Steve Plotnicki

I didn't say that all Hassidim are gonifs. I said that the notion of being pious and a gonif are in conflict. Dishonest Hassidim are about the best example I could think of to show that.

I don't either but I do have a problem with their reasons. (see below) Like Hassidic Jews in the diamond center who are big gonifs. Obedience to what and for what purpose?

Cakewalk - Well please tell me then what the laws of kashruth are supposed to accomplish? What is their purpose? Why should anyone follow them? Robert S. - I am not disagreeing with you. I would consider you a Jew. But many orthodox would consider you an inferior Jew, and some of them wouldn't even consider you a Jew.

You keep asking me the same question which is, why don't I completely discard everything about Judaism from my life? I answered that already. Because that is not how the world I live in works and I am comfortable in that world. So I accept all of the inherent conflicts, ambiguities and inconsistancies that come with that world and I juggle them so they make the most sense in spite of it all. But what I am trying to identify is the difference between seperateness and segregation. And when you pray to god every morning, that is a private act with no consequence to anyone. Even if it is done by a group of people who seperate themselves from the rest of society to pray. But when you won't eat somewhere because of dietary law, or you won't marry someone because of their religion, those are acts that have consequences to others. My having my sons bar mitzvahed had no consequence to anyone. But my not allowing my sons to eat in the home of a non-Jewish friend does. Here's what should happen. If Jews want to stay kosher at home, fine. But they should not impose their dietary restrictions on non-Jews because it might make those people feel inferior in some way. Like the Iranians who wouldn't attend the dinner in Spain because of the wine. Being gracious guests should be more important and more virtuous then religious dietary law. And considering how religion teaches all of those virtuous things, and proper behavior, the tell that religion is self-serving is that they only promote virtuosity when the religion can sufffer no detriment.

Vivre-Manger - That was an amazing post and you need to tell us more. Wew Jews always observant of the laws of kashruth? When does the reformation come where modern Jews starting eating traif?

Robert and Nina - There is a difference between ritual ceremony which is practiced in the privacy of one's home and religious law. I am looking at each individual act to see what it actually promotes and to see if by itself it is segregationist. There is a difference between being seperate as a matter of being alike in a cultural way and creating cultural barriers that prevent people from being alike. Anyone can participate in ritual Jewish ceremony. Non-Jews can attend bar mitzvah, bris, sabbath candle lightings, seders etc. But Jews cannot eat in the homes of non-Jews. Those types of rules promote segregation and not cultural identity. Jews cannot marry non-Jews. That promotes segregation. Why can't a Jew can marry a non-Jew and still follow the religion? When a Jew can't work on Saturday he limits himself as to the type of job he can have, or in the type of place he can have in the community. That promotes sergregation. A Jew should be able to work on Saturday and still be a faithful Jew. But if you want to say that all religions are by nature segregationist, you will not have a dispute from me. But my point is that in order to modernize, they need to parse what they actually need to preserve from what was intended to segregate them from the rest of the world during a time when that was their only means of survival.

I carry it as hand luggage. It's easy to carry a six bottle box on the plane. Recently we were in Paris and someone bought a case of wine and he got a styrofoam mailer and just checked the wine with his baggage. Where are you going and how much wine are you bringing?

Nina's last post is finally getting to what I think is the heart of the matter. Because I don't think that all laws and traditions are equal. To me, lighting candles on the sabbath is a tradition that perpetuates the culture but there is nothing inherent in the act itself that is segregationionist. But keeping kosher, since it effectively means you can't eat among non-Jews, or in the homes of non-Jews, does promote segregation or seperateness. So I think you need to evaluate things on a case by case, or rule by rule basis.

It's the same if it's intended to promote segregation. If it's intended to promote health, or even to improve one's appearance, I can understand it. Then it's like a nose job.

But you can't blame me that religious dietary laws are deemed invalid. It is the inability of people who adhere to a faith to describe why they need to follow them outside of theological writing and god's will. This is the problem with religion and you being a lawyer should know this better then anyone. The burden of proof has been shifted and there is no need for evidence. If that isn't a slippery slope, I don't know what is because it allows you to justify almost everything in the name of god.

