Israeli Version Of Hechsher Tzedek Grows Exponentially, Report Says

It's called B'Maaglei Tzedek. It;s Modern Orthodox. So far, it only supervises restaurants. It claims almost 1/3 of all Jerusalem restaurants are now under its supervision. And today, it is profiled…

…in the Christian Science Monitor:

…"You would not believe how many people ask whether we have the seal," says Navah Bibi, who runs Little Jerusalem, a bistro with a huge patio garden. "At least as many as those who ask to see our 'normal' kosher credentials," she says, pointing out the two certificates, sitting side by side on the reception desk. "It has been a surprise."…

…Bemaaglei Tzedek has moved out of Banner's living room into a cramped office, taken on 14 paid workers, and has dozens of volunteers and a budget of $500,000, all from private donations. The organization – whose name translates as Circles of Justice – is having a ripple effect. Two satellite offices have opened, and, in total, 380 seals have been awarded – spread across seven cities, two university campuses, and several kibbutzim.

Staff and volunteers from the organization recruit new restaurants, check up on them on a monthly basis, and do outreach in the larger community to explain the significance of the project. A media campaign to convince people not to patronize businesses that don't have the seal further drives home the message. One commercial shows diners happily eating, but when the camera pans out, it becomes apparent the tables are actually other people on all fours. "Don't eat on the backs of others," a voice intones.…

The image of diners eating off the backs of exploited workers is an apt one in light of the most recent Agriprocessors / Rubashkin scandal.

We should make an American version of the commercial and release it on the Internet.

Anyone interested in funding it?

IN ISRAEL, KOSHER EXTENDS BEYOND THE KITCHEN.

In Israel, kosher extends beyond the kitchen.pdf

[Hat Tip: Ben Max.]

Comments

[Paul Freedman]

But does this relate to your earlier discussions?

a) it's Orthodox and

b) it's not an attempt from your quote to regulate kosher producers and dictate industrial standards in comparison to the stated goals of the would be certifiers here--it doesn't seem to have anything to do with plant workers, exploited or coseted or otherwise

[Paul Freedman]

that is it's not a version of Heksher Tzeddik nor does it share its central concerns if it is restricted to the restaurant trade and not manufacturers of food product

[steve]

It's a step in the right direction. This will lead to similar supervisions in factories and slaughterhouses all over the world.

[Paul Freedman]

by whom do you think? and of what? all labor conditions? Setting norms for manufacturing is not the same as ensuring your kitchen help and waitering staff are treated with dignity. Complicating matters is that in the United States, by circumstance and by direct choice, the workforce is overwhelmingly non-Jewish

[steve]

by whom do you think?

Either by the kashrus agencies themselves (highly unlikely) or by an oversight agency similar to Maagalei Tzedek (more likely)

and of what?

All products requiring kosher supervision.

all labor conditions?

Yes.

[rebitzman]

++a) it's Orthodox and ++

Exactly.....

And?

[Shmarya]

by whom do you think? and of what? all labor conditions? Setting norms for manufacturing is not the same as ensuring your kitchen help and waitering staff are treated with dignity. Complicating matters is that in the United States, by circumstance and by direct choice, the workforce is overwhelmingly non-Jewish

I don't see the problem here, Paul.

B'Maaglei Tzedek started to address the problem that its founders saw.

Hechsher Tzedek started the same way.

B'Maaglei Tzedek will eventually cover industrial food production.

Hechsher Tzedek will eventually cover restaurants.

In Israel, the restaurant problem is much larger than in the US, and the industrial food production problem is smaller, so B'Maaglei Tzedek attacked the biggest problem first.

In the US, the biggest problem is industrial food production, and Hechsher Tzedek is attacking that first.

I don't see a dichotomy at all.

[sage]

This is clearly "Serendipity" of a very positive nature.

[Paul Freedman]

as far as orthodox vs conservative (here) the problem would be technical expertise and religious background credible to the producers, or for that, primary consumers.

Shmarya--

I don't see that Hechsher Tzedek has demonstrated the resource base to ramp up to permit oversight in any more depth than OU has--regulation is easy to propose but resource intensive to actually carry out beyond semi-voluntary or de-facto voluntary standards and spot checks.

