Lubinsky, Star-K, OU, Hechsher Tzedek On NPR

The topic? Are rabbis responsible to make sure non-food related halakha is followed by companies they supervise?

Here is the example given by the Star-K's Rabbi Avraham Pollack:

A company sells its food as both kosher and organic. Is it the rabbis' responsibility to make sure the food really is organic? No, says Rabbi Pollack. We have to trust the government.

Rabbi Genack makes a similar point. Lubinsky simply moans about the extension of kosher law to cover non-food issues.

But what Rabbi Pollack's scenario doesn't pose the right question. The question should be, what if the rabbis' know or have real reason to suspect the food is not truly organic. Then what? What should the rabbis do then?

It is this scenario, not the first, that applies to the Agriprocessors situation, and it is this scenario the rabbis have still answered by saying, "it's not our job," as if clear violations of Jewish law in non-food areas somehow don't deserve rabbinic attention.

When Rubashkins are indicted and convicted, the OU and others will have to make the choice they dread – dropping Agriprocessors' kosher supervision as promised or finding a way to continue it.

Short of that point, even clear evidence of halakhic wrongdoing won't stop rabbis from endorsing Rubashkin meat.

In the end, the Orthodox rabbis don't have an answer to this, which is why Hechsher Tzedek exists.

Listen Now.

Comments

[churbanboy]

The choice will be easy. Once indicted Agri won't pay the OU money so fast-hence the pulling of the hashgocha.

BTW does the star k endorsement of trusting the gov't mean that they endorse the fact that today given the govt monitoring that we no longer need to drink chalav yisroel?

[Al]

I would pose this question. If I understand correctly, Tzar Baale Chai (tormenting an animal) is one of the laws god saw fit to include in the Sheva Mitzvot Bnei Noach (the seven laws of the children of Noah - or all non-jews).

For god's sake, not all of the ten commandments made the list, but this one did ! Does that not say something wrt to the priority god puts on such a law ?

Somewhere in our history, someone decided that if a restaurant (Jewish owned) is not shomer shabbat, or an individual is not shomer shabbat, orthodox Jews can not trust them and eat in their homes or restaurants. Why is it that only the prohibition of Shabbat is used as a litmus test ? When the Rubashkins break one of god's laws and one of the few laws that god gave to the goyim (I say that with great sarcasm), how can this not be seen as a major indicator that these individuals are not trustworthy ?

On one hand I would argue that the Organic grown vegetables is not a halachik issue, but "honesty" is !!! dishonest people are dishonest, often even with themselves.

It is ridiculous for a company that gives hashgacha to say nothing but the shechita matters (although I fail to see how the Rubashkin shechita passed as acceptable under the OU). Other behaviors are an indicator of the caliber of the people you are dealing with.

Liar and cheats, are liars and cheats. And while none of us are perfect and no one should be abandoned based on one claim or failure on our part, this family has failed again and again and again and again (do I need to keep typing it ?). Its time to cut them loose the way so many less deserving, more honorable people have been cut loose. I would eat kosher food served to me by my honest well intentioned, non-Jewish or non-orthodox neighbor with greater confidence in its kashrut than eating food from this slaughterhouse !

And as for the OU.... I have long believed that there is no such thing as a non-for-profit. While there may not be any money accumulated in the corporate bank accounts... someone is profiting and we are relying on those individuals who are profiting to reduce their incomes. Too many of us will err when forced to make ethical decisions that will really cost us. The conflict of interest is unfortunate and ideally we would find a better way - but we have not.

[Harold F]

I've always wondered why the Ten Commandments were never considered the noachide laws. Many non-Jews consider them to be their moral guide.

[Sam]

I must side with the Rabbis here. It is certainly not their job to do anything other than supervising and ensuring that the food is Kosher or Glatt Kosher. That's what they are paid to do and that's where their responsibilities end. It is an issue of morality and not obligatory upon the Rabbis to expose any other Jewish law violations occurring at the food plant that they are supervising for its Kosher certification. You can twist the issues back and forth but the bottom line is that they are not there to make sure that every aspect of the business is run according to Jewish law. Even if they are aware of such violations or the likelihood of them, it does not become obligatory upon them more than on anyone else (like a plumber at the facility) to expose it.