This just isn't true. Most religions tolerate killing in the name of the religion. An eye for an eye is the most obvious example. That is the entire problem with religion. They conveniently tolerate things in the name of the furtherance of the religion which they do not tolerate otherwise. Tony's example of the steakhouses in India is the perfect example. Because I am sure it says somewhere in Hindu writings that violence isn't allowed. But you are probably also allowed to commit acts of violence against people who consecrate holy things. And yes, I am intolerant of that ambiguity and think it should be struck from the earth by legislation if it need be. In fact that is exactly what we have done. We have said to Hindus, in the U.S., you can not eat meat if you like, but you have to tolerate other people doing it. We could have made the laws here that says you have to eat meat. But that wouldn't have served our need for immigrants well. So we came up with a practical way of splitting the baby. Let me get my arms around this intolerance issue. I have no tolerance for segregation. As far as I can see, the laws of kashruth promote segregation. So yes I am replacing one type of intolerance with another. But mine is for the cause of mankind and not for the cause of Judaism. And the only reason I have to choose it is because of the wrongs purported on society by religion over the past five milleniums. There would be nothing to be intolerant of if religion didn't propogate intolerance to begin with.

I heard they cancelled New Yeras Eve in New Jersey because not enough people knew about it.

There is no answer to your question that would make you happy. Jews can keep kosher but that doesn't mean that their original reason for doing so isn't based in authoritarianism and oppression. And it doesn't mean that people who uphold traditions that perpetuate something that is historcially, oppressive, authoritarian and intolerant shouldn't be described as such. To describe someone who points that out as being "intolerant" is on par with describing that someone who is against muder is "intolerant" of murder. So I guess some intolerance is good. Some is bad. Morality is the great dividing line and fortunately the world is beginning to learn that moraility is more important then religion. Which brings us back to intent. If you segregate for purposes of supriority, you are on the slippery slope that leads as far as the supremicists are willing to push it. If you think that means genocide you are correct. Because genocide stems from supremecy. Notice I haven't said that all supremicists are genocidists, but that all genocidists are suprememcists. But if you segregate for a benign reason, I guess that is fine. But nobody has been able to point out a benign reason even though I've been asking for a few days now. Pick any religion you want and they offer you a "better life" either here or in the afterlife and there is no way to read that than with an implication that whose who do not follow will have a worse life. It's all the slippery slope from thereon.

What's the harm in it? Millions of people have died through the centuries trying establish that their cultural tradition or belief system was superior and you're asking me what the harm is? It's the same slippery slope I've been putting my finger on. What is the difference between the Jewish community living within one of those wires so they have freedom of movement on the sabbath and the people in Waco, Texas who have segregated themselves from society? They aren't meshuganahs? Or Jewish settlements in the West Bank where Palestinians aren't allowed? I can buy that they keep people segregated for security reasons but how many Jewish settlers are there for religious reasons and just don't want to live among non-Jews? Again we are back to intent. Imposing theology on people to keep them a unified group is good. Imposing it to oppress them is no good. Unfortunately it's a very thin line. And the problem is that if you trace the basis for keeping people unified to its source (theological writings and the reasoning behind them,) it was to control them for some reason. And when a Jew doesn't eat pork, or a Hindu doesn't eat beef, or a Catholic doesn't eat fish on Friday, there is no way around the fact that the law or tradition was originally based in authoritarianism and by continuing the tradition you reinforce the original reasoning and purpose. There is a difference between a single person believing something and systematic segregation which is what religion promotes. Laws like kashruth and not driving on the sabbath are intended to promote systematic segregation.

It all goes to the purpose of not eating beef. I can't speak for the Hindu religion so maybe it doesn't apply to what I'm going to say. So let's say we were talking about a Jew who wouldn't eat non-kosher meat so he ordered fish. If you traced back the theology of why he doesn't eat non-kosher meat, it comes with a proffer that Jews are superior, or that people who eat non-kosher food are inferior. That's the inherent problem with religion. Jews are taught to not eat pork because it is unclean, and by implication that makes the people who eat it unclean. It always gets back to intent. The balancing act of creating a unique and distinguishable cultural group based on both theology and custom by nature is in conflict with saying that all people are equal. And what we end up doing is balancing this ambiguity with the concept of freedom of religion. But that only works because religions do not enforce segregation to the letter of the law of their written theology. Even the most orthodox Jew couldn't live his life if he had to follow the writings of the torah literaly. Passages need to be modernized so he can sustain a lifestyle that allows him to live in the same manner as people of other faiths.

