Random Kosher Questions

[mark922]

<snip>

The way I see it, if the Orthodox Union certifies Bacos as kosher, you have to be more orthodox than the Orthodox Union to say that's not good enough.

←

Bacon is kosher. It's in the Talmud.

[jackal10]

I understood there was the doctrine of "hookas hagoy" (sp?) which says that imitation of the gentile, such as imitation but kosher food is not kosher, since it can mislead an onlooker to think the original food (or action) is allowed.

However Judaism is a personal religion, with no central earthly authority. Many Rabbis and Kashrut organisations express opinions, but that is all they are - their opinion. Whether you agree or not is personal.

Hence there are multiple opinions and definitions of what is kosher, and no single answer.

The Talmud says that Bacon is kosher in the Messianic Age, so its kosher if you beleive the Messiah has come...

Edited January 7, 2007 by jackal10 (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Folks might want to check out the Kosher questions topic for some background information.

[cakewalk]

The Talmud says that Bacon is kosher in the Messianic Age, so its kosher if you beleive the Messiah has come...

←

Oh those rabbis, they were so clever.

[Gifted Gourmet]

Orthodoxy is likely much more concerned with the issue of mistaken appearance. For example, although there may be some sealed, packaged items in conventional fast-food restaurants that are kosher (an individual package of carrot sticks, whatever) most orthodox people in North America and Europe will not be seen eating in a McDonald's or the equivalent because of the fear that, if an identifiably Jewish person is seen dining at McDonald's by ignorant people, they might assume McDonald's is kosher..

←

And, although I am unsure of the proper spelling in English, the issue, as you note so well here, Fat Guy, is called "moris ayin" .. how things appear to others ... and the assumptions that people might make, as you note about McDonald's (even if one only purchases a soft drink there), are very much the case .. many are quite fastidious in their maintaining kashruth, on all levels, even down to the most minute.

[Fresser]

A lot of the kosher pizza places in LA are all offering soy-pepperoni now…so they don’t seem to have a problem with it. Then again, I wonder how much of that they sell. Like you said, it still sorta smacks of being wrong.

←

Soy Pepperoni: Now You Can Have Your Treyf and Eat It Too!

Somebody stop me!!

[scubadoo97]

do these kosher substitutes violate the Spirit of the Laws?

One I've always had a problem with was Passover cakes. Not only do they rise but they taste nasty.

[Gifted Gourmet]

do these kosher substitutes violate the Spirit of the Laws?

One I've always had a problem with was Passover cakes. Not only do they rise but they taste nasty.

←

I quite disagree with this ... there are many varieties of 'from scratch' Passover cakes and easy to prepare mixes which are excellent ...

Kosher imitations do not violate the spirit of the law at all ... it allows those who wish to keep kosher, a wider variety and are usually under strict kosher supervision ... the spirit of the law applies to other things really .. one example a rabbi told me: watching television on Shabbat even when it is left on all day ... that's what the term refers to actually ...

[Fat Guy]

I think to say that a facsimile of a non-kosher product violates the "spirit of the law" is to assume that the spirit of the kosher dietary laws involves deprivation. Keeping kosher isn't really about deprivation. It's about fulfilling commandments. Again, I didn't get much support here, but these things are binary: substance X is either 100% kosher or 0% kosher; it can't be 34% kosher. Disagreement about a given substance doesn't change that -- once you select your authorities and your practices, the rest is binary. Judaism is largely action based -- you get credit for every action that fulfills a commandment whether you want it or not. If Bacos are kosher it doesn't matter if they look, smell and perform in blind tastings exactly as real pork bacon does. That's not what makes them kosher or not kosher.

[cakewalk]

do these kosher substitutes violate the Spirit of the Laws?

One I've always had a problem with was Passover cakes. Not only do they rise but they taste nasty.

←

I quite disagree with this ... there are many varieties of 'from scratch' Passover cakes and easy to prepare mixes which are excellent ...

Kosher imitations do not violate the spirit of the law at all ... it allows those who wish to keep kosher, a wider variety and are usually under strict kosher supervision ... the spirit of the law applies to other things really .. one example a rabbi told me: watching television on Shabbat even when it is left on all day ... that's what the term refers to actually ...

←

That Passover stuff is interesting. I had a neighbor in Jerusalem who refused to use kosher for Passover baking soda (or was it powder? I don't remember.) She said it was leavening, it made cakes rise, and that was against the spirit of the law. (She was an excellent baker, BTW.) But she had no difficulty whipping egg whites or doing whatever else would make her cakes rise. So to me it seemed a little silly, not using the baking soda. Cakes rising is not against the spirit of the law, IMO, as long as you're using ingredients that are permissable. But to each his own, and I ate whatever she baked however she baked it. But the idea of the spirit of the law does not have only to do with Shabbat. It can be applied to just about anything, and opinions will, of course, vary.

