VAAD TO STORE OWNER: GIT OUTA TOWN!

There was the Rumble in the jungle. There was the Thrilla in Manilla. And now there’s the Git outa town in the Five Towns!

Well, boys and girls, in yesterday’s exciting episode, we ran an article from last week’s Jewish Week. Today we offer our commentary.

“…decision of the Vaad Hakashrus of the Five Towns and Far Rockaway to withdraw its kosher supervision of the store one hour before the start of the Sabbath last Friday.” **** Well, that sure was a relief They allowed people to do their shabbes shopping there before they yanked their supervision. After all, if the issue is not kashruth as it clearly is not, then why deny people the right to shop there for shabbes??

“But in a “message to the community,” the Vaad said it acted after Gourmet Glatt hired the second kosher supervisor, Rabbi Yehuda Kravitz, in “violation of its contract and policies with the Vaad.” ” **** Okay, so now we get a tiny vision of truth- this is about the Vaad’s contract with the store. Again, not a kashruth issue. The Vaad apparently is not honest enough to state the simple truth. Instead, they will hide behind statements that make them guilty of “geneivat hadat.” (A category of forbidden speech according to the Chafetz Chaim. In logic class, we would call the Vaad’s statement a classic example of obfuscation, and, as we all know, we should always eschew obfuscation!)

“In addition, it said Gourmet Glatt had “serious halachic and contractual violations over time” and that it was unable to get the owners to correct them.” **** We have two problems with this statement. The first is that there is no direct statement here that says the problem was in kashruth. Absent that statement, we have to believe that the problem was NOT a kashruth problem. Ok, so what was the issue? Our second problem is that the Vaad is hiding behind their verbiage here and that is a direct violation, as we said above, of the Chafetz Chaim. Gramatically, the sentence implies that the violations were contractual in nature and that the Vaad defines that as being, by definition, a halachic violation as well. Whereas that would be true, it really does tend to push the point.

The Jewish Week wrote that “Five calls to the Vaad’s office Tuesday were not returned. “ Gosh, ya think they have something to hide????

The smoking gun: Here in one sentence is the smoking gun. “An e-mail said to be from one congregation said its rabbi ruled that “any items purchased before” supervision was removed last Friday could be eaten and that the “koshering of dishes and pots” is not necessary. But, it said, the rabbi “recommends that people should not continue to patronize this establishment.” **** Nu? Could it be any more obvious? Clearly this is not an issue of kashruth. Quod est demonstratum.

Franklyn Snitow, attorney for the Vaad “said that the last straw for the Vaad came when Gourmet Glatt hired “another kosher supervisory organization, which is strictly in violation of their contractual obligations with the Vaad.” **** And there you have it in black and white folks. What is this all about? It is a legal wrangle over the right of the store to hire a second hashgacha agency. It would appear that the Vaad contract precludes such an arrangement. So, here’s our advice to the Vaad: A little honesty there boys! Make it all transparent. Stop the geneivat hadat. Stop the posturing. You have an issue, share it with the rest of us. Don’t hide behind pious declarations. Oh, and drop the gangster bit. You guys are rabbis, not mobsters. Some honesty and some derech eretz are called for here. Get off your high horse.

Ever notice that when people surrender the moral high ground they hide behind pieties? Someone should tell the Vaad: Feh!