others; it makes us vain,
http://www.aishdas.org in fact, of our modesty.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
Eliyahu
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
> > the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
> > food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
> > WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
> > eating ovens.
>
> There is no prohibition against eating forks either, but we still have
> two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
> pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
> (in some opinions 59) times its volume.
>
ovens in commercial establishments don't use pizza pans. The pizza is
placed directly in the oven, and any juices from the cheese and meat
that are spilled in the oven will be cooked on the same surface that
every other pizza is cooked on. The pizza doesn't go onto a pan until
it's removed from the oven to be sliced. And the knife or cutter used
to slice it is the same one that was used moments earlier to slice a
pork pepperoni pizza.
Eliyahu
Ken Bloom
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
>> the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
>> food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
>> WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
>> eating ovens.
>
> There is no prohibition against eating forks either, but we still have
> two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
> pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
> (in some opinions 59) times its volume.
60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
walls.
--
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Micha Berger
> 60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
> taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
> walls.
Yes.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
Steve Goldfarb
>Yes.
I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
We know from discussions here that the absolute worst thing you can do in
the world, with regard to food, is permit any meat to come into any sort
of contact, directly or indirectly, with milk. This is the worst sin
possible, far worse than eating pork, etc. (at least that's how it's been
presented here)
Nevertheless, we also know that it's perfectly permissible and in fact has
always been standard Jewish practice to cook dairy and meat items in the
same oven - although perhaps not at the same time. So what's the problem
with the oven?
A pizza oven is 400+ degrees -- there's no "taste" in the walls, anything
that might be there is a) microscopic, and we know halacha is only
concerned with the observable world, and b) no longer anything like
"food."
The concern that was discussed, which is a real concern, is that a piece
of non-kosher meat might fall into a pizza intended to be vegetarian.
THAT's where the "less than 1/60th" rule would seem applicable.
Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone O ought to eat pizza from a non-kosher
establishment, BUT I do think a person (say, a C person if you wish) could
reasonably, rationally, and philosophically consistently define a standard
of kashrut for themselves such that this pizza was OK.
--s
--
Eliyahu
> In <erb3kf$g0...@falcon.steinthal.us> m...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>
> >Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
> >> taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
> >> walls.
> >Yes.
>
> I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
> are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
> speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
>
> We know from discussions here that the absolute worst thing you can do in
> the world, with regard to food, is permit any meat to come into any sort
> of contact, directly or indirectly, with milk. This is the worst sin
> possible, far worse than eating pork, etc. (at least that's how it's been
> presented here)
>
> Nevertheless, we also know that it's perfectly permissible and in fact has
> always been standard Jewish practice to cook dairy and meat items in the
> same oven - although perhaps not at the same time. So what's the problem
> with the oven?
>
generally place it in a pot, pan, or kettle before placing it on the
stove or in the oven. At a pizza restaurant, the pizza is placed
directly on the oven floor itself (or in some places, on a long metal
conveyor belt running through a lengthy oven) without a pan or
anything else in between. And the pans we use at home have been
kashered prior to being put into service, and what's used for meat
isn't used for dairy, and neither are ever used for treif. The
commercial pizza oven, OTOH, is in direct contact with both meat and
dairy, neither of which are kosher products to begin with, and there's
almost always some burned-on residue from both even at the start of
the day.
Eliyahu
tovmeod
wrote:
I don't think vegetarians eat seafood, but I see 2 main problems,
tolaim and bishul
see esther (from purim) when got to the castle and didn't wanted to
say she was jewish say that was vegetarian and only eated raw food, I
believe that she checked for tolaim herself at the time she was going
to eat.
other than that, if the owner of the veggie restaurant is jewish you
may have one additional problem, he may not have dipped the kelim in
the micve.
a veggie restaurant may also use exotic food that is not a problem to
them but it is to us, like egg from animals different than we are used
to eat (ok this mya be a safec) or milk, from pigs or whatever.
not only that, someone in the kitchen may not be veggie and eat meat,
so when he makes his meals he will use the kelim from the restaurant
not a separated one, he may not do it everyday, may one time is enough
tovmeod
wrote:
also they usually don't look for tolaim in the flower, and even if
they did it would be very difficult that they looked properly, even
that the goy had irat shamaim, he doesn't know the halachot..
second there's the problem of bishul
and third there's no hashgacha, halacha requires that you are sure,
not maybe, that's why we have mashguichim
tovmeod
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
> > the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
> > food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
> > WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
> > eating ovens.
>
> There is no prohibition against eating forks either, but we still have
> two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
> pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
> (in some opinions 59) times its volume.
>
> Gut Voch!
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger Nothing so soothes our vanity as a display of
> Fax: (270) 514-1507 -Louis Kronenberger, writer (1904-1980)
and as I remeber it, it should be small enough so you can't see or
taste
Micha Berger
> I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
> are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
> speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
One fence -- the need for separate dishes rather than being able to
measure how much of the dish actually is food of the wrong sort. Since
it's an inability, I'm not even sure that's a fence in the sense of the
word "gezeirah".
Pizzas are baked directly on the oven. (Often multiple pizzas of different
types at the same time.) Thus it's no different than keeping two sets
of dishes.
My oven is (1) burnt out between the two, and (2) not the surface on which
my wife actually cooks / bakes / broils. (My culinary exploits are limited
to Sunday morning breakfast in bed for my wife and children. I have to
be up for shul, but for once, she doesn't have to be up for carpools.)
> We know from discussions here that the absolute worst thing you can do in
> the world, with regard to food, is permit any meat to come into any sort
> of contact, directly or indirectly, with milk. This is the worst sin
> possible, far worse than eating pork, etc. (at least that's how it's been
> presented here)
Well, meat and milk can't be used for anything. Pork can be used, just
not eaten. It's more stringent.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams,
mi...@aishdas.org The end is near.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer
Fax: (270) 514-1507
yaco...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
The rules of ta'aruboth (mixtures) apply to any mixture not
intentionally performed by a Jew. Therefore Shulhan Arukh states we
may buy oil of gentiles, even if it is cooked "beacuse the meat [i.e.,
the genitle's meat cooked **in the same pot** as the oil we are now
permitted to buy] taints the oil and causes it to rot."
This is the famous law of "noten ta'am lifgam" SA 103:4. ("the
forbidden element in the mixture gives a tainting taste")
This is not an "accidental" mixture. It is a bei'abad -- "once it was
done." Even intentionally by the gentile.
This is why nobody in the Ottoman Empire had the concept of "hekhsher"
on foods.
Once the mixture is mixed, if the mixture is (1) noten ta'am lifgam,
or (2) batel beshishim (the forbidden element is in a lesser
proportion than 1:60 relative to the permitted), it is permitted.
Kashruth is not akin to "purity" as in a level 5 Haz-mat facility.
Jacko
Shlomo Argamon
You mean on pure "commodity" foodstuffs, such as oil or milk, or do
you also include prepared foods? If the latter, without a hekhsher
(of some sort) how is one to know that the ingredients are all
actually kosher? Also, what of the issue of "bishul aku"m"? (Or does
that only apply to aku"m mamash?)
-Shlomo-
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
We welcome Marcel from Sao Paulo Brazil to SCJM. Which synagogue:
Binyan Olam (Rabbi Chaim David) or Congregacao Mekor Haim (Rabbi Dichi)?
SCJM is a community. Tell us about Jewish life in Sao Paulo [I actually
had an Ashkenazi Charedi student from Sao Paulo last year].
Josh
>
Herman Rubin
The oven is not added. The question was about toppings
which accidentally fell from one container to the other.
Read the question asked before I posted my answer.
How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork?
Is it one part in 60 of the pizza or one part in 60 of the
mushroom bin? Or is it one part in 60 of the material taken
from the mushroom bin to be put on the pizza? In any case,
more than one part in 60 is likely to be noticed.
As for the amount added from pans, etc., this will be very
small compared to the one part in 60. A pizza oven is very
hot, and despite what it states in Shulkhan Arukh, a metal
pizza pan is effectively kashered by a decent washing, if
one attempts to use a scientific exegesis from the Torah
exposition.
yaco...@aol.com
> In article <er58vl$he...@falcon.steinthal.us>,
Law is not science. Why do you continually speak as if it is? Even
if it is informed by science, you are presuming a definition of
"kashered" which is a legla category?
Why the Bob Dole "insiderspeak" which is another way of imposing your
views (by never being honest as to what the reasoning is behind them)
on others?
Is your notion of law that we are all subservient to your peculiar and
individual dictates?
If that is Judaism then I quit.
Law is certainly not what you "claim" is science. You are not a
legislature or a court, or even someone whose legal opinions are
considered of weight.
We all freely stipulate that is how you would like it to be. Why
cannot you accept that this fantasy remains YOUR FANTASY?
Do you think it is helpful to repeateldy interject this idiosyncracy?
Jacko
bac...@vms.huji.ac.il
The RADBAZ (16th century Egypt) didn't live in the Ottoman Empire???
Rav Yosef Karo (Safed, Israel, 15th-16th Century) didn't live in the Ottoman
Empire??
Josh
Herman Rubin
.................
>> The same
It probably was in Temple days, at least for many, if not
most, of the sects. There are indications in the Talmud
that the rules were more lenient then; otherwise, how could
the "9 out of 10" butcher shops being kosher be enough to
make a piece of meat kosher?
yaco...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Commodities are easier, but it also covers prepared foods that are not
'assur mishum bishul 'akkum. You would have to know the ingredients
however, which is the approach of the Abadi family of Lakewood, as
described in detail on ther website, www.kashrut.org.
In particular I note Teshuba No. 30 of "Ahole Tam" of R. Tam Ibn
Yihya, one of the earlier posqim of Istanbul post-gerush Sefarad.
If you do know the ingredients, there is no need to assume there is
some 'issur. This is the position of the famous ruling of the
Tashbes, "la mahziqinan be'issura" which he articulated even in the
context of **Pesah** (regarding buying butter from gentiles on Pesah).
This was the position of every Sefaradi I am aware of prior to
Sefaradim adopting E. Eurpean norms in the past 50-70 years as a
result of various influences.
Jacko
Joel Shurkin
yaco...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
If you have a point, then make it. I am not going to respond to
generalizations or rhetorical questions.
Nobody bothered with the whole visual oriented Judaism of the OU, OK,
etc., the denigration of those not in the club, e.g., Rabbi Ralbag and
his triangle-K, etc. Wearing a black hat, not working and having an
unkempt beard does not a hakham make. Nor does it justify making a
business out of Judaism. The standards these organizations use do NOT
comport with Sephardic halakha anyway, both lequla and lehumra. The
OU certifies grey Poupon mustard, which has gentile white wine in it.
Setham yenam is not batel beshesh according to the Talmud, and you
people who advocate here the stringent (and simply incorrect, both
legally and linguistically) form of bedi'abad can hardly say you
consider the laws of bittul to apply to a jar of mustard.
Thus the great demand for, and fantastic reception of, the Abadis web
site and related plethora of kashruth information, WHICH ADVOCATES
READING THE INGREDIENTS and not relying or requiring "hekhshers."
Look, in my experience the average yeshiva educated Jew has no genuine
interest and no genuine knowledge of what our life was like in the
Ottoman Empire.
I stopped reacting to the feigned surprise -- as you invoke here --
long ago.
I freely admit that what you know as "yahadus" and "frumkeit" is very
different from my notions of Tora and Halakha.
So it goes.
Jacko
Jonathan J. Baker
>There is no prohibition against eating forks either, ...
Venishmartem me'od et nafshoteichem? [Protect your life/health] I can't
imagine eating forks to be healthy. Broken teeth, cut esophagus,
death or surgery soon to follow...
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com Featuring: Rav Movie
Herman Rubin
>> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
>>> the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
>>> food as whole? (e.g., a chunk of bacon relative to the size of the pizza)
>>> WHo cares about the oven? Ovens aren't food - there's no prohibition on
>>> eating ovens.
>> There is no prohibition against eating forks either, but we still have
>> two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
>> pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
>> (in some opinions 59) times its volume.
>60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
>taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
>walls.