And I agree, kosher imitations do not violate the spirit of the law, but I know a lot of people who disagree with me. (I just don't really understand why people would want to buy flounder in the shape of a shrimp, but that's just me.) People tend to think that keeping Jewish law, whether food laws or other laws, somehow means that you have to suffer, it must make things more difficult for you (like wearing a hair shirt), you have to "do without." And if ways are found within the laws that make things easier, or more pleasant, there are always those who will cry foul because, for whatever reasons, they don't think it's supposed to be pleasant. It's very strange, but I see it all the time.

[jackal10]

I think to say that a facsimile of a non-kosher product violates the "spirit of the law" is to assume that the spirit of the kosher dietary laws involves deprivation. Keeping kosher isn't really about deprivation. It's about fulfilling commandments. Again, I didn't get much support here, but these things are binary: substance X is either 100% kosher or 0% kosher; it can't be 34% kosher. Disagreement about a given substance doesn't change that -- once you select your authorities and your practices, the rest is binary. Judaism is largely action based -- you get credit for every action that fulfills a commandment whether you want it or not. If Bacos are kosher it doesn't matter if they look, smell and perform in blind tastings exactly as real pork bacon does. That's not what makes them kosher or not kosher.

←

For one individual, maybe.

Very few foods have complete agreement for all who call themselves Jews, or come from Jewish families.Virtually all foods can be said to be kosher for x% of Jews but not for the rest.

Even the circumstances can differ - many foods are Kosher if prepared at home or under trusted Jewish supervision (not just by any Jew), but not otherwise, even if the food is identical.

I think by your own definition, Steven, you have to say that imitations don't violate the spirit of your particular lore; for some they do, in that they violate "moris ayin".

Pleasure or deprivation don't come into it, except there are commandments to be joyful.

Much of the lore is interpretation and "fence around the lore" - the rules are stricter then the exact biblical injunction. For example the prohibition against mixing meat and milk is from the biblical injunction not to seethe a kid in it's mother's milk, apparently a delicacy of the Egyptians. Rabbis extended this to prohibit mixing of any milk and meat, even in the stomach or using the same utensil, but its not biblical as such - the strict biblical interpretation is one particular dish. How much of this you take on board is up to the individual, and their local and family traditions.

Some people feel especially worthy by taking a very wide and self-denying interpretation, others argue that the biblical injunctions were appropriate guidelines for a biblical nomadic tribe, but times (and food hygiene) have moved on. None of this is black and white, laid down by biblical authority, but all shades of grey that can be supported by different rabbinical arguments, and that each individual has to decide in their own way.

"There is no right or wrong, but thinking makes it so" (Hamlet).

Edited January 7, 2007 by jackal10 (log)

[Gifted Gourmet]

When discussing the theology behind the laws of kashruth, it only makes sense to have a rabbi who is well versed in the laws, available to provide opinions ... and, depending upon whether one chooses an orthodox, conservative, or reform rabbi, one will get differing opinions ...

There are, as Chris Amirault notes above, issues better explicated in the thread he offers ...thread here on kashruth

Edited January 7, 2007 by Gifted Gourmet (log)

[Fat Guy]

For one individual, maybe.

Very few foods have complete agreement for all who call themselves Jews, or come from Jewish families. Virtually all foods can be said to be kosher for x% of Jews but not for the rest.

←

My argument isn't individual, Jack, and I've got no dog in this fight. I'm neither religious nor the slightest bit kosher. I have no particular lore.

If you want to say there is no official Judaism and therefore everybody's personal interpretation of the religion is equally valid, then there's no reason even to have this conversation. If there is no law, how can there be a spirit of the law?

But if we're talking about the laws of kashruth as defined by those who really keep those laws, we can make quite a few generalizations, because there are enough shared assumptions to do so.

I also disagree that "Virtually all foods can be said to be kosher for x% of Jews but not for the rest." I think most Jews wouldn't say that, just because they eat pork, pork is kosher. Rather, they understand that pork isn't kosher, and that they just choose not to obey the law.

[markk]

What happens if you keep kosher but accidentally eat non kosher foods?

I was in a restaurant recently next to a table of Jewish folks, and the two women ordered Spaghetti Carbonara. The way it's served at that place, it has (gorgeous) slices of bacon across the top. They asked the waitress to take it back, and explained that they can't eat pork.