[Carol Ann Varley]

I am a life-long Methodist, but the first time I learned about the Noahide Laws was this year when I read about religious slaughter. The Ten Commandments were taught in the Methodist Church, but nothing about the Noahide Laws.

Does anyone know if the Noahide Laws are taught in other Christian sects?

One of the Noahide Laws prohibits eating flesh from a live animal. Shouldn't this prove the importance of animal welfare?

My feeling is that animal welfare should trump all other issues when it comes to the slaughter of animals, religious or secular.

[Jason]

Sam, you say "it is an issue of morality and not obligatory upon the Rabbis to expose any other Jewish law violations occurring at the food plant that they are supervising for its Kosher certification."

Even accepting your premise, if the allegations against AgriProcessors are true and there were Rabbis who witnessed workers being beaten or otherwise mistreated, or animals being mistreated, then the failure of those Rabbis to report any of this behavior is a major moral failing and should immediately call into question not only their fitness to act as a kosher certifier, but their very humanity. In fact, I would say that regardless of where they got their smicha, any person who could witness abuse of people or animals and not report it to law enforcement does not qualify to be called "Rabbi."

There has to be more to being a Rabbi than passing a test on yoreh deiah and the Orthodox community needs to support this premise or get used to more of the same in the years ahead.

[David]

Please, Rabbi. Supposing I ran a restaurant with topless waitresses-- could I get a heckscher? No? Why not?

[WoolSIlkCotton]

David, if you do get that heckscher, please tell us the location! It will be the most popular restaurant ever! LOL

[Archie Bunker]

The Iowa newspapers have finally smartened up and are not relying on Lubinsky, who they finally realize is feeding them a pile of cow dung propaganda.

The reporters are now calling independent rabbis on the East Coast. They are now thinking that Agri's demise is a foregone conclusion and are asking questions like which kosher outfit can take over the operations.

[michael ben drosai]

"Does anyone know if the Noahide Laws are taught in other Christian sects?"

no but I once had a sofa covered with Noahide

[Archie Bunker]

There are sects in southern States like TN & TX that were excommunicated by the Baptist Church for focusing on the Noahide laws.

[Carol Ann Varley]

MBD,
LOL! However, the politically correct term today is pleather.

[shmuel]

I heard from some very reliable sources that OU pULLed there hechsher from rubatchkins for not paying them. ANY nEWS on this?

[sage]

If this is true, it's almost 4 years overdue.

[Al]

Carol Ann Varley: I believe that the Laws of the Children of Noah are not the focus of a christian education because early Christianity as I understandn it did not view itself as a new or seperate religion but the natural evolution of Judaism as desired by god (again, the Christian view). As the next step in the evolution of the Jews, this religion would inherit the Ten Commandments (Aftr all the Christians were the new Jews) and not the laws of the Chidren of Noah which were intended for non-Jews. This explination may not be accurate, but it seems to make sense.

As far as the arguement that Rabbi's and for that matter Preists should focus only the the certification of a "process" that they are being hired to certify. I agree, but I think we as people need to look further. First of all, At Agriprocessors, I do not beleive the meat is kosher and numerous rabbi's have made that same statement. But.. let's say that in and of itself this practice does not break the laws of kosher. Simply looking at all the laws broken by this company should demostrate that they are not trust worthy.

There is precesence in Jewish law in my opinion to say that some people are simply not to be trusted. For example, jews who are kosher should trust jews who do not keep the sabbath to prepare kosher meals for them. Certain individuals are disqualified to be witnesses based on their past breaches of Jewish law. I am not sure why the sabbath is the only law that deserves to be the litmus test today.

A failure to exhibit ethics or compliance with laws in a significant number of domains should illustrate that people can not be trusted. And regardless of paid supervisors.. cheaters will find ways to cheat ! No rationale person would deny that. While Tzar Baale Chai made it into the seven laws of the children of Noah and not the ten commandments, it is a law that Jews are obligated to observe.