There is not that much "treif taste". Possibly the rabbis
thought there was, but that does not make it so. At the
temperature of a pizza oven, it would not last long.
The only reason to have two sets of metal utensils is
tradition and the ignorance of those who wrote the rules.
One can no more "pollute" metal than glass. The rules are
exegesis from the text, and those who know more accurately
the laws and facts of nature should have the obligation to
correct the false reasoning.
BTW, the Passover degree of contamination allowed was only
one in 3600, and yet the ovens could be cleaned of leaven
for baking unleavened bread.
Micha Berger
>>60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
>>taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
>>walls.
> There is not that much "treif taste"...
Ta'am has meanings other than taste. It is also used for "reason /
explanation", as in something that gives a "taste" to an otherwise dry
and bland idea.
If ta'am actually meant taste, it wouldn't apply to the amount of treif
that can be aborbed into steel. For that matter, if it referred to
microscopic particles, we wouldn't require needing to out-do the volume
of the oven.
How many times now have we discussed the dangers of taking these
translations too seriously and trying to 2nd guess the law from them?
Jonathan J. Baker
>In <erb3kf$g05$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
>>> taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
>>> walls.
>>Yes.
>I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
>are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
>speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
>We know from discussions here that the absolute worst thing you can do in
>the world, with regard to food, is permit any meat to come into any sort
>of contact, directly or indirectly, with milk. This is the worst sin
>possible, far worse than eating pork, etc. (at least that's how it's been
>presented here)
>Nevertheless, we also know that it's perfectly permissible and in fact has
>always been standard Jewish practice to cook dairy and meat items in the
>same oven - although perhaps not at the same time. So what's the problem
>with the oven?
Watch the oven at your local pizza place. They have several items
in it, at the same time, uncovered, some with and some without meat
on top. Two pizzas next to each other, you're not going to get some
oil spatter from this one onto that one?
>A pizza oven is 400+ degrees -- there's no "taste" in the walls, anything
>that might be there is a) microscopic, and we know halacha is only
>concerned with the observable world, and b) no longer anything like
>"food."
It would be so, perhaps, if they ever shut off the oven for more than
24 hours, and then you ate the first pizza that came out of the oven
before they started cooking more meat-stuff in it.
>The concern that was discussed, which is a real concern, is that a piece
>of non-kosher meat might fall into a pizza intended to be vegetarian.
>THAT's where the "less than 1/60th" rule would seem applicable.
Who are you to determine that this is the only real concern? How's
your Hebrew? I attend a Yoreh Deah shiur on Sunday mornings, he's planning
to start doing Basar Becholov starting after Pesach. I went through the
last cycle (took about 4 years for Basar becholov and Taaruvos), it was a
real eye-opener. I used to think like you, that I can eat pizza out.
No more.
You're on Pacific St, right? Take an Atlantic Ave bus to the subway,
take the Q to Avenue M, then it's a few short blocks to E 13 between
M&N. You can attend the shiur easily, it's Sundays 10-12. Or drive.
If you want something shorter, I suggest learning the Chochmas Odom
chapters 42-64, which summarizes the same material. If you want, we
could learn it together. Or I'm sure Rabbi Raskin can find you someone
to learn it with.
>Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone O ought to eat pizza from a non-kosher
>establishment, BUT I do think a person (say, a C person if you wish) could
>reasonably, rationally, and philosophically consistently define a standard
>of kashrut for themselves such that this pizza was OK.
They could. But they would have to do so without reference to Halacha.
Because if they actually included Halacha in their decisionmaking process,
the result would not include eating pizza in a non-kosher pizza place.
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjb...@panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
Jonathan J. Baker
>On Feb 18, 3:43 am, m...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) wrote:
>> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> > Further, what does the size of the oven have to do with anything? Isn't it
>> > the size of the accidentally introduced matter compared to the size of the
>> two sets of utensils. In order for bitul to work WRT a treif oven, the
>> pizza would have to accidentally fall into the oven, and be at least 60
>> (in some opinions 59) times its volume.
>and as I remeber it, it should be small enough so you can't see or
>taste
The real rule is that the taste should not be perceptible. 1:60 is a
rule of thumb developed by Chazal to be an amount that shouldn't be
perceptible. Which is why it doesn't apply to spices, and other things
defined as "sharp".
Herman Rubin
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 19, 11:29 am, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote:
>> In article <er58vl$he...@falcon.steinthal.us>,
>> Micha Berger <m...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>> >Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
................
>If that is Judaism then I quit.
>Law is certainly not what you "claim" is science. You are not a
>legislature or a court, or even someone whose legal opinions are
>considered of weight.
>We all freely stipulate that is how you would like it to be. Why
>cannot you accept that this fantasy remains YOUR FANTASY?
Law is not science, but law does not ignore science. New
science forces reconsideration of law.
Right now, Judaism does not have a recognized legislative
body, and has put itself into a bind. The Torah requires
us to study the universe and use our findings; the rabbis
used what they thought was correct. In a great many cases,
we KNOW the rabbis were wrong.
>Do you think it is helpful to repeateldy interject this idiosyncracy?
You want ritual to block understanding.
>Jacko
Micha Berger
agent can not be nullified because its impact is so global and obvious.
So the cheese would have to be guaranteed not to be made with real rennet.
(Rennet is the lining of a cow's stomach. It provides thriving cultures
for turning the milk into cheese.)
Micha Berger
> The real rule is that the taste should not be perceptible. 1:60 is a
> rule of thumb developed by Chazal to be an amount that shouldn't be
> perceptible. Which is why it doesn't apply to spices, and other things
> defined as "sharp".
Not perceptable in other ways as well. See my recent post about a davar
hamaamid (an agent for solidifying).
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
chsw
> In <erb8mu$397$1...@reader2.panix.com> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> writes:
>> In <erb3kf$g05$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>> Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
>>>> taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in the
>>>> walls.
>
>>> Yes.
>
>
> Watch the oven at your local pizza place. They have several items
> in it, at the same time, uncovered, some with and some without meat
> on top. Two pizzas next to each other, you're not going to get some
> oil spatter from this one onto that one?
>
>> A pizza oven is 400+ degrees -- there's no "taste" in the walls, anything
>> that might be there is a) microscopic, and we know halacha is only
>> concerned with the observable world, and b) no longer anything like
>> "food."
>
> It would be so, perhaps, if they ever shut off the oven for more than
> 24 hours, and then you ate the first pizza that came out of the oven
> before they started cooking more meat-stuff in it.
This isn't a comment about halacha, but I may be the only person
in the group to have worked in a restaurant kitchen as well as a
waiter or busboy. Hence, my comment may be just a flavor to the
halachic debate.
Most multi-level pizza restaurant ovens are set at well over
450F. The only reason why your pizza or slice doesn't burn up is
because cooking and warming must be carefully timed, and because
the doors are opened frequently to check on the progress of the
food. If you watch a pizza maker, he will sweep out burnt-to-ash
corn meal and toss in uncooked corn meal several times daily
(keeps the pies and slices from sticking). It may be possible
for the heat of the oven to kasher the oven by reducing all bits
within it to ash over an hour or so, just like the corn meal.
If this self-kashering is the case, then the first pizza in the
morning, if made with uncontaminated kosher ingredients, might be
kosher.
chsw (no anchovies, please, except on white pizza)
also sent to a former scjm-er for comment
Craig Winchell
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171909132.4...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BS"D
It is kosher white wine made in a gentile-owned-and-controlled-establishment
by Jews, but owned by nonJews.
Craig Winchell
Eliyahu
> Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
> >
> >> A pizza oven is 400+ degrees -- there's no "taste" in the walls, anything
> >> that might be there is a) microscopic, and we know halacha is only
> >> concerned with the observable world, and b) no longer anything like
> >> "food."
>
> > It would be so, perhaps, if they ever shut off the oven for more than
> > 24 hours, and then you ate the first pizza that came out of the oven
> > before they started cooking more meat-stuff in it.
>
> This isn't a comment about halacha, but I may be the only person
> in the group to have worked in a restaurant kitchen as well as a
> waiter or busboy. Hence, my comment may be just a flavor to the
> halachic debate.
>
stint at a KFC during a period of unemployment some years ago. The
only pertinent aspects of KFC food are that the liquid butter-
substitute used in their mashed potatoes is OU-dairy, and the corn on
the cob has the following ingredients list on the packages --
"ingredients: corn."
Eliyahu
chsw
Speaking of KFC - is it forbidden to eat pigeons?
chsw
Jonathan J. Baker
Yes, but the issue there is different. it's not meat/milk, it's the
origin of the solidifying agent from a non-kosher animal (nevelah).
tovmeod
:) actually I'm not from são paulo, I'm from rio de janeiro, but
anyway I could tell you a little about it, but seems that you already
is familiar with..
I don't know much about são paulo, but it is bigger than just 2
synagogues :)
but what would you like to know?
I had the merit to meet Rav Dichi once I was in são paulo, and that's
it, other than that I have some of his books of halachot and drashot
marcel
Micha Berger
> Speaking of KFC - is it forbidden to eat pigeons?
Pigeons are as kosher of a species as chicken.
However, one is obligated to guard one's health. They are far more likely
to breed disease. And the fat and sodium levels in the Colonal's secret
recipe aren't the healthiest either.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com>
>Subject:Re: The end of the conservative movement...
>Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:02:36 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<erdo00$d1a$1...@reader2.panix.com>
>In <> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger) writes:
>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>> The real rule is that the taste should not be perceptible. 1:60 is a
>>> rule of thumb developed by Chazal to be an amount that shouldn't be
>>> perceptible. Which is why it doesn't apply to spices, and other things
>>> defined as "sharp".
>
>>Not perceptable in other ways as well. See my recent post about a davar
>>hamaamid (an agent for solidifying).
>
>Yes, but the issue there is different. it's not meat/milk, it's the
>origin of the solidifying agent from a non-kosher animal (nevelah).
>
Do we follow the NODA B'YEHUDA (Yoreh Deah Siman 26) who reads the
Rambam (Maachalot Assurot 14:10) as following Rabbi Meir in the
gemara in Avoda Zara 67b [re: the stomach lining of a nevela] and
thus, only the rennet derived from a kosher animal is permitted for
making gelatin] ? Or do we follow the Rema YD 87:10; Pri Chadash
103:2; Pitchei Tshuva 87:21 who follows the Shach YD 114:21 and the
ROSH on Avoda Zara 2:34, who say that even from a nevela [a kosher
animal that was not slaughtered, or a nonkosher animal] there is no
Toraitic prohibition if the stomach lining was completely dried out
like dust ? Since the Mechaber follows the Ri MiGash that davar ha'maamid
is mi'derabban, we can be lenient.
Even though there is a rabbinic prohibition of eating food that is
unfit for human consumption (see: Minchat Cohen Hilchot Taarovot
Chelek Aleph 9; Pri Toar 103; Shaagat Aryeh 75; Pri Megadim Shaar
Ha'taarovot 5:6) this is not the case if the material was in a mixture
(YD 103) [zeh v'zeh gorem, muttar].
Josh
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
> chsw <ch...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Speaking of KFC - is it forbidden to eat pigeons?
>
> Pigeons are as kosher of a species as chicken.
>
> However, one is obligated to guard one's health. They are far more
> likely to breed disease. And the fat and sodium levels in the
> Colonal's secret recipe aren't the healthiest either.
That's probably true of most (all?) junk food.
> Micha Berger When memories exceed dreams,
> mi...@aishdas.org The end is near.
> http://www.aishdas.org - Rav Moshe Sherer
I see this sig more and more often. Did you stop randomizing?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Jonathan J. Baker
>From: "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com>
>>>Not perceptable in other ways as well. See my recent post about a davar
>>>hamaamid (an agent for solidifying).
>>Yes, but the issue there is different. it's not meat/milk, it's the
>>origin of the solidifying agent from a non-kosher animal (nevelah).