I still don't see that Heksher Kashrus is an issue of kashrus per se, a project to apply Jewish kashrus norms to industry norms to arrive at guidelines that are tailored to the industrial necessities of kosher slaughter--the pamphlet seems more like a program for universal application of labor guidelines in all fields, working conditions, salary, and benefits for general kadushin.

But let's say you buy into it, even accepting the premise wouldn't a multiple number of inspectors, negotiators, experts would be required to propose, negotiate, and verify than the OU functionaries you think are falling down on the job? These guys are proposing a program that encompasses large swaths of labor-employee relations, is there anything more now than a blog, a front man, and a pocket office staff?

[sage]

If Bemaaglei Tzedek is successful in its implementation phase, much will be learned that could be copied by Hechsher Tzedek here in the US.

No need to re-invent the wheel, so to speak.

[Shmarya]

wouldn't a multiple number of inspectors, negotiators, experts would be required to propose, negotiate, and verify than the OU functionaries you think are falling down on the job? These guys are proposing a program that encompasses large swaths of labor-employee relations, is there anything more now than a blog, a front man, and a pocket office staff?

They haven't even opened yet, and you want them to have hundreds of inspectors on staff?

HT has been very clear. These inspections will be done by independent third party auditors – not by rabbis.

If you go the HT blog and look on the right sidebar, there is link to al pi din. Read that. It will answer the rest of your questions.

[Paul Freedman]

The question of what is the purpose of this seal--is there an integral relation with what Orthodox Jews view, in a socially majority way, as normative kashrus, is also echoed for the original, which is not recognized by the religious "establishment" but, if that is considered trivial, is not really a seal that designates a kosher establishment at all in the traditional religious sense it is granted to clearly non-kosher establishments:

"Banner's kosher social seal is not recognized by the traditional religious establishment (and nonkosher, in the dietary sense, restaurants can also get the social seal). But it's nonetheless catching on, with dozens of new restaurants contacting Bemaaglei Tzedek every week to inquire about it. In Jerusalem, where awareness of the seal is strongest, nearly one-third of all restaurants have a social seal today, according to Banner...."

Since this seal is freely distributed to non-kosher establishments couldn't we say that this is really a social justice seal that rides piggy-back on notions of kashrus?

[Shmarya]

Read the Hechsher Tzedek al pi din document.

[Paul Freedman]

Who pays?

As a non-orthodox secular Jew my take was that Al Pi Din anchored a lot of prophetic aspirations to stretched justification, deriving arguments for social justice independently of animal welfare concerns that are more convincingly tied to kashrus, and then simply assuming that all the concerns fell under the same conceptual mantle. But assuming the practicality of third-party auditors I think that this is not demonstrated, that kedushiin in a general tzeddik/tikkun sense is inextricable to kashrus certification--indeed, as noted above, in Israel the corresponding seal is given to non-kosher concerns, restaurants that are not kosher.

[Paul Freedman]

Abraham Heschel?

[Paul Freedman]

But sure, I think traditionally-schooled students and scholars should for sure take a look at the Al Pi Din and see what they make of it.

[Shmarya]

Paul –

This isn't a complex issue.

1. The Torah mandates laws of kashrut.

2. The Torah mandates laws for treating workers.

You seem to think #1 is inherently halakhic while #2 is not.

As for what is being done in Israel,B'maaglei Tzedek supervises #2. It does not supervise #1. Since both are Torah requirements, B'maaglei Tzedek will supervise even in places that do not have supervision for #1.

That is a halakhic choice, much in the way some kashrut agencies would not supervise the food at a restaurant with mixed dancing, but others will.

[Yossi (Joe) Izrael]

Off topic:

If anyone has access to guidestar can you please look up "Hamaspik" - they have several chapters, I think all registered as independent 503C's called Hamaspik and the County name (Hamaspik Of Rockland County etc - they have Kings, Rockland and Orange) please contact me.

Also, someone tells me the Kolko affair is far more dirtier than so far reported. Someone caliming to "know it all" says many testimonies were thrown out of the window, and that there is some major fiscal shmutz that Kolko knows about Margo, that's why they don't want to talk and why Margo must cover Kolko. And whatever happened to Framowitz? Was the allowed to testify despite SOL?

[Shmarya]

There was no trial, Joe. The DA let Kolko plead to two counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

The Jewish Week had a series of great articles about this written by Hella Winston and Larry Cohler-Esses.

[steve]

I don't think the civil suit has been settled or thrown out yet.