So.. while Rabbi's should not attempt to enforce all Jewish law, i think there is a class of laws, that when dismissed and broken on a repeated basis, indicates that nothingt he Rabbi does to ensure that the food will be kosher is going to work, because the people being observed are just tricksters and sleeze balls !

It is a fine line, but I think that religious leaders do need to walk it.

[Al]

shmuel: if this is true.. I find it interesting that moral breaches and treachory can not be a catlyst for the removal of hasgacha, but a late payment can be ? Again, if this is true: what happened to all that concern over "where will people get kosher meat from if we pull the hasgacha ?" Look at that money talks, all else walks. No surprise.

[Ariel Sokolovsky BostonChabad.com]

B"H
Carol Ann writes:

I am a life-long Methodist, but the first time I learned about the Noahide Laws was this year when I read about religious slaughter. The Ten Commandments were taught in the Methodist Church, but nothing about the Noahide Laws.

Does anyone know if the Noahide Laws are taught in other Christian sects?

One of the Noahide Laws prohibits eating flesh from a live animal. Shouldn't this prove the importance of animal welfare?

My feeling is that animal welfare should trump all other issues when it comes to the slaughter of animals, religious or secular.

Posted by: Carol Ann Varley | August 21, 2008 at 01:58 PM

See for example the link bellow from :
(I am posting it here as an answer to your question regarding Noahide Laws being taught in Christian setting. Being Jewish I can't and don't endorse this 100% just whatever parts of it that comply with Noahide law from the Torah point of view.)
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/7laws.html

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

I must side with the Rabbis here. It is certainly not their job to do anything other than supervising and ensuring that the food is Kosher or Glatt Kosher

And if the "rabbis" are supervising a restaurant, and a 4-year-old is abducted in the restaurant by Chester the Molester, they don't have to do anything to help because their job is only related to food.

And if the cook is spitting in the soup, there is nothing they can do, because urine is not food and saliva is not going to make the soup non-kosher.

And if the cashier is slipping $20 bills from the till into his pocket, that's none of the rabbis' business. Why? Money is not food.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Should be: saliva is not food

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

Supposing I ran a restaurant with topless waitresses

That depends if it's food related. It takes a "scholar" like a rabbi to tell the difference.

[Nigritude Ultramarine]

David, if you do get that heckscher, please tell us the location!

Hooters is coming to Israel. I wonder if they'll get a hechsher.

[Carol Ann Varley]

{Hooters is coming to Israel. I wonder if they'll get a hechsher.}

Maybe they'll get two, one for each...oh, nevermind!

Also, thanks to those who posted information about the Noahide Laws.

[Al]

Nigritude Ultramarine: I love the extreme you go to in an effort to make your point. you are dead on.

and by the way.. how do you know about Chester the Molester ? What magazines have you been reading ?

[rebitzman]

++One of the Noahide Laws prohibits eating flesh from a live animal. Shouldn't this prove the importance of animal welfare?++

There is a bit of a gap between kosher slaughter and eating ol' Barney the Cow one leg at a time, but - yes, this is one of MANY things the rabbis used to derive the fact that cruelty to animals is a violation of Torah.

[Al]

rebitzman: Glad to see you and I can find more of a common ground on this topic.

[BaltimoreYid]

Carol Ann,

Go to www.asknoah.org it is a very interesting website.

[Paul Freedman]

the question however doesn't answer whether their responsibility or responsibility of producers is to promote or accept a detailed positive proscription of conditions such as Hechsher Tzedik

[Al]

Paul: not sure I understand: "the question doesn't answer" ?

In cases of Halacha, there is rarely a perfect answer. Someone in authority needs to take a stand based on principles and precedent. We all know that given the huge number of sources in our tradition that can be used as precedent individuals could argue either way. I do appreciate the fact that defining a new set of standards on top of the pure and isolated rules of what makes an animal kosher (split hooves, chews cud, slaughtered via a cut the the jugular, salted & soaked) can be a slippery slope, but I hope that the Rabbi's who drive certification will take the time to define a set of criteria that make a company acceptable to sustain it's Kashrut certification. After all, one upon a time, someone made a decision that Certification itself was required and that in itself was a big leap and a slippery slope.