>>
> Do we follow the NODA B'YEHUDA (Yoreh Deah Siman 26) who reads the
> Rambam (Maachalot Assurot 14:10) as following Rabbi Meir in the
> gemara in Avoda Zara 67b [re: the stomach lining of a nevela] and
> thus, only the rennet derived from a kosher animal is permitted for
> making gelatin] ? Or do we follow the Rema YD 87:10; Pri Chadash
> 103:2; Pitchei Tshuva 87:21 who follows the Shach YD 114:21 and the
> ROSH on Avoda Zara 2:34, who say that even from a nevela [a kosher
> animal that was not slaughtered, or a nonkosher animal] there is no
> Toraitic prohibition if the stomach lining was completely dried out
> like dust ? Since the Mechaber follows the Ri MiGash that davar ha'maamid
> is mi'derabban, we can be lenient.
> Even though there is a rabbinic prohibition of eating food that is
> unfit for human consumption (see: Minchat Cohen Hilchot Taarovot
> Chelek Aleph 9; Pri Toar 103; Shaagat Aryeh 75; Pri Megadim Shaar
> Ha'taarovot 5:6) this is not the case if the material was in a mixture
> (YD 103) [zeh v'zeh gorem, muttar].
Yeah, but this is one of the few real regional differences we have today.
In Israel, they permit davar hamaamid (gelatin, and I think rennet) using
the above reasoning, which I think was endorsed by the Chazon Ish. In
the US and elsewhere, they follow R' Moshe (I think) to forbid, based on
the Rema and the other stringent sources above.
Steve Goldfarb
>>I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
>>are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
>>speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
>Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
>60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
>assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
But the absorbed foodstuff traces in the walls of the oven are
metaphysical. Mathematics in this case is meaningless. Further still, who
cares about the traces in the oven walls? The issue is the pizza. So the
traces that leave the treif pizza, enter the oven walls, and then re-enter
the veggie pizza would have to constitute greater than 1/60th of the
volume of the veggie pizza, wouldn't they? Otherwise the entire universe
would be treif, since there's a piece of pork somewhere touching something
that eventually touches everything else in the universe. The walls of the
oven and the pizza aren't a "mixture" they're very discrete physical
objects.
>>Nevertheless, we also know that it's perfectly permissible and in fact has
>>always been standard Jewish practice to cook dairy and meat items in the
>>same oven - although perhaps not at the same time. So what's the problem
>>with the oven?
>Watch the oven at your local pizza place. They have several items
>in it, at the same time, uncovered, some with and some without meat
>on top. Two pizzas next to each other, you're not going to get some
>oil spatter from this one onto that one?
This is true. Has nothing to do with "taste" in the walls of the pizza
oven, though. And once again -- any such splashes would be accidental, and
would constitute less than 1/60 of the volume of the veggie pizza.
>>A pizza oven is 400+ degrees -- there's no "taste" in the walls, anything
>>that might be there is a) microscopic, and we know halacha is only
>>concerned with the observable world, and b) no longer anything like
>>"food."
>It would be so, perhaps, if they ever shut off the oven for more than
>24 hours, and then you ate the first pizza that came out of the oven
>before they started cooking more meat-stuff in it.
Why? Speaking purely physically, that is, in terms of actual physical
residues.
>>The concern that was discussed, which is a real concern, is that a piece
>>of non-kosher meat might fall into a pizza intended to be vegetarian.
>>THAT's where the "less than 1/60th" rule would seem applicable.
>Who are you to determine that this is the only real concern? How's
>your Hebrew? I attend a Yoreh Deah shiur on Sunday mornings, he's planning
>to start doing Basar Becholov starting after Pesach. I went through the
>last cycle (took about 4 years for Basar becholov and Taaruvos), it was a
>real eye-opener. I used to think like you, that I can eat pizza out.
>No more.
I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would
consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point.
>You're on Pacific St, right? Take an Atlantic Ave bus to the subway,
>take the Q to Avenue M, then it's a few short blocks to E 13 between
>M&N. You can attend the shiur easily, it's Sundays 10-12. Or drive.
Pacific St was three addresses ago, actually.
>If you want something shorter, I suggest learning the Chochmas Odom
>chapters 42-64, which summarizes the same material. If you want, we
>could learn it together. Or I'm sure Rabbi Raskin can find you someone
>to learn it with.
I appreciate your offer to learn together -- sincerely -- but at this
point if I had a spare couple hours a week I'd be taking guitar lessons.
>>Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone O ought to eat pizza from a non-kosher
>>establishment, BUT I do think a person (say, a C person if you wish) could
>>reasonably, rationally, and philosophically consistently define a standard
>>of kashrut for themselves such that this pizza was OK.
>They could. But they would have to do so without reference to Halacha.
>Because if they actually included Halacha in their decisionmaking process,
>the result would not include eating pizza in a non-kosher pizza place.
No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha."
It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from
saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it
did.
--s
--
Micha Berger
:>60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
:>assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
We do.
On Tue, February 20, 2007 11:46 pm, Steve Goldfarb wrote:
: But the absorbed foodstuff traces in the walls of the oven are
: metaphysical. Mathematics in this case is meaningless....
My own theory is that it's not so much metaphysical as psychological. We can't
experience the pizza oven without being swayed by its history. Goes back to my
general theory about halakhah being determined by reality-as-experienced.
Another possibility is that given the inability to measure the food, we are
forced to just rely on what can be measured, as the only provable upper limit.
(Pessimistic as it may be.)
A metaphysical argument could be made just as well.
: Further still, who
: cares about the traces in the oven walls? The issue is the pizza. So the
: traces that leave the treif pizza, enter the oven walls, and then re-enter
: the veggie pizza would have to constitute greater than 1/60th of the
: volume of the veggie pizza, wouldn't they? ... Otherwise the entire universe
: would be treif, since there's a piece of pork somewhere touching something
: that eventually touches everything else in the universe....
1- While hot?
2- Didn't you just say it's not about numbers nor measuring total particle
volume?
3- We're still ignoring the rennet possibly in the cheese, the pizzas baking
simultaneously in the same oven, the visible splatter that isn't washed off,
and any other kashrus problems in our example.
The issue of ta'am ("taste") is not an O vs C difference. C works around the
problem of using one dishawasher for both meat and milk. It too presumes that
in general, the problem does exist.
...
: I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would
: consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point....
The question is whether the purported majority of C rabbis who do eat in such
places consider themselves to be doing something wrong, or simply do not buy
the movement's party line on kosher laws and feel it's okay.
:>They could. But they would have to do so without reference to Halacha.
:>Because if they actually included Halacha in their decisionmaking process,
:>the result would not include eating pizza in a non-kosher pizza place.
: No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha."
: It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from
: saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it
: did.
I see three questions:
1- What is the CLJS official ruling(s)?
2- Do the rabbis who eat in such restaurants not follow it?
Given that I believe that the 83% of rabbis who eat dairy in establishments
that serve non-kosher food as well as the food in question are not following
the ruling, I have question 3:
3- Do they think they are sinning?
If the answer to this question is "no", I would think we have proven that
there are two C party lines. The ideologues who aspire to be halachic, and the
facts on the ground among the masses and majority of rabbis.
I don't think this finding should shock anyone.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Craig Winchell
"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:eri1da$vh4$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...<snipped>
>I see three questions:
>1- What is the CLJS official ruling(s)?
>2- Do the rabbis who eat in such restaurants not follow it?
Evidently, according to Karen Elizabeth, there never has been a definitive
conservative ruling. Instead, they've avoided taking an official stance
since the question forst came up in 1940. Thus, rabbis who eat in such
restaurants are oerating in the dark. One would think that the stance
should then devolve to the original status quo, but the challenging teshuva
must have been publicized enough so that people thought it carried a
strength that it didn't really have, so that they thought they had what to
rely on, while doing the most convenient thing.
Harry Weiss
> On Feb 13, 11:30 am, "KarenElizabeth" <karenelizabe...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > pizza that is made of wholly kosher ingredients, but at a non-kosher
> > pizza place, can be eaten? (Actually, I think they did answer that
> > one *no* because of the risk of *steam* from non-kosher ingredients
> > contaminating the pizza.)
> >
> The risk is a lot more than just steam contaminating the pizza. My
> daughter is assistant manager in a pizza restaurant in Southern
> California, and I've visited her at her workplace. The same
> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork? Very
> frustrating to this pizza lover... The only kosher pizza I've ever
> seen up here was an Amy's Pizza with a K-D mark recently, and aside
> from the price (higher than most), it was cheese with spinach. Almost
> as bad as the idea of cheese with okra... Oy!
> Eliyahu
You can always do what we do. I make my own. Now there is a large non Jewish maker
of cheese with OK on it (Joseph Farms made by Joseph Gallo) with very reasonable
prices.
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
yaco...@aol.com
>:>Do we
> :>assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
>
> We do.
Who is "we"? The views you articulate are not based on Shulhan
Arukh. If a later aharon and his stringencies ar ebeing touted,
please disclose exactly who that is.
SA has numerous laws addressing Jewish food and gentile food being
place din the same oven, or milk dishes and meat dishes being placed
there. Nobody had their own oven. You went to a gentile oven
operator to cook your food. "Kepela Arama'a."
An oven is not like a pot. You do not place food directly on an
oven. If you do, as in the case of a pizza, the "pot" or "pan" is the
area under the pizza, NOT THE WHOLE OVEN. Good Lord!
Even if you say this, arguably the oven is continually "kashering"
itself.
> My own theory is that it's not so much metaphysical as psychological. We can't
> experience the pizza oven without being swayed by its history. Goes back to my
> general theory about halakhah being determined by reality-as-experienced.
But the "it" to which you refer is a strecth, and not standard
halakha.
So you are doresh modern aharonim.
Law is not a lesson in metaphysics or mysticism. The hakhamim MADE UP
the laws of ta'aruboth, for their own reasons. Not as a basis for
metaphysical and aggadic expounding.
> 3- We're still ignoring the rennet possibly in the cheese, the pizzas baking
> simultaneously in the same oven, the visible splatter that isn't washed off,
But thoroughly burned to the extent said "splatter" is on the surface
of the oven. Any idea how hot a brick pizza oven actually is?
> The issue of ta'am ("taste") is not an O vs C difference. C works around the
> problem of using one dishawasher for both meat and milk.
So do Syrians, most of whom think they are also Orthodox. There is a
teshuba directly on point in Maghen Ba'adi. Morever, Maran states
explicitly that if there are ashes in a yora (large pot) with meat and
milk since it is noten ta'am lifgam it is permitted.
You are articulating an aharonic view. Please disclose that as
opposed to arguing that all "O" (whatever that means) are uniform on
the issue.
> The question is whether the purported majority of C rabbis who do eat in such
> places consider themselves to be doing something wrong, or simply do not buy
> the movement's party line on kosher laws and feel it's okay.
They admit it is bishul 'akkum and possibly some would admit it is
gevinat 'akkum; those are the sole prohibitions they feel they
trangress.
> 3- Do they think they are sinning?
Your view assumes "following the ruling" is the criterion. Again,
that is "movement" based Judaism, not halakha based Judaism. I have
never met a C rabbi who sees things this way. They study, they apply
the law, they act. If they cut corners they admit it. Perhpas not to
you or to their congregants.
> If the answer to this question is "no", I would think we have proven that
> there are two C party lines. The ideologues who aspire to be halachic, and the
> facts on the ground among the masses and majority of rabbis.
>
> I don't think this finding should shock anyone.
It is an "ivory tower" abstracted form reality "finding" at best.
Goes with making metaphysical derashot on the laws of mixtures which
are essentially harchakot (fences).
Reality does not fit into neat conceptual boxes. Elegant and New Agey
as they may sound or seem.
Jacko
Joel Shurkin
By the way, he died yesterday.
j
--
Joel Shurkin
Baltimore, Maryland
----------------------------
"The opponents of the war were easily silenced by charges of cowardice
and lack of patriotism, and in 200 B.C., T. Quintictius Flaminus sailed
against Macedon."
Will Durant, "Caesar and Christ."
Eliyahu
> Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Very
> > frustrating to this pizza lover... The only kosher pizza I've ever
> > seen up here was an Amy's Pizza with a K-D mark recently, and aside
> > from the price (higher than most), it was cheese with spinach. Almost
> > as bad as the idea of cheese with okra... Oy!