I'm not buying this. First, how can one say that the laws of kashruth which promote segregation do not hurt anyone? Anything that promotes segregation hurts society. What you are really saying is that it is okay for that level of segregation to exist in our lives. That doesn't make any sense to me. There is a diifference between the belief that man is ultimately good and believing in theology that was written by man but purported to be from a higher being. Fortunately, theology acts as a surrogate for morality and when it parallels morality to a sufficient extent we do not dispute the literal differences. We give it a pass that we wouldn't give to anything else because we want to believe. Because when the plain language of theology is something abhorant, like the passage that Toby posted, we are willing to overlook it. But if some political leader said the same thing about people he would be considered a pariah. But for some reason god gets a pass.

Well this group of people you are describing are really split into two groups. The people who do it as a matter of custom, and the people who do it because the issue of god is an ambiguity to them. Many people who are confessed aetheists are really in the ambiguous camp. They profess to not believe in god but adhere to religious custom as a way of leaving the door open on this issue (whether consciously or subconsciously.) Well it isn't the kind of dietary law that Tony raised in his original post. He was describing laws based in theology that had theological concequences to people who break them. I don't think he was talking about being shamed in fron of one's Weight Watchers meeting.

Mrs. P and I had dinner at Morimoto on Sunday night. Well the long and the short of it is, the room is beautiful. The tables for two are on small platforms against the walls on either side of the room which gives them a great view of the room. And the center tables are rows of booths that seat four and six people respectively and the configuration alternates with each row. The booths are bordered by plexiglass walls that have flourescent lighting at their bottoms which alternate between red, blue, purple and green. And the ceiling sort of rolls like waves in the ocean and is made of what looked like sized irregularly and polished bamboo. We thought is was quite attractive and worthy of being in a place like South Beach or L.A. Probably the best new restaurant design I have seen in quite some time. The short of it is that the food is Nobu-like but we didn't think it was firing with as many cylinders. Like they had toned the spicing down. I'm not sure if this is his cooking style, something they did for the local clientele, or just an inadequacy in the restaurant. We started with the Toro Tartar (sort of bland,) and then had the Kobe Beef Tartar (better but not salty enough.) We continued on with warm appetizers of Spicy King Crab Legs. This dish was an improvement over the Nobu version as they serve you a large king crab leg along with a rather large knuckle with the spicy sauce on top. A substantial dish to eat with lots of meat to pick at. Then we had the Warm Tofu made tableside. Lots of oohs and ahs here as they show up with a casserole dish that is filled with soy milk. They spill a glass of sea water into the dish and cover it (you're not allowed to peak.) Seven minutes later they return and remove the top of the dish and it has set into tofu. They slice it intp serving size squares and they serve it with two sauces. Soy and wasabi (a little bland don't you think?) and a crab sauce which reminded me of Cantonese Hot and Sour Soup. While it was pleasant tasting, it could have had both more flavor and more kick to it but the concept was cool. For the mains we had to try the house Black Cod Miso which was an acceptable version but by no means the best version we ever had and the Eight Spice Lobster which was akin to getting blackened lobster. It was served with a citrus mayonaisse and in my estimation it needed it to tone the spicing down and to add a sweetish element. I finished things off with a Toro and Scallion roll which was good but unremarkable. I liked My meal at Morimoto and I would have no hesitation in going back if I happened to be in Philly. But there is no reason to rush there as you can get almost the same meal at Nobu but prepared at a higher level of intensity in my opinion. On a sidenote, when I was at Jewel Bakko a few weeks ago, they told me that Morimoto was in for dinner the night before and that he is in NYC scouting locations for a restaurant.