Throughout Jewish law there are criteria for what is considered to be acceptable behavior for individuals who seek a certain status. We see it the laws of witnesses, we see it in the laws around who's home we can trust to eat in, etc...

As per many of the sarcastic statements above, we all know that strip clubs can't get a hashgacha... even Hooters Jerusalem where girls where short-shorts and tight tee-shirts is unlikely to get a hashgacha. So why is it so difficult for the OU or other kashrut organizations to take a step and say that "the principles of Jewish law require people to behave in an acceptable manner. Acceptable is fairly clear in Jewish law and the Agriprocessors plant has demonstrated an unwillingness to behave acceptably. They have:

- Committed a significant Chillul Hashem (disgrace of the name of god by their actions)
- Tormented Animals in a manner that is prohibited by Jewish Law
- Repeatedly been found to be dishonest
- Abused human beings

Based on these transgressions, we, who are responsible for the certification that the food the Jewish community eats is Kosher, can no longer trust that Agriprocessors is complying with the strict rules of Jewish law. We can not trust them, because they have proven to be untrustworthy and we refuse to put our name on a product produced by individuals whom do not know what it means 'to be a light unto nations'".

I do not see such a statement as out of character or insincere, to the contrary, given the other things that disqualify a place form getting a hashgacha, I think it should be an easy decision, unless of course the money and a conflict of interests gets in the way. The sad thing is that the moment the OU drops these guys, someone else will swoop in for the business (oh... did I say business ? my mistake - to assure we have kosher meat to eat, at least to say that we do !).

[Ariel Sokolovsky BostonChabad.com]

B"H
++One of the Noahide Laws prohibits eating flesh from a live animal. Shouldn't this prove the importance of animal welfare?++

From AskNoah.org FAQ section:
QUESTION #53 (c) : As a Noahide, I would like to know if I eat meat, does it have to be kosher? Or do I have to stick to white meat? And how about eggs, fish, etc.?
>C. E.

ANSWER : There is no requirement per se that the meat you eat needs to be kosher for Jewish consumption. The concern for Gentiles is that they must not eat meat that was severed from the land mammal or bird before it was dead. So it becomes a question of what are the chances that such a thing could happen in a modern slaughterhouse where the butchering follows immediately after the slaughtering, and what decisions should you make for yourself based on those chances. Here is an expert opinion on this:

From: Dr. J. M. Regenstein [Cornell University]
Date: Sept. 04/02
Subject: Re: For your reference: selected laws of permissible meat for Gentiles

... the "insensitive" standard that is used is actually longer than "heart death" - if the animal is properly bled out, there should be no problems and any of the larger plants leave sufficient time for bleed out to reach such insensitiveness. The only place [for concern is] possibly small plants, those that might not become a part of the upcoming audit plan.

So based on this, the recommendation would be for a Gentile to call the plant which is the source for the meat they want to purchase, and find out how reliably it holds to the relevant FDA standards for "humane slaughter" - whether they can certify that 100% of the animals they process go through bleed-out with a long enough delay to insure that "heart death" has certainly occurred before the start of meat removal.

Note: there is a by-product from a section in the small intestines of cattle that can be used as a food or cosmetic additive. The U.S. FDA has recently banned this practice, because that is one of the parts from cattle that can transmit "mad cow disease." See www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/BSE_Rules_Being_Strictly_Enforced/index.asp

In foreign countries where animal processing is less modernized and not so strictly regulated, there is more need for concern about the possibility of "severed meat."

A Gentile does not need to be concerned about any other food products, including eggs, fish, etc. The laws of "severed meat" only apply to land mammals and birds. So things like crabs, lobsters, oysters, etc. are not included. However, this Noahide commandment and the related Jewish commandment do teach us the general lesson that we should not cause needless pain and suffering to any of G-d's creatures.
http://www.asknoah.org/HTML/allowed_meat&blood.html

[rebitzman]

++rebitzman: Glad to see you and I can find more of a common ground on this topic.++

Al - you can't be wrong ALL the time

[rebitzman]

Al - I put a GRIN after the last post, but bracketed it.

Forgot I can't to that - the blog sees HTML.

So.....GRIN