> > Eliyahu
>
> You can always do what we do. I make my own. Now there is a large non Jewish maker
> of cheese with OK on it (Joseph Farms made by Joseph Gallo) with very reasonable
> prices.
>
available when we're running late and time is in short supply...) And
I've recently found the Joseph Farms cheese at the local WalMart. As
you say, quite reasonable prices -- about $12 for a five pound chunk
of cheese.
Eliyahu
Harry Weiss
> "KarenElizabeth" <karenel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1171388126.8...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> BS"D
> IF what you say is true, why is this thread even in existence? If
> conservative halacha was codified to permit eating fish and veggies in
> nonkosher restaurants, and eating nonkosher cheese, then why should it be so
> farfetched to have conservative rabbis eating such things? In fact, why
> would they even take a poll to see the practice of the conservative
> rabbinate if whatever they practice as far as eating such things in treif
> restaurants is already codified as being ok? Everyone already knew there
> were differences between orthodox halacha and conservative halacha in terms
> of either interpretation or codification. So what's the big deal? So what
> I heard is that the question was neve really asked officially, so it was
> never really answered officially, so there is stuff happening at odds even
> with conservative halacha. But if it's already been asked and answered,
> where's the basis for this thread?
I spoke to a C Rabbi, who said there is guidance and they do require tin foil. ( I
don't think they require it to be double wrapped on even totally wrapped) Some C
Rabbis follow those guidelines. Others do not. Some C Rabbis will drive to shul
on Shabbat other will not. Some C Rabbis will drive to a sporting even on Shabbat
Most will not.
Unfortuntely gap between what C requires and what is considered acceptable in
practice is enormous. That enables people to justify anything by just saying they
are C and not O.
> >
> > There was apparently an attempt made to go beyond that, but it never
> > came to fruition (probably due to too much disagreement as to what the
> > limits are). that left lots of gaping holes for C Jews. Eg, if a
> > restaurant is vegetarian -- meaning that it does not use any products
> > containing any meat whatsoever -- can you eat hot food there?
> But there's a kal vachomer here. If you can eat broiled fish and veggies in
> a nonkosher restaurant, then why not hot vegetarian food in a vegetarian
> restaurant?
> > If not,
> > what about a vegan restaurant? Is there any circumstance in which a
> > pizza that is made of wholly kosher ingredients, but at a non-kosher
> > pizza place, can be eaten? (Actually, I think they did answer that
> > one *no* because of the risk of *steam* from non-kosher ingredients
> > contaminating the pizza.)
> Here again, it's a kal vachomer. Because broiled fish is not double-wrapped
> and baked, and it's no doubt broiled on the same broiler as treif meat
> and/or seafood.
> Craig Winchell
> >
> > So you're absolutely right -- the C movement does need to get its act
> > together and provide more guidance.
> >
> > Karen Elizabeth
> >
Tim Meushaw
> Eliyahu <lro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The risk is a lot more than just steam contaminating the pizza. My
>> daughter is assistant manager in a pizza restaurant in Southern
>> California, and I've visited her at her workplace. The same
>> equipment, pans and utensils are used for all pizzas, whether with
>> pork toppings or not, and the toppings are kept on the prep line in
>> adjacent containers without tops, so bits of one will frequently spill
>> over into another. How many fragments of pepperoni in the mushroom bin
>> will make a veggie pizza into a veggie pizza with pork? Very
>> frustrating to this pizza lover... The only kosher pizza I've ever
>> seen up here was an Amy's Pizza with a K-D mark recently, and aside
>> from the price (higher than most), it was cheese with spinach. Almost
>> as bad as the idea of cheese with okra... Oy!
>
> of cheese with OK on it (Joseph Farms made by Joseph Gallo) with very reasonable
> prices.
As a general announcement tagging on to this bit about kosher cheese,
Cabot Cheese is selling another limited run of OU-certified sharp
cheddar cheese. It's even kosher for Pesach.
https://www.shopcabot.com/pages/products/aged/OU-Kosher-Sharp-Cheddar.php
Tim
--
Timothy A. Meushaw
meu...@pobox.com
yaco...@aol.com
> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message
> It is kosher white wine made in a gentile-owned-and-controlled-establishment
> by Jews, but owned by nonJews.
>
> Craig Winchell
I am form Missouri, so do not be offended if I do not take your
conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I
called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here
and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another
kashruth certification company.
Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and
what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from
the picking of the grapes? Is this wine then yayin yisra'el? All the
enployees are Jewish? Why would any gentile company do that? Is this
a kosher wine company that is owned by gentiles? Is it a particular
line of kosher wine made by a regular wine company?
I need details.
Jacko
Ken Bloom
> In <erb8mu$397$1...@reader2.panix.com> "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com>
writes:
>>In <erb3kf$g05$1...@falcon.steinthal.us> mi...@aishdas.org (Micha Berger)
writes:
>>>Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> 60 times the volume of the metal that makes up the walls, no? The treif
>>>> taste isn't absorbed inside the air that's in the oven, it's absorbed in
the
>>>> walls.
>
>>>Yes.
>
>>I appreciate that I'm out of my depth here, but nevertheless what you two
>>are saying doesn't seem to follow. I think you're "double-fencing" so to
>>speak - I don't see how the oven enters into this equation at all.
>
> Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
> 60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
> assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
the volume of metal in the oven itself.
--Ken
--
Ken Bloom. PhD candidate. Linguistic Cognition Laboratory.
Department of Computer Science. Illinois Institute of Technology.
http://www.iit.edu/~kbloom1/
Steve Goldfarb
>> Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
>> 60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
>> assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all
meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
To say it another way, as I've said previously, given that the law says
one may not exceed 55 MPH on the highway, if someone decided based on that
law to not drive at all, lest they exceed 55 mph, would you consider that
to be "stringent" or something else?
My ultimate issue is, I suppose, that if you really are so confident in
halacha, that is, that you truly "have it right," then there shouldn't be
a need for such stringencies. Stringencies betray a lack of confidence. If
you aren't confident in halacha, then why should we suppose that this
"stringency" actually renders your behavior more likely to be "correct?"
Perhaps you've got it 180 degrees wrong and you're making it worse. See
what I mean?
Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
lest something bad happen?
That's the difference between following principles and just being
superstitious.
--s
--
Jonathan J. Baker
>In <erd636$r7j$1...@reader2.panix.com> "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> writes:
>>It would be so, perhaps, if they ever shut off the oven for more than
>>24 hours, and then you ate the first pizza that came out of the oven
>>before they started cooking more meat-stuff in it.
>Why? Speaking purely physically, that is, in terms of actual physical
>residues.
How often do you clean your oven? Even without worrying about balua
(absorbed; and in unglazed ceramic or brick walls which might have
been used in the pre-modern period, or in cast-iron, both of which
have lots of cracks/holes, it's a real concern), there's real b'en
(stuff stuck on the walls). I don't know if we assume it's been
denatured by heat or not, but it's still there on the oven walls.
>>>The concern that was discussed, which is a real concern, is that a piece
>>>of non-kosher meat might fall into a pizza intended to be vegetarian.
>>>THAT's where the "less than 1/60th" rule would seem applicable.
>>Who are you to determine that this is the only real concern? How's
>>your Hebrew? I attend a Yoreh Deah shiur on Sunday mornings, he's planning
>>to start doing Basar Becholov starting after Pesach. I went through the
>>last cycle (took about 4 years for Basar becholov and Taaruvos), it was a
>>real eye-opener. I used to think like you, that I can eat pizza out.
>>No more.
>I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would
>consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point.
"You are certain that you can eat pizza out". Who did you ask? What
halachic source told you, source that actually learned the halachot
inside in the Shulchan Aruch or in the Gemara?
>>You're on Pacific St, right? Take an Atlantic Ave bus to the subway,
>>take the Q to Avenue M, then it's a few short blocks to E 13 between
>>M&N. You can attend the shiur easily, it's Sundays 10-12. Or drive.
>Pacific St was three addresses ago, actually.
Google Directory strikes again.
>>>Now, I'm not suggesting that anyone O ought to eat pizza from a non-kosher
>>>establishment, BUT I do think a person (say, a C person if you wish) could
>>>reasonably, rationally, and philosophically consistently define a standard
>>>of kashrut for themselves such that this pizza was OK.
>>They could. But they would have to do so without reference to Halacha.
>>Because if they actually included Halacha in their decisionmaking process,
>>the result would not include eating pizza in a non-kosher pizza place.
>No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha."
>It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from
>saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it
>did.
You need to demonstrate, from halacha, whether "my standards" or Conservative
standards, that it's permissible. I think what happened is that a lot of
people do stuff without checking what's real. "It has no active treif" so
it must be OK. I ate that way too, for a long time, but I knew it was less
than ideal. I just wasn't ready to give up the convenience of walking into
any old pizza place or sandwich place, and getting a tuna sub or plain pizza.
But once you start learning about knives, boy, that tuna sub has got to go.
I know R' Joel Roth gives almost infinite flexibility to the rav to decide
what to do, in "The Halakhic Process". But that flexibility still lives
within limits. The sheretz is still tamei.
Did you read the Jewish Week article that seems to have started this thread?
According to them, the teshuva Conservatives rely on for this "eating fish
out" talks about grilled fish and cooked vegetables, only. Fish is cooked
in a pan, on top of the stove, and vegetables are cooked in a closed pot,
again on top of the stove. None of this permits, or even justifies, cooking
uncovered food in an oven at the same time as other, treif, uncovered food.
As Jay Lapidus explained it years ago, Conservative Jews are supposed to
follow the Shulchan Aruch, except where the CJLS has ruled on an issue.
The following teshuva from R' Barry Leff in 2004 sums up the state of
Conservative halacha on "eating fish/dairy out."
http://www.tek-law.com/neshamah/dairyteshuva%20v3.htm
It is quite clear that pizza is not included, and other hot foods only
grudgingly. The teshuva seems to be the basis for the Jewish Week article,
in part.
R' Leff then provides a radical justification for Conservative practice:
observe kashrut on a d'oraita level, wipe away all the derabbanan material.
He unfortunately ignores a principle that renders his opinion useless:
ein mevatlin issur lechatchila: we cannot nullify (in 2:1 or 60:1) a
forbidden substance intentionally. If we *know* that there is a minority
of forbidden substance, that it was put in *intentionally*, even by the
non-Jewish cook, we can't regard it as null-and-void.
--
name: jon baker web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
address: jjb...@panix.com blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
Yisroel Markov
<s...@panix.com> said:
>In <9nj3b4-...@cat-in-the-hat.dnsalias.com> Ken Bloom <kbl...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
>>> 60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
>>> assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
>
>>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
>>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>
>How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all
>meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
How does that follow?
>To say it another way, as I've said previously, given that the law says
>one may not exceed 55 MPH on the highway, if someone decided based on that
>law to not drive at all, lest they exceed 55 mph, would you consider that
>to be "stringent" or something else?
Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
>My ultimate issue is, I suppose, that if you really are so confident in
>halacha, that is, that you truly "have it right," then there shouldn't be
>a need for such stringencies. Stringencies betray a lack of confidence.
Agreed.
>If you aren't confident in halacha, then why should we suppose that this
>"stringency" actually renders your behavior more likely to be "correct?"
To me it's obvious. Not sure why it isn't to you.
>Perhaps you've got it 180 degrees wrong and you're making it worse. See
>what I mean?
No. The direction is usually (not always) known, so the 180-degree
risk is minimal.
>Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
>might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
>lest something bad happen?
>
>That's the difference between following principles and just being
>superstitious.
Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Jonathan J. Baker
>>> Yes. I don't think it's 60x the volume of the metal in the oven, it's
>>> 60x the balua (absorbed foodstuff traces) in the oven walls. Do we
>>> assume that to be equivalent to the size of the oven itself?
>>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
>>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
>might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
>lest something bad happen?
By the way, found an article y'all might be interested in. David
Kraemer (JTS) on prohibited mixtures of foods: http://tinyurl.com/ytumqs
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
Steve Goldfarb
>>Why? Speaking purely physically, that is, in terms of actual physical
>>residues.