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya--then why are the Israeliis calling their certificate kashrus? Exactly.

I'm sitpulating that 2 is halachic but of a different type and genus than for #1 and I am saying that there is confusion of the two types/species/spheres of halachic requirements by those who wish to encourage #2 using the positive connotations of #1 as a social institution, even if they end up disregarding clearly non-kosher conditions when it comes time to hand out their heksher (in Israel). If as in Israel you are not supervising #1, indeed, you are giving your certificate to non-kosher restaurants, why call this any kind of kashrus--if you want to call your certificate "kashrus" this or that I would think you must insist de minima on the "dietary" kashrus of your institution--if you don't then I don't think that the criticism of intellectual dishonesty is unfair.

[Paul Freedman]

No orthodox institutions, not a one, would offer any kind of kashrus, by way of example, to a restaurant that was actually "dietary"-wise, non-kosher as is done by the Israeli organization cited. There would be zero certification.

[Paul Freedman]

From an orthodox perspective how can a certifying organization claim to promote #2, call it heksher, while condoning violation of the de minima (dietary) base line of kashrus? From what I read, they are not only certifying places that have no supervision, they are certifying places that by the intention of the owners can not *have* supervision as they are non-kosher as to menu, seating and social arrangements to one side.

[rebitzman]

++From an orthodox perspective how can a certifying organization claim to promote #2, call it heksher, while condoning violation of the de minima (dietary) base line of kashrus?++

Turn it around - and answer the same question.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Rebitzman,
because Kosher in Halacha, and the need for supervision, applies particularly to dietary laws, as does the term Hechsher.

The supervision and certification of other areas of Halacha, and the use of that as a factor in whether or not to eat the food is a novel concept.

[rebitzman]

++The supervision and certification of other areas of Halacha, and the use of that as a factor in whether or not to eat the food is a novel concept.++

Not, however, a bad idea.

I keep a tightly kosher home - and absolutely love my trips to Chicago (where I am now) so that I can eat out. Funny thing - the places I frequent know me on site and are friendly beyond words (I make it down - once, maybe twice a year) and I KNOW they are treating the staff well, because the staff tells me (AND there are no visible bruises of burn marks). I would certainly embrace (Orthodox, Conservative.......) some "heksher" (for lack of a better word) on the door of new places so I could feel as comfortable getting food from the Hashalom Restaurant as I am from Ten Li Chow (who I immediately assumed were ethically "kosher" - how can one have such a sense of humor and NOT be?).

It might be technically kosher, but if the guy behind the counter is a ganiff - do I REALLY want to be there?

[rebitzman]

Note - the examples above are just examples - the Hashalom Restaurant is an excellent place to eat - the staff is very friendly.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Be that as it may, Paul's point stands.

Also, certifying Kashrus laws and establishing a place as being a permitted eatery and not actively involving oneself in other laws does not constitute condoning violations of those laws, as they do not effect that status of the food Halachically.

Certifying an eatery as acceptable when the food is Halachically forbidden is not the same in reverse - the two areas of Halacha do not have the same effect on the food's status.

[steve]

Also, certifying Kashrus laws and establishing a place as being a permitted eatery and not actively involving oneself in other laws does not constitute condoning violations of those laws, as they do not effect that status of the food Halachically

False. If the owner has a proven track record of dishonesty, the food should not be certified as "kosher". There seems to be a double standard with kashrus agencies. On the one hand they refuse to give hashgochos to a mechallel shabbos owner but have no problem giving hashgochos to those that abuse their workers and disobey civil laws. Bottom line, if you can't trust the owner, you can't ever trust that his food is kosher.

[Jason]

The supervision and certification of other areas of Halacha, and the use of that as a factor in whether or not to eat the food is a novel concept.

And yet this concept is used by the OU and other certifying agencies. See the above example about a restaurant that allowed mixed dancing or the proposed New Years Eve shabbat dinner in 1999/2000.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

If the owner has a proven track record of dishonesty, the food should not be certified as "kosher."

That is simply not true. While personal conduct can effect a persons Chezkas Kashrus, there is no reason why food produced by that person, if properly supervised, cannot be certified as Kosher.

This applies to many areas of Halacha, including abusive practices - they do not render the food unkosher. That does not constitute support for that behavior. They simply do not enter into the Kashrus equation.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Jason, by certifying a location, they are saying it is an acceptable place to eat a meal. While there is no basis to say the food is not kosher simply because other violations are happening, there is legitimate reason not to endorse the place as an acceptable environment.