I know many people who eat traif outside of their home but keep kosher at home. It's really funny. If you were to make a list of the ways people maintained a kosher tradition it would be both baffling and hysterical. I have a friend who is a gigantic wine collector. You can go out to dinner with him and his wife and they will show up with something like a magnum of 1962 La Tache (traif) and the chef can serve us loin of pork which they will eat. But they keep a kosher home! Unbelieveable. Anyway, my question is not rhetorical. Because I don't see how one keeps kosher without holding open the idea that god exists in some form. There isn't a single thing in the world they would believe without seeing physical evidence with their own two eyes except this. That god would impose nonsensical rules on them only makes their belief that more unbelievable to me when looking at it from the perspective of sheer logic.

Is it possible that Jews do not eat pork because originally non-Jews controlled pig farming in a region and the price was too high? Any situation you could imagine where, a competing religion controlled the item, or there wasn't enough of it to go around to feed everyone, or the cost was too high so not everyone in the congregation couldn't afford it, those types of situations would give a religion impetus to create a law forbidding it. Then there are health reasons. If a certain food group was more likely to be tainted and cause sickness. Finally there is the means of control. If Jews came from a part of the world that didn't have pigs, and migrated to a part that did, the religion would have an impetus to impose dining restrictions to keep Jews segregated and to prevent people from dining with non-Jews so as to prevent defections from the religion. But I don't understand Fat Guy's point about diets like Atkins. Those aren't dietary laws, those are rules of a dietary regimen with no theological concequence. I'd like to say that the big question here is why people still adhere to dietary rules that do not make sense anymore? I mean there should be sufficient evidence to everyone that pigs aren't dirty. But the real question is why do people believe in god? Because clearly there is no other reason then theology that people can't eat pork, shellfish, beef, meat on Friday etc. And I'm not buying Simon's answer about dietary laws keeping people together. There are no dietary laws that create a difference in what the French and Italians both eat. Yet there are two distinct cuisines with different dining traditions that go with them.

Let's see, six of us went through 8 oz of Beluga along with two bottles of 1990 Dom Perignon. Then we went though a terrine of Foie gras from Rouge served with a Vidalia Onion relish and a Rhubarb and Raspbery confiture and we drank a bottle of 2001 Muller-Cattoir Weingut Riesling Spatlase. Two types of racks of lamb next. One with a rosemary/dijon/cornmeal crust and one with a honey/dijon/crushed pistachio crust served with the potato, bacon and gruyere cake from Robuchon's Simply French along with some sauteed string beans. We drank 1968 Castillo Ygay Rioja Reserva Especial. Dessert was individual chocolate souffles adapted from a Gramercy Tavern recipe. A great night and the food and the wines were just great.

Jews have a limited menu at shivas. 1. Deli platters 2. Smoked fish platters 3. Fruit baskets 4. Cookie platters 5. Babka A good shiva has all of those things for the guests to pig out on.

Well nobody said that JB wasn't worth the money, just that SY is better. I don't think anything tops the salmon or tuna tastings you can get at SY. They are outrageously expensive, but truly ethereal. But if you want to leave there stuffed, you can spend almost twice the amount of money you spend elsewhere.

Cabrales - Here's what happened with corkage. When I sat down and Jack (who I know from Bouley Bakery days) saw my bottles. he said that they usually didn't allow corkage but that they were going to make an exception this one time. While he didn't say anything, one of the people I was dining with told me that he had been there five times and he brought wine every single time without a problem. I took this to mean, they are trying to change their policy or, it was situational discrimination because they know me to be able to afford wines from their reserve list. In fact he pointed me to the reserve list when he was telling me about no BYO in the future. As for the food, the appetizer plates might be better at JB then SY but they aren't as good as the appetizer plates at Nobu (or at Morimoto where I ate Sunday night.) All in all, for me, the schlep to 5th street from the UES to eat in a place where the sashimi is no better than equal, and maybe inferior to SY, and to eat in that cramped setting as opposed to the spaciousness of SY, makes no sense. Plus there is no ambiguity about SY's BYO policy.

After last New Years when the kitchen brigade slaved on Lucas-Carton's Canard Apicius, the powers that be decided they wanted to take it easy this year and they decided to make racks of lamb. For the last week or so they have been nudging me to come up with ways to coat them. After striking out at coming up with something interesting, it occured to me to open the question to the board. So, what do you think we should crust our racks of lamb with this New Years Eve? We are going with two different versions so each person (there will be 6 of us) will get two chops of each.