>How often do you clean your oven? Even without worrying about balua
>(absorbed; and in unglazed ceramic or brick walls which might have
>been used in the pre-modern period, or in cast-iron, both of which
>have lots of cracks/holes, it's a real concern), there's real b'en
>(stuff stuck on the walls). I don't know if we assume it's been
>denatured by heat or not, but it's still there on the oven walls.
Well, we weren't talking about my oven but about a 450+ pizza oven, and
what difference does it make if there's stuff stuck to the walls, unless
that stuff is mixed into the food? Even if there's a mixture it still
might not be a problem, but if there's no mixture then there's certainly
no problem is there?
>>I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would
>>consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point.
>"You are certain that you can eat pizza out". Who did you ask? What
>halachic source told you, source that actually learned the halachot
>inside in the Shulchan Aruch or in the Gemara?
I don't need to ask anyone's permission to eat any food. Except maybe my
wife's.
>>No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha."
>>It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from
>>saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it
>>did.
>You need to demonstrate, from halacha, whether "my standards" or Conservative
>standards, that it's permissible. I think what happened is that a lot of
>people do stuff without checking what's real. "It has no active treif" so
>it must be OK. I ate that way too, for a long time, but I knew it was less
>than ideal. I just wasn't ready to give up the convenience of walking into
>any old pizza place or sandwich place, and getting a tuna sub or plain pizza.
No, I don't have to demonstrate it's PERMISSIBLE in order to demonstrate
that it's WITH REFERENCE. You see what I'm saying? You're claiming it's
completely disassociated from halacha - it's without reference. I'm
agreeing that it doesn't meet your standard of halacha, but I'm saying
there are many reference lines one could draw that would not be your
standard of halacha, and so perhaps could not be called "halachic," but
nevertheless could be said to be "with reference to halacha." You probably
consider that a meaningless distinction but I don't think it is.
>Did you read the Jewish Week article that seems to have started this thread?
>According to them, the teshuva Conservatives rely on for this "eating fish
>out" talks about grilled fish and cooked vegetables, only. Fish is cooked
>in a pan, on top of the stove, and vegetables are cooked in a closed pot,
>again on top of the stove. None of this permits, or even justifies, cooking
>uncovered food in an oven at the same time as other, treif, uncovered food.
I didn't, and I'm not even sure of how I got to where I got to anymore. I
think, though, it's regarding a question of consistency. You (and others)
seem to be asserting that C (or any practice other than O) is inherently
inconsistent. I don't think that's the case, I think a person could
establish certain consistent principles that he or she chose to live by,
referenced to halacha in some consistent manner. I agree that this would
not be O (by definition) but it wouldn't have to be some crippled form of
O, it could be something else. It wouldn't be Karaism either.
For example, someone might say "I choose not to eat non-kosher meat, but I
don't accept that 'mixtures' are anything but actual physical mixtures,
and the category of forbidden meat applies only to actual 'food,' not
products derived from food, and therefore I will eat vegetarian pizza in a
non-kosher restaurant" and that person would be holding a consistent
position. They would not necessarily be someone who just wanted to eat the
pizza and therefore came up with some justification to let them do it, as
I think has been implied here.
--s
--
Steve Goldfarb
>>>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
>>>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>>
>>How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all
>>meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
>
>How does that follow?
The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
definition of that term no matter how loose. So, to me the relationship
between a piece of food in an oven, and that piece of food and the pulled
pork sandwich in the shop next door are the same -- no mixture is no
mixture. It's a divide by zero error. If you're going to say the volume of
the oven itself (meaning the oven not the airspace within, which might be
relevant) then you might as well say that the price of tea in china is
relevant.
Given any piece of cooked food, there is some chance that it's been
contaminated with treif molecules. I'm asserting that this chance is
higher overall than the specific chance that any given piece of food will
somehow become contaminated by being cooked in an oven with stuff on the
walls. Thus, if you're concerned about that probability, then you if
you're truly stringent you won't eat any cooked food whatsover. Or raw
food, for that matter, because there is a non-zero chance that it contains
bugs.
>>To say it another way, as I've said previously, given that the law says
>>one may not exceed 55 MPH on the highway, if someone decided based on that
>>law to not drive at all, lest they exceed 55 mph, would you consider that
>>to be "stringent" or something else?
>Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
Would it? How do you know that? Perhaps it's actually less safe to drive
45-50 when everyone else is going 70? You have no basis for this
conclusion of yours that it's better to drive 45-50, although at least in
that case you can try it out and see what happens. But here you don't know
the outcome - you have no way of knowing which is "more stringent."
>>My ultimate issue is, I suppose, that if you really are so confident in
>>halacha, that is, that you truly "have it right," then there shouldn't be
>>a need for such stringencies. Stringencies betray a lack of confidence.
>Agreed.
>>If you aren't confident in halacha, then why should we suppose that this
>>"stringency" actually renders your behavior more likely to be "correct?"
>To me it's obvious. Not sure why it isn't to you.
Because the law is the law -- there's no such thing as "stringent" in that
context. It's black and white - legal or illegal. If you eat food that God
has prohibited, then you've sinned. If you don't eat food that God hasn't
prohibited, then you've done nothing. If you do eat food that God hasn't
prhohibited, then once again you've done nothing. No harm, no benefit. So,
there's no benefit to this so-called stringency. Is there a harm? Well,
there's an opportunity cost - there's lost time and effort, energy that
could have been dedicated to, perhaps, performing a positive mitzvah. So
yeah, there's harm, but no benefit - so how is that "more stringent?"
>>Perhaps you've got it 180 degrees wrong and you're making it worse. See
>>what I mean?
>No. The direction is usually (not always) known, so the 180-degree
>risk is minimal.
How is the direction known? You think it's known, but you're supposed to
do what God commanded, not make stuff up. Particularly when one of the
principles is to maintain the integrity of the principles. These so-called
stringencies violate that principle, by muddying what is and is not a
commandment, and by setting up barriers to following the commandments.
To say that another way, let's say that kashrus, for example, is actually
supposed to be much, much simpler than you've made it. So, there might be
millions of Jews over the millenia who would have chosen keep kosher, had
it not become muddied with so-called stringencies. Instead, all these Jews
recognized the chaff and therefore rejected the entire bushel, wheat and
all. Isn't that a harm? This is not a hypothetical, it's happening as we
watch, and probably has been happening for 1,000 years. You guys are going
to "stringency" yourselves right out of existence. Any harm there, you
think, in a little stringency?
>>Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
>>might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
>>lest something bad happen?
>>
>>That's the difference between following principles and just being
>>superstitious.
>Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague
sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition.
I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God
commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior
is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe
than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is
"stringent."
--s
--
Craig Winchell
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171989549.3...@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 7:54 pm, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
>> It is kosher white wine made in a
>> gentile-owned-and-controlled-establishment
>> by Jews, but owned by nonJews.
>>
>> Craig Winchell
>
> I am form Missouri, so do not be offended if I do not take your
> conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I
> called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here
> and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another
> kashruth certification company.
BS"D
The other certification company is incorrect. Call Rav Belsky and ask.
They you'll get the real story.
>
> Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and
> what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from
> the picking of the grapes?
I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements for
wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the picking
of the grapes. There is only a requirement that the wine not be touched.
grapes are not wine. Crushed grapes are not wine. Typically, the grapes
are delivered and after delivery are handled only by Jews until the wine is
mevushal, after which they can be handled by anyone. There are shittas that
allow the grapes themselves to be cooked, and the wine derived from these
cooked grapes be considered mevushal. So there are plenty of ways to get
mevushal kosher wine with a minimum of Jewish interaction. I don't know the
exact way things are done, but I have been involved in the OU with wine for
over 20 years, so I have a veryu good understanding of what they allow.
> Is this wine then yayin yisra'el? All the
> enployees are Jewish?
As I say, the wine is mevushal, so it would be considered yayin yisrael
without all of the employees being Jewish. Only those handling the pressed
wine prior to the mevashaling (and typically, that means from the time of
the crushing of the grapes) need to be Jewish.
>Why would any gentile company do that?
To sell wine when there is a glut of wine in inventory and a glut of wine on
the market.
> Is this
> a kosher wine company that is owned by gentiles? Is it a particular
> line of kosher wine made by a regular wine company?
The latter.
>
> I need details.
Ask someone in a position of responsibility in the OU, such as Rav Belsky or
Rabbi Genack. I don't have details. I only know that what you are
describing simply wouldn't happen with the OU, and I have 20 years of wine
experience with them so I know what I say to be true. If it weren't things
would have been a whole lot easier for me.
Craig Winchell
>
> Jacko
>
>
Micha Berger
> The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
You lost sight of the topic.
It's not "Does Steve think it's okay to eat pizza in a non-kosher
restaurant?" Rather, it's "Do the 80-something percent of C rabbis who
do so think they are following C halakhah?"
The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need
to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces.
Your reasoning, while interesting, diverges from the rules of kosher as
they have developed by choosing your own idea of "mixture" rather than
the looser one that has been used since before recorded halakhah.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water,
mi...@aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top.
http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Israel Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
>> definition of that term no matter how loose....
>You lost sight of the topic.
>It's not "Does Steve think it's okay to eat pizza in a non-kosher
>restaurant?" Rather, it's "Do the 80-something percent of C rabbis who
>do so think they are following C halakhah?"
Actually I was speaking to a slightly different topic, which is "can there
be non-O set of principles derived from halacha that remain consistent."
Or, to say it another way, "can there be such a thing as C halacha." The O
opinion seems to be no, it's inherently inconsistent / hypocritical. I
disagree.
>The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need
>to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces.
>Your reasoning, while interesting, diverges from the rules of kosher as
>they have developed by choosing your own idea of "mixture" rather than
>the looser one that has been used since before recorded halakhah.
A mixture is a mixture.
--s
>Tir'u baTov! >-mi
>--
>Micha Berger Mussar is like oil put in water,
>mi...@aishdas.org eventually it will rise to the top.
>http://www.aishdas.org - Rabbi Israel Salanter
>Fax: (270) 514-1507
--
Joel Shurkin
My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no
prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why?
Well, what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out
of my grandmother's evil eye theory. What if a meteor strikes you down
while walking to shul?
Craig Winchell
"Joel Shurkin" <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:es1g8l$4c8$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
BS"D
Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no
prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. There's
a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone
here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we
had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the
rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not
concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the
rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic
principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are
questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over those
associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how
much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the
one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow
conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in fact,
it is coming out now, and the orthodox posters are pointing out, that the
rabbis don't seem to necessarily follow the tenets of conservative halacha,
even when it differs from orthodox halacha. It's not a matter of the
orthodox posters saying they don'
t follow orthodox halacha- everybody stipulates that to be the case, and
most people accept that as fact. But one would think that conservative
halacha would be followed, in fact and in principle, and this is being shown
not to be the case. And from what I've seen, the conservative posters, with
the possible exception of Karen Elizabeth, are saying that that's ok,
because these rabbis are conservative and not orthodox. And what the
orthodox posters are saying is that there seems to be a logical
inconsistency here- let's stipulate that they don't follow orthodox halachic
principles or orthodox halacha, lets stipulate that the conservative body
has ruled differently, so why are the conservative rabbis not always even
attempting to follow the tenets of their own movement, and why is this
situation considered ok by so many of the defenders of conservative?
Craig Winchell
Joel Shurkin
>
> "Joel Shurkin" <jshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:es1g8l$4c8$1...@falcon.steinthal.us...
>> On 2007-02-26 23:13:43 -0500, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> said:
>>
>>> In <c076u2ho0k9amvc3v...@4ax.com> Yisroel Markov
>>> <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>> Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's
>>>>>> equivalent to
>>>>>> the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all
>>>>> meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
>>>>
>>>> How does that follow?
snipped for brevity
I raised the bike issue because we were talking about superstition and
that seems a good example of the kind of illogic you can come up with
that is almost indistinguishable from superstition. The chances of
having your bike malfunction these days is only slightly greater than
being hit by a meteor if you take care of your bike. That is not a
rational fence. So why doesn't someone do away with it instead of
cringing when the subject comes up?