This does not hold true of other violations such as withholding pay, which while utterly forbidden, do not impact the status of the food, nor do they impact the environment.

Withholding certification in these cases does not constitute applying those Halachos to the status of the food. They are simply saying that while the food may be OK, the food is eaten in an environment which we cannot condone - it's a separate issue.

[Shmarya]

...f the owner has a proven track record of dishonesty, the food should not be certified as "kosher."<<<

That is simply not true. While personal conduct can effect a persons Chezkas Kashrus, there is no reason why food produced by that person, if properly supervised, cannot be certified as Kosher.

You're mistaken, Getzel.

If a person loses his hezkat kashrut then all supervision is considered worthless.

A non-Jew who is a professional restauranteur has a hezkat kashrut. He loses that if he is caught lying. If that happens, all supervision is worthless.

That's why a chef caught lying (as opposed to making an error) must be fired.

This extends to Jewish owners and chefs, as well. They may start out with a stronger hezkat kashrut, but they lose it just as fast.

[Jason]

Getzel, in your opinion why would it be inappropriate for a certifying agency to say the same thing as concerns worker treatment, pay, etc? I.e., couldn't the certifying agency say that treatment of workers does impact the environment and we therefore refuse to give a hechsher to any restaurant that didn't pay its workers a living wage (or another similar issue), regardless of the fact that the food is technically kosher?

[Shmarya]

ason, by certifying a location, they are saying it is an acceptable place to eat a meal. While there is no basis to say the food is not kosher simply because other violations are happening, there is legitimate reason not to endorse the place as an acceptable environment.

This does not hold true of other violations such as withholding pay, which while utterly forbidden, do not impact the status of the food, nor do they impact the environment.

But you forget deriving benefit lechatchila from such exploitation is also forbidden.

[steve]

While personal conduct can effect a persons Chezkas Kashrus, there is no reason why food produced by that person, if properly supervised, cannot be certified as Kosher.

If personal conduct effects a person's chezkas kashrus, and if that person hand-picks his own mashgiach and pays him directly, then can one rely on that person and on that mashgiach? I think not, although you and your family think otherwise.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Jason: No, because it doesn't. I am not saying a certification or consumer information on that issue is not a good thing, but it is not comparable to issues which directly involve the consumer, such as the food status and the immediate surroundings of the diner.

Worker relations, while important to the owner, does not impact the consumer at all, Halachically.

I am merely strengthening Paul's point that to certify Kosher establishments as being above board ethically is one thing, and certifying nonKosher establishments is another entirely.

Shmarya: I would appreciate a Halachic source for both of those statements.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Again, Jason. I am not arguing against such certification. I am merely pointing out that the food is technically Kosher, and that certifying a location as Kosher without certifying ethics is Halachically acceptable, while the inverse is questionable.

[Shmarya]

Getzel –

See Rav Moshe's teshuva forbidding non-union lettuce and grapes.

[rebitzman]

++Certifying an eatery as acceptable when the food is Halachically forbidden is not the same in reverse - the two areas of Halacha do not have the same effect on the food's status.++

To those of us who demand BOTH, it is exactly the same.

Let's try this another way......

You've read what the HT committee views as "required" to to receive their certification ( I have no objections to calling it "certification" because you clearly have an issue with calling it a heksher) - what points EXACTLY (please be specific) are you saying that your company absolutely refuses to adhere to?

You might wish to include "why" in your answer.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Well, Rebitzman, I have a superior here at Agriprocessors who evidently shares Shmarya's opinion that we are to be good little Rubashkin's and let people step all over us without defense.

I have been told to stop posting on FM unless I receive permission to do so. I have interpreted that to mean specifically addressing the company's issues, as opposed to purely philosophical discussions, so I cannot answer your question, but I will clarify.

The Torah demands "BOTH." It is not a suggestion or a request, it is a demand. But to the Torah, they are not "exactly the same." The Torah forbids consumption of food in violation of Kashrus, but permits food produced in violation of other laws unless otherwise noted.

Permission does not require one to consume those foods, and advocating application of economic pressure to force compliance is not a bad idea, but to invoke the Torah and imply that the Torah requires compliance with these laws to permit consumption is wrong.

