TIMES CHANGE- KASHRUTH LAWS REMAIN

Times have changed, not kashrut laws
By JENNIFER M. MACLEOD
Thursday, 11 November 2010
TORONTO — A deepening sense within the Jewish community that kashrut is tougher now than it was a century ago may in part be fueled by mistrust of kashrut organizations, and not a result of kashrut laws themselves.

“When they tell you that you can’t use a certain type of vegetable, you can’t use [that] type of vegetable,” says one caterer, who asked to not be named. “But they don’t have the right to dictate how my business is run.”

Among a handful of caterers around the city who are now under the supervision of Badatz Toronto, she says Badatz offers comparable kashrut services, with less intrusiveness into the company’s business practices. COR, for example, generally demands that a partner in the organization be shomer Shabbat. “We have Yiddishkeit in our hearts, and we know how kosher we are – we’re very, very careful.”

According to Badatz’s Moti Bensalmon, it’s certainly more common that at least one partner in the business is shomer Shabbat. However, Badatz’s standard now is the same as that of the Orthodox Union (O-U), requiring that all caterers, regardless of ownership, must have a mashgiach temidi – constant oversight by a recognized Badatz supervisor.

The caterer above chose Badatz partly out of concern over COR’s inconsistencies, and others have also questioned issues like the seeming variability of rates for mashgichim and even kashrut standards. She feels that practices like kosher and non-kosher kitchens working in parallel at the same time in certain venues would not be tolerated under Badatz, yet are tolerated at certain COR-approved venues.

While her venue offers both kosher and non-kosher kitchens, the mashgiach holds the key to the kosher kitchen at all times and will not open the door, even for advance preparation work, while the non-kosher kitchen is operating.

As a businessperson, she ultimately believes she should be able to freely choose a kashrut organization, as is already common in other cities.

“Slowly, very slowly, a lot of the banquet halls and synagogues will go over to Badatz. They’re tired of the tyranny.”

“People think food is either kosher or not kosher,” says Rabbi Benjamin Hecht, founding director of Nishma, a Toronto organization that critically investigates contemporary Jewish issues. He believes this reflects a serious lack of understanding of kashrut and of Jewish law.

It’s actually possible for one rabbi to study a situation and determine that a food product is kosher, while another rabbi examines the same facts and concludes that it is not kosher. And, as in the famous argument from Fiddler on the Roof, they’re both right.

Hence, the common misunderstanding that kosher standards which were “good enough” for our grandparents in Europe have been superseded by today’s more stringent laws.

Kosher laws haven’t changed, Rabbi Hecht says. What they ate was 100 per cent kosher. But “our grandparents were living in a different world. There were not as many kosher products on the market, and there were a lot of issues. Rabbis very much had to apply more lenient viewpoints.

“Seventy-five years ago, when there was one product on the market, the kashrut agency [might have said,] ‘we’ll apply this leniency, because without [this product], people who want to keep kosher will have a really difficult time.’”

The COR’s communal kashrut standard has had the benefit of unifying our community, Rabbi Hecht says, in a way that’s rarely seen in areas with multiple kashrut organizations.

On the other hand, multiple organizations usually serve different populations. “Certain hashgachahs [kosher agencies] apply leniencies because, through their leniencies, they’re able to get certain products to be kosher and therefore open up some standard of kashrut for people who may not otherwise keep kosher.”

Rabbi Hecht disagrees with the language used in some circles of “not trusting” a particular organization or kosher symbol. “Those symbols are applying certain standards of Jewish law; they are reaching out to a certain community. It’s valid to say, ‘I personally don’t want to rely upon those leniencies,’ but not to use deprecating or suspicious language. The key is simply understanding that organization’s mandate and the population it serves.

“If people were more aware of how Jewish law worked, then some people might say, ‘We don’t agree with COR’s conclusions,’ but then they’d be able to… create an intelligent debate, based upon real issues.”

For instance, some observant Jews are “very angry” over standards requiring a lightbox and magnifying glass to search for insects (which are only forbidden if they’re visible to the naked eye), saying these new devices “take away from the integrity of the halachic system.”

Proponents of the tools, however, say the insects are definitely visible to the naked eye: the lightbox and magnifier simply clarify whether the specks are dirt or insects.

“It’s important for people to know the real way the decisions are made. If people don’t understand how Jewish law really works, it’s very hard to have intelligent debate.”