You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part
because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread the
practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes and the
plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do. Ravchaz, who
was on this list before he got a real day job in Connecticut, certainly
did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some who do not, but I don't know
how many, or the circumstances.
It is absolutely true that the C rabbinate often is ineffective in its
leadership role, in part because it is in the almost anti-clerical
nature of the movement, and in part because they often are collectively
confused. Our rabbi (a member of the law committee) recently described
the current dispute over kashrut at the Iowa meat plant and the feeling
that the C movement needs to come up with its own hechsher for
situations like that. (We trust the OU et al to correctly decide what
is kosher; we don't trust them to say what isn't). What they are doing
can best be described as something out of Monty Python. In the "Life of
Brian," Brian is captured by the Romans and readied for execution, and
the People's Liberation Front of Judea (or is it the Judean People's
Front?) are terribly upset and feel they must do something to save him.
So they form a committee, send a stern protest note to the Romans and
adjourn. Our rabbis are like that sometimes.
He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the
synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this
case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel
to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He
seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that
would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
j
maxine in ri
> Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
> > The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
> > definition of that term no matter how loose....
>
> You lost sight of the topic.
>
> It's not "Does Steve think it's okay to eat pizza in a non-kosher
> restaurant?" Rather, it's "Do the 80-something percent of C rabbis who
> do so think they are following C halakhah?"
>
> The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need
> to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces.
> Micha Berger
Micha, are you saying that our forebearers had two stoves, or two
burners or two fireplaces for the cooking of their foods? I would
love to see the archeological, or historical evidence for this.
Even my grandmother only had one set of dishes for Passover, and a
half-dozen bowls and spoons so the kids could have their matzo with
milk in the morning.
I can understand the kashrut needs of the market today (our parents
never had the variety of prepared foods available and marketed to us
as forcefully), but the insistance on separating things further and
further, so that the women won't mix something up and inadvertently
cook oatmeal in a pot with milk on a burner where the beef stew
spilled last night starts to sound like some old mysoginist looking
for a way to get back at his wife for not doing everything _his_ way.
maxine in ri
Steve Goldfarb
>Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's no
>prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to shul. There's
>a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on Shabbos. I think everyone
>here understands how farfetched this fence is, and I'm not sure that if we
>had our druthers, the orthodox members of this forum would, if we were the
>rabbonim, have come up with this fence to avoid tikkun keilim. And I'm not
>concerned whether conservative upholds all of the fences enacted by the
>rabbis. I'd be very pleased it they'd just follow straight halachic
>principles. We're talking kashrus here, and many of the posters are
>questioning how much control the institution of conservative has over those
>associating themselves strongly with the institution. Specifically, how
>much control does the halacha-codifying department have over the rabbis, the
>one group where there would be a presupposition that they would follow
>conservative halacha. And the answer seems to be "not much", since in fact,
A bit of a run-on paragraph here, Craig, but if I could interject -- given
that you're O, do you follow every ruling of the Chief O Rabbi? Wait, you
say there is no such person? But surely there's the "official book of all
O rulings," right? There isn't? Hm, interesting. OK then -- at least
you'll tell me that if an O Jew is ordained by a given yeshiva, then he is
obligated to follow every official ruling put forth by that yeshiva? No?
So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere
to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization,
why do you require C Jews to do so?
--s
--
Craig Winchell
"Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:es1qn4$c5l$1...@reader2.panix.com...
BS"D
Great question! I guess that I perceive the nature of orthodox halacha to
be different than the nature of conservative halacha. In orthodox halacha,
any rabbi can write any teshuva, and the status of that teshuva in defining
halacha is left up to whoever wishes to adopt the opinion illustrated by
within the teshuva. On the other hand, conservative teshuvas must go
through the official committee on Jewish law in order to define the status
of the opinion within conservative halacha. Thus, I perceive a central
defining body in conservative which simply doesn't exist within orthodoxy.
I perceive it that way because that's what actually does exist. It seems to
be part and parcel of the official institution of conservative.
Craig Winchell
Ken Bloom
> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's
> no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to
> shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on
> Shabbos.
There can't possibly be a rabbinic prohibition specifically against
riding a bike on Shabbat, because today's rabbis (for centuries, and
therefore certainly since the invention of the bicycle) don't have the
power to make gezeirot that could prohibit a bicycle. R' Ovadia Yosef
in Liviat Chen also shoots down all reasons why it might be prohibited
d'oraita, and the Ben Ish Chai permits it outright in Rav Pealim.
http://www.judaic.org/halakhot/yomtob_bicycle.htm
http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i61.html#CSM
I agree with everything else you've said.
--
Ken Bloom
Someone did. If some halachic ruling is clearly wrong, some rabbi will
come along and say so, as the Ben Ish Chai did with bicycles. So stop
setting up the bicycle strawman, becuase your inventing aproblem that
doesn't exist so you can attack it and make it look stupid.
> You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part
> because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread
> the practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes
> and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do.
> Ravchaz, who was on this list before he got a real day job in
> Connecticut, certainly did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some
> who do not, but I don't know how many, or the circumstances.
Somewhere around here, someone was citing a study.
Joel Shurkin
I'm glad. One source did it. Virtually every other source says no and
Os don't bike to shul. I'm not making it up and it hardly qualifies as
a strawman. You bike to shul? When you do, we can talk about it.
>
>> You raised questions about C I don't know the answer to, in part
>> because neither of us know the facts. I don't know how widespread
>> the practice is for C rabbis to ignore the rules. I have anecdotes
>> and the plural of anecdotes isn't data. The C rabbis I know do.
>> Ravchaz, who was on this list before he got a real day job in
>> Connecticut, certainly did, as does mine. I'm sure there are some
>> who do not, but I don't know how many, or the circumstances.
>
> Somewhere around here, someone was citing a study.
It was an informal, non-scientific study with a very few respondents.
Even the rabbi who made the study agrees. The fact is, we don't know.
j
>
> --Ken
Joel Shurkin
But then the central body (the CSL guys) issue rulings, they do so
almost always with dissenting opinions, and rabbis out in the field who
disagree with the majority but have a minority they can fall back on,
do so.
And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But
OU speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and
Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
j
Joel Shurkin
> Craig Winchell <gan...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Joel, I don't know what a meteor has to do with everything- there's
>> no prohibition against being killed by a meteor while walking to
>> shul. There's a rabbinic prohibition against riding a bike on
>> Shabbos.
>
> There can't possibly be a rabbinic prohibition specifically against
> riding a bike on Shabbat, because today's rabbis (for centuries, and
> therefore certainly since the invention of the bicycle) don't have the
> power to make gezeirot that could prohibit a bicycle. R' Ovadia Yosef
> in Liviat Chen also shoots down all reasons why it might be prohibited
> d'oraita, and the Ben Ish Chai permits it outright in Rav Pealim.
>
> http://www.judaic.org/halakhot/yomtob_bicycle.htm
> http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v39/mj_v39i61.html#CSM
I repeat: Do you bike to shul? Does anyone at your shul bike in? What
would the reaction be if someone did? I'm not making this stuff up and
I'm glad there are sources that permit it, but the vast majority of
authorities do not and O Jews don't do bicycle on shabbos.
When the weather clears I'm going to bike to shul passed Shomrei Emunah
(increasingly black hat) and Agudath (off-the wall) with my tallit bag
and a kepot and I'll tell you the reaction I get.
j
--
Eliyahu
>
> > --s
>
> My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no
> prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why?
> Well, what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out
> of my grandmother's evil eye theory. What if a meteor strikes you down
> while walking to shul?
>
the great technological developments in Shabbat-compliant appliances
and equipment -- everything from stoves to electric wheelchairs and
telephones that can be used on Shabbat -- why is it so hard to make a
bicycle that would satisfy the rabbinical authorities? Take, for
instance, my old track bike. No gears, no brakes, just direct chain
drive without a freewheel, and the addition of some non-pneumatic
tires could eliminate the risk of a flat tire. There's also a company
making a shaft-driven bicycle on the market which would eliminate the
extremely-slight possibility of a broken chain. (I've never had a
broken chain in nearly fifty years of cycling.) There is the concern
that applying brakes constitutes a sort of "grinding" [again, no
brakes on the track bike, so it isn't an issue there], but it
shouldn't be hard to invent a brake that doesn't violate this
prohibition.
So, what would it take to build a bicycle with a hechsher?
Eliyahu
Craig Winchell
But the central committee can evidently ratify dissenting teshuvos, but the
teshuvos must be ratified through them, as I understand it, not published
willy-nilly by just any rabbi with a halachic opinion.
>
> And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But OU
> speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and
> Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
The OU speaks for the OU, not OU-affiliated rabbis. Ner Israel speaks for
Ner Israel, not necessarily for rabbis given semicha from Ner Israel. And
Agudah speaks for Agudah, not for Agudah affiliated rabbis. The rabbis
presumably have the ability to make informed decisions in terms of halacha,
based upon their own understandings and those of their own rav and their
perception of propriety. Yes, conservative is more centralized. Indeed
orthodoxy in the standard Ashkenazic model is totally decentralized.
Craig Winchell
yaco...@aol.com
> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I
> > called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here
> > and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another
> > kashruth certification company.
>
> They you'll get the real story.
I asked YOU.
You thus far are full of conclusions. No facts.
> > Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and
> > what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from
> > the picking of the grapes?
>
> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements for
> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the picking
> of the grapes.
That is the law Sorry.
> There is only a requirement that the wine not be touched.
> grapes are not wine. Crushed grapes are not wine.
Bull. MY Judaism is based on Talmudic law.
Yours seems ot be some "faith" in certain OU rabbis Never the two
Judaisms can ever meet, sir.
> Typically, the grapes
> are delivered and after delivery are handled only by Jews until the wine is
> mevushal, after which they can be handled by anyone. There are shittas that
> allow the grapes themselves to be cooked, and the wine derived from these
> cooked grapes be considered mevushal. So there are plenty of ways to get
> mevushal kosher wine with a minimum of Jewish interaction. I don't know the
> exact way things are done, but I have been involved in the OU with wine for
> over 20 years, so I have a veryu good understanding of what they allow.
And yet you have NO FACTS WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTION.
Your reststement of certain legal theories is interesting, but
entirely unresponsive.
> As I say, the wine is mevushal, so it would be considered yayin yisrael
> without all of the employees being Jewish. Only those handling the pressed
> wine prior to the mevashaling
The word is "bishul."
> > a kosher wine company that is owned by gentiles? Is it a particular
> > line of kosher wine made by a regular wine company?
>
> The latter.
> > I need details.
>
> Ask someone in a position of responsibility in the OU, such as Rav Belsky or
> Rabbi Genack. I don't have details. I only know that what you are
> describing simply wouldn't happen with the OU,
well it did. Your reasoning from patterns does not trump my direct
experience. Goddamn, man.
> and I have 20 years of wine
> experience with them so I know what I say to be true.
This is exactly how the priests convince people to be faithful
Christinas.
Wake up.
Or don't.
Jacko
Micha Berger
>> The CLJS does not, because the C process never did away with the need
>> to cook your meat and dairy on different surfaces.
> Micha, are you saying that our forebearers had two stoves, or two
> burners or two fireplaces for the cooking of their foods? I would
> love to see the archeological, or historical evidence for this.
I burn out my oven in between.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
mos...@mm.huji.ac.il
snip everything but one point.
> He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the
> synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this
> case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel
> to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He
> seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that
> would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
I wonder. I suspect that the reason he got such a vote was that
cruelty to animals is a "popular" issue. They can "feel good" about
themselves if they avoid it. But would your congregation feel good
about knowing there were no adhesions to the lungs of the animals
they were eating? Would they have any _idea_ what was the
signifigance, kashrus-wise, of that fact? Would all the rabbis? I'm
sure yours would, but the rest?
Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Micha Berger
> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere
> to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization,
> why do you require C Jews to do so?
