Long story here, but the gist is that there’s a restaurant in Brooklyn that has a kosher certification suitable for the ultra-Orthodox Chassids. But it’s on the outskirts of the Jewish neighborhood and by location and decor also seeks gentile business.
On the last page, the author reveals that the rabbi doesn’t quite agree with the account above; according to him, he was there to see the kitchen and didn’t express any concern about the customers’ dress. But he did confirm that his contract required him to ensure that the dining room met standards too: no female singers, for example, and socializing between unmarried men and women is for matrimonial purposes only. He also said that “similar requests have been readily met by other kosher restaurants” he certifies.
The tone of the article is not blatantly disapproving, but it does convey, at least to my eye, a certain understated incredulousness. How, the article seems to ask, in this day and age is something like this even possible?
Am I reading that tone into the article unjustifiably?
Is there something fundamentally wrong with the rabbi’s request?
Sounds much like the people who run around Iran looking for people disobeying conservative Islam tenets. Just need to give them some sticks to beat those with short skirts and tatoos.
Presumably the restaurant doesn’t have any female singers at all. Note that I’m not addressing whether the restaurant would be doing something illegal by complying with all kosher requirements - just that it wouldn’t be doing anything wrong if it complied with this particular demand.
I think this is interesting in view of the recent rants by people like Sharon Angle about Muslim law becoming some sort of threat in the United States.
While it’s true that the restaurant is under no obligation to comply, this sort of thing galls me. I think any religious group trying to lay down their own “laws” to others takes a lot of balls, be it Muslim, Jewish, Christian or whatever else.
Well, what they’re saying is simply, “If you want us to certify that you follow our laws, you have to follow our laws.” I don’t see why that would gall you.
I’d be interested in hearing from some of our resident experts in Jewish law. Isn’t kosher purely dietary? I mean, I know there are commandments against Jews having tattoos, and probably against certain sorts of premarital socializing, but is there any rule against eating in the general vicinity of other folks with tattoos?
For that matter, I’m also unsure how the rabbi could tell that the affectionate couple weren’t married.
I agree the certification authority can require whatever it wants. The restaurant can ignore them and forgo the certification if they want. It is not required by state law.
I guess the question is can a public restaurant deny service to the public that does not meet its more stringent standards? I suppose a restaurant can insist on a certain dress codes (jacket & tie being common, no jeans, no sneakers and the ubiquitous no shoes-no shirt-no service stuff).
The restaurant needs to decide for themselves whose business they want more. If the restaurant is really good gentiles will have to make a point to dress appropriately.
I see no problem with the rabbi insisting on the surveillance video. He can ask. The owner can agree or not as he likes. Again depends on how badly he wants that certification.
That depends on what fundamentally means. If they’re going to make up standards for certifying a restaurant and the restaurant wants the certification, the authorities can enforce it. But I do think it’s intrusive and repugnant.
I don’t see anything about it on the OK Kosher website. My guess is that it has more to do with the standards of that Hasidic community than with kosher rules.
Aaand we’re hitting once again on that grand old Doper tradition of asking a question about Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox practice on or almost on Shabbas.
Thing is, there are many different koser certification agencies - but local businesses tend to go for local ones, as local customers insist on their local rabbi’s approval.
Remember, there is no central authority ‘laying down the law’ for all of them, so they can - and, according to the article, do - vary.
Sounds to me like the local rabbi is off on a power trip of his own. If the restaurant can, it ought to simply change agencies, and get a rabbi who only enforces the food aspect of kosher, and doesn’t try to force the restaurant to make its customers act like Hassids.
There are plenty of rules that reach farther than you might think. Wine, for example, is made from grapes, which are kosher, so you’d think wine would present no problems kosher-wise. But if the wine is poured by a gentile, it may be stam yainom --touched by someone who believes in idolatry – and thus not kosher. (Wine that has been boiled is safe from this concern).
In this case, I think the rabbi’s objection was not to the tattoos, but to the general immodesty. And while this is not, itself, a matter of kashrut, you can see how a general atmosphere that included gentiles who were not aware of the requirements of kashrut might lead to something treif, like a gentile pouring a glass of wine.
Well, the way I’m reading this situation, the restaurant didn’t HAVE to make its customers act Hasidic, because until recently, their customers WERE Hasidic. The neighborhood is changing demographics and the restaurant may not be ABLE to survive with only Hasidic customers soon.
Now, I agree that perhaps they should switch to a less ultra-Orthodox rating agency, but I don’t necessarily know that it would be because their current rating is on a power trip.