Shmarya: I have not seen that Tshuva, and I imagine you can link to it. The facts remain as I stated them, which is that there are no provisions in the Shulchan Aruch (that I am aware of) that forbid food based on violations other than Kosher and specified cases where it is a preventive or punitive measure.

The fact that a Tshuva was written only underscores the fact that it is not a standard Halachic concept, and the content of the Tshuva will dictate whether or not it can be applied to act as a basis for HT and similar arguments.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Rubashkins*

[Shmarya]

but to invoke the Torah and imply that the Torah requires compliance with these laws to permit consumption is wrong.

Getzel –

B'dieved, the food is permitted. L'chatchilla, it is forbidden, just as l'chatchilla you can't do the mitzva of tefillin with stolen tefillin.

I think Rav Moshe's teshuva on union lettuce and grapes is in Igros Moshe. I have it, but only on CD and my version doesn't work with the computer I know use.

Anyway, you're always welcome here – even if we strongly disagree.

[rebitzman]

++But to the Torah, they are not "exactly the same." ++

Don't recall saying they were.

DO recall saying I was in my rights to demand both.

Sorry to hear that you're being shut down - while I have disagreed with you - DO disagree with you on many (ok Most......ok nearly ALL) points, I have appreciated your willingness to take it between the eyes.

[steve]

Getzel Rubashkin says that "kosher" food produced unethically by unethical people is technically kosher. Why am I not surprised?

Here is an excerpt from a Jewish Press article dated 12/13/85 that speaks to the heart of the matter:

Kashrus Abuses High on Orthodox Agenda

In the hallways and convention rooms of Agudath Israel of America, and the National Council of Young Israel last weekend, Orthodox Jews heatedly debated the large number of incidents pointing to the widespread abuses in the Glatt Kosher industry. Of particular concern to these Jews were the violations perpetrated by Glatt owners who desecrate the Shabbos, Torah and Mitzvos.

The latest incident to rock the Orthodox community in kashrus was a startling discovery in the town of Apple Creek, Ohio. A truckload of "supposedly" Glatt Kosher calves (Central Glatt Meats, Inc.)detined for New York allegedly contained treif meat. The meat would have been distributed to stores and caterers in the metropolitan area. The Concerned Group of Glatt Kosher Consumers confirmed the incident which came only weeks after a major meat wholesaler was caught taking in "treif meat" on Yom Tov.

In addition to the discussions at the conclaves of major Orthodox organizations, the debate has flowed over into the pages of the Jewish Press and other Jewish media. The sentiment that has been running high is that people who desecrate Shabbos and Mitzvos (both bein adom l'makom and bein adom l'chaveiro) should not be in the Glatt Kosher business.

Has anything improved since? Not at all. In fact, the President of the aforementioned Central Glatt, Steven Simcha Katz is now the Chairman of Kashrus at the OU!

[Getzel Rubashkin]

I will stick around. While there is merit to the "Mitzva HaBo'o B'Avaira" concept, I believe you are applying it a bit too indiscriminately.

[Getzel Rubashkin]

Rebitzman, I did not argue with your right to demand both. As a matter of fact, I supported it.

[Paul Freedman]

What concerned me primarily is a truth-in-advertising issue, I have problems with the motivation, heck the meaning, of various types of Kashrut certification that permit, knowingly permit, violations of what is conventionally understood as being the minimum dietary component. In general my "ofi" gets uneasy with "mixed concepts", statements that start with a principle here and then end up over there without a clear pathway of what the process for deducing that a follows from b is, is this analogy, is this extension of part to the whole, is this some implicit contextual judgement based on some equivalent of da'as tora. I am not saying nor could I offer a credible opinion nay or yay that there could not be a consensus around a set of conditions implicated in kashrus beyond the dietary food preparation and storage requirements and communal "standards of decency" for behaviors permitted where food is purchased and consumed. I don't see that Al Pe Din is making an argumentative case in systematic fashion towards this however. I do suspect, myself, that they are eliding/gliding over substantive stress-points in their advocacy which enters the zone of assertion "Kashrus is Torah, social justice is Torah, ergo social justice is kashrus"--well, yeah, but....

[Paul Freedman]

you'll burn in gehenna, Getzel Rubashkin!!

(balance)

[Getzel Rubashkin]

++you'll burn in gehenna, Getzel Rubashkin!!

(balance)++

I have a feeling I should understand that, but I don't.