Who was the one who took him to task for assuming C Jews should follow
halakhah as we O understand it? Now you're taking him to task for
assuming C Jews should follow halakhah as /you/ understand it??
C does have a CLJS with rules about changes in law that were never voted
on or don't garner 6 votes.
Tir'u baTov!
-mi
--
Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
Micha Berger
> And as to Os not having a central structure, it is more fragmented. But
> OU speaks for OU rabbis and Ner Israel speaks for Ner Israel rabbis and
> Agudath for Agudath rabbis and so forth. We're just more centralized.
Ummm... No.
Does anyone within the Jewish community think the NY Board of Rabbis
speaks for us? They're just someone the media goes to when they need
something that sounds like an official Jewish statement.
Aside from that, the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) is the rabbinic
organization, the OU is a congregational one. Agudath Israel is usually
shortened to "Agudah", without the "-as" meaning "of", or pronounced
in Ashkenazi Hebrew "Agudas Yisroel". And it's not an umbrella of
either sort, just something lots of people join. Ner Israel is "just"
an ordaining school. Not an organization.
Outside of Chassidus, O affiliations with organizations aren't mandatory
enough that people define their positions by them. Unlike C's RA and USCJ,
which /define/ who is a C rabbi or a C-nagogue, and thus can speak for
the whole.
Joel Shurkin
> Joel Shurkin <jshu...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> snip everything but one point.
>
>> He, incidentally, asked our congregation at services how many in the
>> synagogue would follow a C hechsher in a similar situation (in this
>> case, the process used to slaughter animals was, it was felt, too cruel
>> to be permitted), and the nearly-unanimous vote was that they would. He
>> seemed surprised--and pleased. I suspect in many C synagogues, that
>> would be true. I think C rabbis underestimate their congregants.
>
> I wonder. I suspect that the reason he got such a vote was that
> cruelty to animals is a "popular" issue. They can "feel good" about
> themselves if they avoid it. But would your congregation feel good
> about knowing there were no adhesions to the lungs of the animals
> they were eating? Would they have any _idea_ what was the
> signifigance, kashrus-wise, of that fact? Would all the rabbis? I'm
> sure yours would, but the rest?
I doubt it.
j
>
> Moshe Schorr
> It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
> The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.
> Disclaimer: Nothing here necessarily reflects the opinion of Hebrew University
Ron Aaron
>> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements for
>> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the picking
>> of the grapes.
> That is the law Sorry.
What is the source for that?
Looking at MT ma'achaloth assuroth 11:8[11], I don't see the the
gentile may not touch the *grapes*, but rather after the "derichah",
or crushing of the grapes they become a problem. And in fact, 11:9
and 10 there further bolster Craig's statement.
Craig Winchell
<yaco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172615506.3...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 5:34 am, "Craig Winchell" <gane...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> <yacova...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > I am form Missouri, so do not be offended if I do not take your
>> > conclusory word for it. This is not at all what the OU told me when I
>> > called (3x) and asked. So I face a contradiction in what you say here
>> > and what the OU told me. The OU's story was corroborated by another
>> > kashruth certification company.
>>
>> The other certification company is incorrect. Call Rav Belsky and ask.
>> They you'll get the real story.
>
> I asked YOU.
>
> You thus far are full of conclusions. No facts.
>
>> > Who exactly makes this wine, how do you know what you are saying, and
>> > what do you mean "made by Jews"? No gentile touches this wine from
>> > the picking of the grapes?
>>
>> I don't know where the wine is sourced. I do know the OU's requirements
>> for
>> wine. There is no requirement that no gentile touches this from the
>> picking
>> of the grapes.
>
> That is the law Sorry.
BS"D
As that is not the law, and you obviously don't know what you're talking
about, it's not worth discussing this with you. Kerplunk.
Craig Winchell
Steve Goldfarb
>Steve Goldfarb <s...@panix.com> wrote:
>> So given that you as an O Jew don't consider yourself obligated to adhere
>> to some top-down set of laws promulgated by some national organization,
>> why do you require C Jews to do so?
>Who was the one who took him to task for assuming C Jews should follow
>halakhah as we O understand it? Now you're taking him to task for
>assuming C Jews should follow halakhah as /you/ understand it??
I am suggesting that perhaps a C Rabbi ought to follow halacha as he
himself understands it, just as an O Rabbi would. You don't have any
problems with O Rabbis doing this, why do you object to C Rabbis doing so?
--s
>C does have a CLJS with rules about changes in law that were never voted
>on or don't garner 6 votes.
>Tir'u baTov!
>-mi
>--
>Micha Berger When you come to a place of darkness,
>mi...@aishdas.org you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
>http://www.aishdas.org You light a candle.
>Fax: (270) 514-1507 - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l
--
Craig Winchell
"Ron Aaron" <ramb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172625114....@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
BS"D
The fact is that whether intact or crushed, grapes are grapes. It is only
with an intentional separation of the skins and seeds from the juice that
both the skins and seeds, on the one side, and the juice on the other side,
are halachically considered to be wine. Thus, the transportation of grapes
to and from the winery can be done by nonJews. Furthermore, the removal of
the grapes from the transportation vessels, even though juicing occurred
during transportation, may be done by nonJews, though in practice the OU and
other hashgacha organizations like to see it being done by Jews, mainly to
avoid lashon hara by people who don't know the halacha. Then the pumping or
other transportation of the crushed grapes, since these are nothing more
than grapes which are not intact, is not required halachically to be done by
Jews, though in practice, the OU and other hashgacha organizations do
require these operations to be controlled (when pumps are used) or done
(when other more direct means are used) by Jews due to the proximity to the
press and possible lashon hara ramifications, but the essence of the
operation is still simply transporting of grapes, not wine.
Jacko also claims that he has direct experience with the OU producing this
wine for Grey Poupon, yet he has admitted only to some less-than-firsthand
experience in discussing Grey Poupon with a non-OU hashgacha organization.
It seems his only direct experience derives from his being from Missouri.
Calling something direct experience does not make it so, and changing
definitions to suit one's own purposes is one of the oldest tricks in the
book for winning arguments. But in this case, it didn't work.
Craig Winchell
>
>
Yisroel Markov
<jshu...@gmail.com> said:
>On 2007-02-26 23:13:43 -0500, "Steve Goldfarb" <s...@panix.com> said:
>
>> In <c076u2ho0k9amvc3v...@4ax.com> Yisroel Markov
>> <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
[snip]
>>>> Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
>>>> might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
>>>> lest something bad happen?
>>>>
>>>> That's the difference between following principles and just being
>>>> superstitious.
>>
>>> Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
>>
>> Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague
>> sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition.
>> I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God
>> commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior
>> is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe
>> than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is
>> "stringent."
>>
>> --s
>
>My favorite example is the bicycle rule. Everyone agrees there is no
>prohibition to riding a bike on shabbbos but you can't anyhow. Why?
>Well, what if the bike breaks and you have to fix it? That is right out
>of my grandmother's evil eye theory.
No, IMHO it's something quite different - making the law fit a
preconceived notion. No, there are no d'oraita problems with bike
riding on Shabbat. But that is not widely known. Most people's gut
feeling is "how can such an activity not be forbidden? Carrying! Too
weekday!" And then the rabbis pick up on that perception and attempt
to find justification for it. Is it any wonder that the explanations
are contrived?
(I can tell you as a long-time bike commuter - to work and shul, on
weekdays - that I wouldn't want to ride to shul in my Shabbat finery
anyhow. Especially on a hot day.)
>What if a meteor strikes you down
>while walking to shul?
Irrelevant. Different states of commandment.
Yisroel "Godwrestler Warriorson" Markov - Boston, MA Member
www.reason.com -- for unbiased analysis of the world DNRC
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"Judge, and be prepared to be judged" -- Ayn Rand
Yisroel Markov
<s...@panix.com> said:
>In <c076u2ho0k9amvc3v...@4ax.com> Yisroel Markov <ey.m...@MUNGiname.com> writes:
>
>>>>Because we can't measure it, we stringently assume that it's equivalent to
>>>>the volume of metal in the oven itself.
>>>
>>>How is that being "stringent" necessarily? Why not just assume that all
>>>meat is assur, for example? Or that all cooked food is assur?
>>
>>How does that follow?
>
>The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
>definition of that term no matter how loose.
Semantics strikes again. The supposed transfer of absorbed taste from
the oven to the pizza (and if you've been reading Jacko's
contributions to this thread, this transfer is by no means a given) is
called "mixture" only for lack of a better term. Bringing in the
definition of the English word "mixture" is useless.
>So, to me the relationship
>between a piece of food in an oven, and that piece of food and the pulled
>pork sandwich in the shop next door are the same -- no mixture is no
>mixture. It's a divide by zero error. If you're going to say the volume of
>the oven itself (meaning the oven not the airspace within, which might be
>relevant) then you might as well say that the price of tea in china is
>relevant.
>
>Given any piece of cooked food, there is some chance that it's been
>contaminated with treif molecules. I'm asserting that this chance is
>higher overall than the specific chance that any given piece of food will
>somehow become contaminated by being cooked in an oven with stuff on the
>walls.
I don't see how this can possibly be. Proximity, heat, convection...
>Thus, if you're concerned about that probability, then you if
>you're truly stringent you won't eat any cooked food whatsover. Or raw
>food, for that matter, because there is a non-zero chance that it contains
>bugs.
>
>>>To say it another way, as I've said previously, given that the law says
>>>one may not exceed 55 MPH on the highway, if someone decided based on that
>>>law to not drive at all, lest they exceed 55 mph, would you consider that
>>>to be "stringent" or something else?
>
>>Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
>
>Would it? How do you know that? Perhaps it's actually less safe to drive
>45-50 when everyone else is going 70? You have no basis for this
>conclusion of yours that it's better to drive 45-50, although at least in
>that case you can try it out and see what happens.
That depends on the goal - is it compliance with the law, or
maximization of safety? As you point out, these may conflict.
>But here you don't know
>the outcome - you have no way of knowing which is "more stringent."
A baseless assertion. The law can deal with the observed physical
reality (albeit on its own terms).
>>>My ultimate issue is, I suppose, that if you really are so confident in
>>>halacha, that is, that you truly "have it right," then there shouldn't be
>>>a need for such stringencies. Stringencies betray a lack of confidence.
>
>>Agreed.
>
>>>If you aren't confident in halacha, then why should we suppose that this
>>>"stringency" actually renders your behavior more likely to be "correct?"
>
>>To me it's obvious. Not sure why it isn't to you.
>
>Because the law is the law -- there's no such thing as "stringent" in that
>context. It's black and white - legal or illegal. If you eat food that God
>has prohibited, then you've sinned. If you don't eat food that God hasn't
>prohibited, then you've done nothing. If you do eat food that God hasn't
>prhohibited, then once again you've done nothing. No harm, no benefit. So,
>there's no benefit to this so-called stringency.
This is true, but only insofar as there are no uncertainties.
>Is there a harm? Well,
>there's an opportunity cost - there's lost time and effort, energy that
>could have been dedicated to, perhaps, performing a positive mitzvah. So
>yeah, there's harm, but no benefit - so how is that "more stringent?"
>
>>>Perhaps you've got it 180 degrees wrong and you're making it worse. See
>>>what I mean?
>
>>No. The direction is usually (not always) known, so the 180-degree
>>risk is minimal.
>
>How is the direction known? You think it's known, but you're supposed to
>do what God commanded, not make stuff up. Particularly when one of the
>principles is to maintain the integrity of the principles. These so-called
>stringencies violate that principle, by muddying what is and is not a
>commandment, and by setting up barriers to following the commandments.
True of many humrot. Nu, so you better know what you're doing and why.
Do you remember, a couple of years ago around this time, I posted
about how liberating it was to actually learn what were the laws of
cleaning for Pesakh, and what were the humrot?
>To say that another way, let's say that kashrus, for example, is actually
>supposed to be much, much simpler than you've made it. So, there might be
>millions of Jews over the millenia who would have chosen keep kosher, had
>it not become muddied with so-called stringencies. Instead, all these Jews
>recognized the chaff and therefore rejected the entire bushel, wheat and
>all. Isn't that a harm? This is not a hypothetical, it's happening as we
>watch, and probably has been happening for 1,000 years. You guys are going
>to "stringency" yourselves right out of existence. Any harm there, you
>think, in a little stringency?