They then ordered, and devoured, a seafood pasta whose fine print said that it contained bits of shrimp (among other things) and I know it is made with a shellfish stock. What happens then?

[Pam R]

Virtually all foods can be said to be kosher for x% of Jews but not for the rest.

Not quite. No matter what level of kashrut you observe, it would be hard to find somebody who keeps kosher who thinks bacon or scallops are allowed.

None of this is black and white, laid down by biblical authority, but all shades of grey that can be supported by different rabbinical arguments, and that each individual has to decide in their own way.

Absolutely. It's all up to each individual - and often up to an individual's rabbi.

I have no problem with the fake foods - well, most of them. I don't think they violate the law at all. Kosher foods are kosher - certain fish, no matter in what shape, are kosher (though the fake shrimp tastes mostly of iodine).

[jackal10]

There are many Liberal and Reform Jews who happily eat bacon and scallops, and even, as I was served at a drinks party last night, one wrapped round the other.

They argue that the Kashrut laws were for Mediteranean tribes. For example the Pittsburg declarion of 1885 establishing the Reform movement in the US stated

4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.

However some I know say they keep their own form of "kashrut", typically serving traditional Ashkenazi foods, rather than saying they do not keep kosher at all. For them food lore is eating bagels on Sunday, chicken soup on Friday and saying grace before meals.

Each to their own.

[Fat Guy]

But Jack, they're not saying scallops are kosher because they eat them. They're saying they don't believe in keeping kosher therefore they eat scallops with impunity (like me). When they say they keep "their own form of kashruth" they're talking about a completely different thing -- they don't actually think or say they're keeping kosher by engaging in that practice, and if they do say it they're quite confused. It's like, the other day I was coveting my neighbor's wife, but I didn't say "Oh, the ten commandments have changed, my ten commandments are different, to each his own!" It was more "So I'm breaking a commandment; I don't really care because I don't believe in that commandment; sue me; whoever wrote that commandment didn't live in my neighborhood."

[Fresser]

But Jack, they're not saying scallops are kosher because they eat them. They're saying they don't believe in keeping kosher therefore they eat scallops with impunity (like me). When they say they keep "their own form of kashruth" they're talking about a completely different thing -- they don't actually think or say they're keeping kosher by engaging in that practice, and if they do say it they're quite confused. It's like, the other day I was coveting my neighbor's wife, but I didn't say "Oh, the ten commandments have changed, my ten commandments are different, to each his own!" It was more "So I'm breaking a commandment; I don't really care because I don't believe in that commandment; sue me; whoever wrote that commandment didn't live in my neighborhood."

←

I stand with Fat Guy on this principle. Anyone who says, "I deem this rule of kashruth to be impertinent to me, therefore it does not apply" is a Jewish solipsist.

Jackal's quote from the Reform movement says this explicitly:

4. We hold that all such Mosaic and rabbinical laws as regulate diet, priestly purity, and dress originated in ages and under the influence of ideas entirely foreign to our present mental and spiritual state. They fail to impress the modern Jew with a spirit of priestly holiness; their observance in our days is apt rather to obstruct than to further modern spiritual elevation.

Here's a news flash: laws (religious or otherwise) are not written to IMPRESS individuals; they're here to guide one's actions, or, in some cases, prohibit them.

Edited January 8, 2007 by Fresser (log)

[cakewalk]

What happens if you keep kosher but accidentally eat non kosher foods? 

I was in a restaurant recently next to a table of Jewish folks, and the two women ordered Spaghetti Carbonara.  The way it's served at that place, it has (gorgeous) slices of bacon across the top.  They asked the waitress to take it back, and explained that they can't eat pork.

They then ordered, and devoured, a seafood pasta whose fine print said that it contained bits of shrimp (among other things) and I know it is made with a shellfish stock.  What happens then?

←

They will burn in hell for all eternity.

And aside from that, it looks like they've set their own standards that have a very faint relation to the "normal" standards. Quite a few people draw the line at any sort of pork product but will eat just about anything else, including beef that is not kosher. That's their choice. I eat in restaurants that serve non-kosher foods, but I won't order any kind of meat or shellfish. However, the utensils have obviously been used for non-kosher foods, and I don't really know what they're frying my eggs in, etc. (I go by a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.) There is no branch of Orthodoxy that would condone it, and probably not a large percentage of the Conservative movement would condone it either. But I'm not asking them, I've drawn my own lines. I don't claim to be "right," it's just what I do.

[jackal10]

I stand with Fat Guy on this principle.   Anyone who says, "I deem this rule of kashruth to be impertinent to me, therefore it does not apply" is a Jewish solipsist.