Could very well be. (This could launch me on a rant about how many
kiruv workers, not knowing much themselves, present humrot as law.)
>>>Is it that you ARE following God's commandments, you THINK you are, or you
>>>might be but you're not really so sure so you're just treading carefully
>>>lest something bad happen?
>>>
>>>That's the difference between following principles and just being
>>>superstitious.
>
>>Don't see how superstition enters the picture.
>
>Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague
>sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition.
No, the definition is:
1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural,
nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Many humrot do result from ignorance. But a legitimate uncertainty in
the determination of application of the law is not that. (Note that
I'm not saying that this particular case - pizza in a non-kosher oven
- is uncertain. I don't know that.)
>I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God
>commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior
>is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe
>than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is
>"stringent."
Semantics. Whatever. It may very well be an inexact use of language.
Main Entry: strin·gent
1 : TIGHT, CONSTRICTED
2 : marked by rigor, strictness , or severity especially with regard
to rule or standard <stringent decontamination procedures>
3 : marked by money scarcity and credit strictness <a stringent
budget>
So what do you want to call it? "Extra care?"
Steve Goldfarb
>>The oven and the food cooked within it do not form a mixture, by any
>>definition of that term no matter how loose.
>Semantics strikes again. The supposed transfer of absorbed taste from
>the oven to the pizza (and if you've been reading Jacko's
>contributions to this thread, this transfer is by no means a given) is
>called "mixture" only for lack of a better term. Bringing in the
>definition of the English word "mixture" is useless.
No no no, think about what you're saying. It's a logic mistake not a
semantic mistake. I agree that a mixture might form - but it would be a
mixture of the food with the taste that was absorbed into the oven walls
and then *re-emitted* -- it's this re-emitted taste that forms the
mixture, not the oven walls themselves. The oven walls don't form a
mixture with the food. Thus, it's the volume of the re-emitted taste that
ought to be subject to the 1/60th nullification rule (as well as the if it
can't be detected on a macro level then it doesn't exist halachically
rule) not the volume of the oven walls.
>>Given any piece of cooked food, there is some chance that it's been
>>contaminated with treif molecules. I'm asserting that this chance is
>>higher overall than the specific chance that any given piece of food will
>>somehow become contaminated by being cooked in an oven with stuff on the
>>walls.
>I don't see how this can possibly be. Proximity, heat, convection...
You are underestimating the probability of other forms of contamination.
Let's stipulate that there's some chance that a molecule or two of treif
food will be transported from the oven walls into the cooking food. Call
it 1 in n. I'm saying that there are plenty of other possibilities for
contamination, despite the efforts of the most attentive mashgiach --
accidents happen, especially in these high volume processes. I'm asserting
that the odds that some accident happened to your food during processing
are higher than the 1 in n probablity that your food was contaminated
during cooking, so if 1 in n is a high enough probability that you would
avoid this food, then you ought to avoid ALL food.
>>>Probably something else. Stringency would be driving 45-50.
>>
>>Would it? How do you know that? Perhaps it's actually less safe to drive
>>45-50 when everyone else is going 70? You have no basis for this
>>conclusion of yours that it's better to drive 45-50, although at least in
>>that case you can try it out and see what happens.
>That depends on the goal - is it compliance with the law, or
>maximization of safety? As you point out, these may conflict.
It has been asserted time and again that the goal is to follow the rules.
Period end of story.
>>But here you don't know
>>the outcome - you have no way of knowing which is "more stringent."
>A baseless assertion. The law can deal with the observed physical
>reality (albeit on its own terms).
Two different points - 1) you don't know the goal, so you can't observe
the harm as you can with driving, and 2) the law could deal with observed
physical reality, but it chooses not to, so your point is irrelevant.
>>How is the direction known? You think it's known, but you're supposed to
>>do what God commanded, not make stuff up. Particularly when one of the
>>principles is to maintain the integrity of the principles. These so-called
>>stringencies violate that principle, by muddying what is and is not a
>>commandment, and by setting up barriers to following the commandments.
>True of many humrot. Nu, so you better know what you're doing and why.
>Do you remember, a couple of years ago around this time, I posted
>about how liberating it was to actually learn what were the laws of
>cleaning for Pesakh, and what were the humrot?
I don't, but I'm sure it would be liberating.
>>To say that another way, let's say that kashrus, for example, is actually
>>supposed to be much, much simpler than you've made it. So, there might be
>>millions of Jews over the millenia who would have chosen keep kosher, had
>>it not become muddied with so-called stringencies. Instead, all these Jews
>>recognized the chaff and therefore rejected the entire bushel, wheat and
>>all. Isn't that a harm? This is not a hypothetical, it's happening as we
>>watch, and probably has been happening for 1,000 years. You guys are going
>>to "stringency" yourselves right out of existence. Any harm there, you
>>think, in a little stringency?
>Could very well be. (This could launch me on a rant about how many
>kiruv workers, not knowing much themselves, present humrot as law.)
>>Performing certain actions or avoiding others simply because of a vague
>>sense that "something bad might happen" is the definition of superstition.
>No, the definition is:
>1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
>unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
>b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural,
>nature, or God resulting from superstition
>2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
>Many humrot do result from ignorance. But a legitimate uncertainty in
>the determination of application of the law is not that. (Note that
>I'm not saying that this particular case - pizza in a non-kosher oven
>- is uncertain. I don't know that.)
I disagree, I think chumrot fit your definition of superstition perfectly.
>>I accept that following a principle because you believe that's what God
>>commanded is not superstition. However, once you agree that the behavior
>>is NOT what God commanded, but you do it anyone because "well better safe
>>than sorry" then what would you call it? I don't think it really is
>>"stringent."
>Semantics. Whatever. It may very well be an inexact use of language.
>Main Entry: strin·gent
>1 : TIGHT, CONSTRICTED
>2 : marked by rigor, strictness , or severity especially with regard
>to rule or standard <stringent decontamination procedures>
>3 : marked by money scarcity and credit strictness <a stringent
>budget>
>So what do you want to call it? "Extra care?"
I want to call it "irrelevant superstition."
--s
--
Jonathan J. Baker
>In <ervkjv$56t$1...@reader2.panix.com> "Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> writes:
>>>Why? Speaking purely physically, that is, in terms of actual physical
>>>residues.
>>How often do you clean your oven? Even without worrying about balua
>>(absorbed; and in unglazed ceramic or brick walls which might have
>>been used in the pre-modern period, or in cast-iron, both of which
>>have lots of cracks/holes, it's a real concern), there's real b'en
>>(stuff stuck on the walls). I don't know if we assume it's been
>>denatured by heat or not, but it's still there on the oven walls.
>Well, we weren't talking about my oven but about a 450+ pizza oven, and
>what difference does it make if there's stuff stuck to the walls, unless
>that stuff is mixed into the food? Even if there's a mixture it still
>might not be a problem, but if there's no mixture then there's certainly
>no problem is there?
There are issues of "steam", and what if the gunk falls off onto the
top of your open pizza? The gunk is sure to contain bits of meat-grease
and cheese-grease.
>>>I am certain that I can eat pizza out, but I don't contend that you would
>>>consider that pizza to be kosher. I was making a different point.
>>"You are certain that you can eat pizza out". Who did you ask? What
>>halachic source told you, source that actually learned the halachot
>>inside in the Shulchan Aruch or in the Gemara?
>I don't need to ask anyone's permission to eat any food. Except maybe my
>wife's.
Well, as long as you want to ignore halacha, you don't need to ask.
Is it any wonder that many see little difference between C and R?
>>>No, I have to disagree -- it would NOT be "without reference to Halacha."
>>>It would DEFINITELY be WITH reference to Halacha. Which is different from
>>>saying it meets your standards of halacha, but I never claimed that it
>>>did.
>>You need to demonstrate, from halacha, whether "my standards" or Conservative
>>standards, that it's permissible. I think what happened is that a lot of
>>people do stuff without checking what's real. "It has no active treif" so
>>it must be OK. I ate that way too, for a long time, but I knew it was less
>>than ideal. I just wasn't ready to give up the convenience of walking into
>>any old pizza place or sandwich place, and getting a tuna sub or plain pizza.
>No, I don't have to demonstrate it's PERMISSIBLE in order to demonstrate
>that it's WITH REFERENCE. You see what I'm saying? You're claiming it's
>completely disassociated from halacha - it's without reference. I'm
>agreeing that it doesn't meet your standard of halacha, but I'm saying
>there are many reference lines one could draw that would not be your
>standard of halacha, and so perhaps could not be called "halachic," but
>nevertheless could be said to be "with reference to halacha." You probably
>consider that a meaningless distinction but I don't think it is.
No, what I'm saying is that it's not MY standard of halacha that it's dis-
associated from, but the standard of halacha that the CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT
claims to hold. So it is indeed "without reference to halacha". There is
no Conservative teshuva allowing one to eat pizza cooked in a non-kosher
pizza place. That doesn't mean that 90-95% of Conservative Jews don't
eat it, but it means that they're wrong BY THEIR OWN MOVEMENT'S STANDARDS.
>>Did you read the Jewish Week article that seems to have started this thread?
>>According to them, the teshuva Conservatives rely on for this "eating fish
>>out" talks about grilled fish and cooked vegetables, only. Fish is cooked
>>in a pan, on top of the stove, and vegetables are cooked in a closed pot,
>>again on top of the stove. None of this permits, or even justifies, cooking
>>uncovered food in an oven at the same time as other, treif, uncovered food.
>I didn't, and I'm not even sure of how I got to where I got to anymore. I
>think, though, it's regarding a question of consistency. You (and others)
>seem to be asserting that C (or any practice other than O) is inherently
>inconsistent. I don't think that's the case, I think a person could
>establish certain consistent principles that he or she chose to live by,
>referenced to halacha in some consistent manner. I agree that this would
>not be O (by definition) but it wouldn't have to be some crippled form of
>O, it could be something else. It wouldn't be Karaism either.
I'm not saying it's inconsistent - no system as huge as halacha could be
consistent. I'm saying that the practice of Conservative Jews bears
little relation to the standards of their own movement.
>For example, someone might say "I choose not to eat non-kosher meat, but I
>don't accept that 'mixtures' are anything but actual physical mixtures,
>and the category of forbidden meat applies only to actual 'food,' not
>products derived from food, and therefore I will eat vegetarian pizza in a
>non-kosher restaurant" and that person would be holding a consistent
>position. They would not necessarily be someone who just wanted to eat the
>pizza and therefore came up with some justification to let them do it, as
>I think has been implied here.
Sure, it's consistent, as long as one doesn't check against halacha.
But since Conservative Jews are supposed to observe halacha as specified
in the Shulchan Aruch, except where modified by the CJLS, it's not
consistent with Conservative ideals.
As I said, I used to eat that way, but I knew it was less than ideal.
Conservatives seem to have lost the sense that what they're doing is
less than ideal, needs improvement, etc. The sense that all life
involves growth. And growth, in a religio-legal system like Judaism,
means improving one's observance of halacha, as well as one's knowledge
of God. The two go hand in hand - as one gains knowledge of God, one
sees more how the rules of the system, the discipline as it were, are
part and parcel of the growth process.
Now, if one is Reform, then one can develop one's own ethic and
behavior rules without reference to halacha, because individual
autonomy rules (and even they have some absolute limits, such as
not more than one God, no murder, etc.). But Conservative pays
lip-service to halacha. And as a human being, continuing to grow,
one should try to give greater service than lip-service. I know
the Conservative prayerbook is 99-44/100% the same as the Orthodox,
and it speaks of concepts such as mitzvot, immersion in Torah,
performance of mitzvot and study for the sake of God's Name, etc.
Surely you don't want that just to be empty words.
--
Jonathan Baker | Knock knock. Who's there? Mischa. Mischa who?
jjb...@panix.com | Mishenichnas Adar I marbim besimcha ketanah.
Blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com Featuring: Rav Movie