You do this anyway

Every Jew does this implicitly. Few follow just the biblical regulations, Most follow some Rabbinical interpretation or another, with some stricter than others. Few are "glatt kosher", and there are only a few places in the world (NY and some parts of Israel) where it is possible anyway. The Rabbi, and Kashrut authorities disagree with each other so you have to decide between differing opinions and your own common sense as to which rules of Kashrut, other than the ones in Old Testament apply, and just what those rules mean.

The case in point is imitation foods. There is a rabbinical doctrine "marit ayin" that says these are not kosher. You may chose to say this rule is impertinent to me, and does not apply in this case. That is your choice. Like much else, Kashrut is personal choice, not absolute. Two Jews, three opinions.

Edited January 8, 2007 by jackal10 (log)

[Fat Guy]

Jack, if you're talking about issues around the edges of kashruth, such as "cholov Yisroel" milk certification, or if you're talking about specific points of controversy, such as whether sturgeon is unkosher because the fish lose their scales as they mature, then sure you can argue that there are varying interpretations. But pork? Shellfish? Mixing meat and dairy? These aren't gray areas. To say pork is kosher is to deprive the term kosher of meaning, which surely plenty of people would be happy to do but that doesn't mean it makes any sense. People who think pork is kosher because they eat it, because it's up to them to interpret things however they want and all interpretations are equally valid, are having a different conversation.

[jackal10]

If its not personal choice between equally valid interpretations, then how do you choose between them?

Pork and shellfish I will grant you because of the biblical injunction,

Mixing meat and diary, except in the case of goat is an interpretation.

However there are those who argue that the bible lays down the principles but the specifics should be interpreted in the light of circumstances. Here the principle may be "eat only wholesome food", so you could argue that pork is OK, now that ther is little threat of trichinosis but beef, with the modern threat of CJD is not.

Equally you can argue that the purpose of Kashrut is to put distance between jews and others and to remind a Jew of thier heritage. Thus eating a Bagel may be as symbolic as refraining from imitation pork.

<Warning: Non-PC but slightly food related joke>

A Rabbi and a Catholic priest fall to discussing what their religions forbid them: Bacon vs celibacy.

The each agree to try what is forbidden, just the once for the sake of understanding

They meet aferwards.

The Priest says "Sure beats bacon, doesn't it!"

</>

[cakewalk]

This whole business of "interpretation" is getting a little crazy.

Taking the bible literally is known as fundamentalism. Judaism is not big on fundamentalism. Basically, Judaism holds that the bible must be interpreted, it is meant to be interpreted. One of the first things that happens in the bible after the 10 commandments are given at Sinai is that Moses appoints elders and guess what they all do? They start to interpret this stuff they just got. That's why you will find thousands of years of commentary, and it's nowhere near ending. To say that the injunction against mixing meat and milk is "just" an interpretation is to completely misunderstand, and underestimate, the importance of commentary to Judaism. You can ignore this importance and make your own decisions, but to do so and also tell yourself (and others) that you are within the bounds of what Judaism allows is, in my opinion, pure fiction. And to go one step further and say that you are correct because you're following the bible literally, whereas others are "merely" going by rabbinic interpretations, is way off base.

[Fat Guy]

There's no central authority that defines what it means to be a vegetarian, yet you'd have to be kind of ridiculous to go around saying you eat beef but you're a vegetarian because everybody gets to decide for himself what it means to be a vegetarian. If words have no meaning, there's no point in using them. It's somewhat possible to accommodate vegetarians who do or don't eat eggs and dairy, though it confuses the term and introduces the need for hyphenation (ovo-lacto-vegetarian). It gets really hard to follow when you include people who eat fish, but you can still hyphenate (pesce-vegetarian). But when you create the category of "bovi-vegetarian," the "vegetarian" part no longer means anything.

Either way, I don't think it has anything to do with the conversation we're having here. I think this conversation assumes that we're talking about kashruth as determined by traditional sources. Nobody else is affected by the answer to the question of whether you can eat Tofutti ice cream with lamb, except maybe Ferran Adria.

[zaelic]

Another joke from the Jewish tradition on this topic:

The Talmud states that when the Messiah arrives, there will be a great feast every day, and everyone will have a choice of two delicacies: either Ahavroth (the mythical giant ox) or Leviathan (the mythical giant fish.)

So a Hasidic Rabbi is having a discussion with his students. The students ask "Rabbi, what would we eat when the Messiah comes? Should we order Ahavroth? Or should we order the Leviathan?"

The Rabbi thinks for a minute and then answers "Play it safe. Order the fruit plate."