# The Nature of Compromise **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 9, 2000, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038 "2000-07-09T15:38:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![The\_Ryan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7feea3/32.png) [@The\_Ryan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Ryan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2000, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/21 "2000-07-11T21:15:13Z")
I think that your initial analogy is quite different from the question you are really asking. In the case of Tom, Dic, and Harry, the status of each affects the rest; if Tom is comfortable, Dick and Harry are cold. However, if a Reformed Jew eats unkosher food, this does not affect Orthodox Jews at all. Another difference is that you state that none of the people involved can leave. But no one is forced to go to the eatery. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sdimbert \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > > \*\* > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > By that logic, any hospital located in a community with a decent proportion of Jehvovah’s Witnesses should not perform blood transfusions or organ transplants. > > > \*\* > > > > You would be right if the hospital in question was earmarked for the Jehovah’s Witness Community. > > > > I guess I wasn’t specific enough; the eatery in question is part of a larger facility tageted specifically at the Jewish community. > > \*\* > > But Orthodox Jews are not the entirety of that community, whereas Jehovah’s Witnesses _are_ the entirety of the Jehovah’s Witness Community. > Kimstu: > > > [@](#): > > > > But maybe I can recycle some of it. (First, Phil, I think your exclusive/inclusive identification is a little backward: food prepared according to the “strict” rules can be eaten by all three Jewish groups, which makes it more inclusive.) > > But if a place serves all types of food, that satisfies everyone, so that would be more inclusive. It’s not a question of all kosher vs. all nonkosher, but a question of all kosher vs. some unkosher. > > > [@](#): > > > > If not, then the hosts can serve all the unkosher food they want. However, identifying this place as an eatery “for the Jewish community” in this case is indeed somewhat misleading, and in fact more than a little insulting. It’s tantamount to telling the Orthodox Jews that they’re not really part of the Jewish community. > > How so? Does not specifically targeting one’s establishment towards a specific group mean that that group doesn’t belong? > > Miss Manners does not look kindly on hosts who claim that they are equally welcoming and open towards all their guests while requiring some of the guests to violate their principles if they want to participate in the event they’re invited to. You don’t ask your strict Amish friends over to watch television, you don’t invite your Catholic friends for a steak dinner on a Friday in Lent, and you don’t request your Orthodox Jewish friends to eat treyf. Allowing one’s guests the _oppurtunity_ to do something that they disapprove of is hardly the same thing as _requiring_ them to do so. If I were hosting a party, I would see nothing wrong with having a television on the premises or serving beef or treyf, regardless of who my guests were. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/22 "2000-07-11T21:36:50Z")
Oh! (Again.) **Phil** , we should have been a little more careful first to define what “kosher” means to an Orthodox Jew. The kosherness of the food is affected by whether the implements, utensils, dishes (for some, even fridges and dishwashers!), etc. that were used in preparing it have also been used for non-kosher food. So it’s not usually possible to have truly kosher (to an Orthodox Jew) and non-kosher food coming out of the same kitchen at the same time. Think about the negative reaction some vegetarians feel to having a utensil in their vegetarian food that has touched meat. Then think up every possible circumstance that might cause or risk such contamination, make them all explicitly illegal, and you’ve got something resembling the complexity and inflexibility of strict kashrut laws. 🙂 It ain’t an easy problem to solve! > [@](#): > > But no one is forced to go to the eatery. Right, but if Orthodox Jews can’t eat there without breaking kashrut laws that everybody knows (well, most Jews know) are important to them, it’s hardly appropriate to call it an establishment “for the Jewish community” _tout court_, is it? If the owners are deliberately ignoring the restrictive rules that make a food establishment “glatt kosher”, they are essentially saying that observant Orthodox Jews don’t belong in this joint. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2000, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/23 "2000-07-12T00:14:39Z")
I appreciate the explanation, Kimstu. I’ll share it with my cousin, Rabbi Eric L. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2000, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/24 "2000-07-12T03:35:09Z")
I would say that there would have to be acceptable food available to the Orthodox. However, let us assume the food is catered or “potluck”. Could there not be seperate tables for the “Ortho-kosher”, as long as the food was PREPARED seperately, in varied & proper kitchens? And no-one has answered my query about the consequences of eating “non-kosher food”, in those 3 circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2000, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/25 "2000-07-12T13:24:29Z")
Danielinthewolvesden > [@](#): > > And no-one has answered my query about the consequences of eating “non-kosher food”, in those 3 circumstances Hate it when that happens. > [@](#): > > Oh, and as a general query, what happens if an Observant Jews eats non-kosher? 1. By accident, 2. Out of need, or 3.just does. I know only the ultra-O would decry anyone to eat non-kosher if the choice was starvation, but is there a “penance”? He must fast for 40 days and 40 nights. And after that, he must give all his money to charity. And after that, he must stand in the public square shouting “woe is me, woe is me”. And after that… Seriously, there is no specific penance (though a rabbi might make one up if asked to do so). Any sin needs to be atoned for, but the penance is in confessing (to God), feeling remorse, and resolving not to do it again. The circumstances and intentions of the sinner are factors in how much he should be atoning for the sin. Your statement that “the ultra-O would decry anyone to eat non-kosher if the choice was starvation” is incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2000, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/26 "2000-07-12T15:01:05Z")
This is of course, nothing like the jehovah’s witnesses example: the worst that can happen is that someone has a meal lacking a tad in variety and which is a touch more expensive. Where I’m from (Melbourne, Australia) the Kosher butchers are much more expensive. Who’s going to pay for the upgrade in standards? picmr ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/27 "2000-07-13T04:17:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > Your statement that “the ultra-O would decry anyone to eat non-kosher if the choice was starvation” is incorrect. \*\* Oh, yes, then who where those guys that refused to fight in their own defence on the sabbath? But why could there not be separate tables? Certainly the food could not become less kosher by being in the same room as “not quite as kosher as I want it food”, or am I wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/28 "2000-07-13T04:23:05Z")
Actually, picmrs last post suggested a compromise. You see, Sdim, your “compromise” altho not a bad choice, was no compromise at all, just the other 2 giving in. But here is the fair compromise. Bring in food that is acceptable to the Orthodox, however, THEY have to pay the entire “extra” cost (if any) for everyones meal. They give up a little $ to get the food they want. And the others can still eat the food, but will not have to pay extra for somebody elses wants/needs. Do I have a winner? ---
**Author:** ![surel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/3d9bf3/32.png) [@surel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/surel)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/29 "2000-07-13T05:54:06Z")
Just to elaborate on the statement about Orthodox Jews starving to death. The way I was taught, all of the religious laws are required to be broken if your life is at stake. It is not only acceptable to eat non-kosher food if you are starving to death and can’t get kosher food, it is required. As to those who will not fight in self-defense on the Sabbath, I have no idea what their justification is, but I’d be curious to hear it. It’s also possible that not every Jew agrees with the version I was taught. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/30 "2000-07-13T16:16:55Z")
Danielinthewolvesden: [/quote] Oh, yes, then who where those guys that refused to fight in their own defence on the sabbath? [/quote] Nobody that I know. There are three (types) of sins for which one is required to sacrifice one’s life rather than commit. 1. Idolatry 2. Murder 3. Forbidden sexual relations For all other sins, one is not required to give one’s life (barring certain exceptional circumstances). There is a rabbinical dispute concerning whether someone who wishes to give his life rather than commit one of these other sins is permitted to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/31 "2000-07-13T18:57:51Z")
I am sure that I read of one group of the Zealots who rebeled in AD70, doing just that. I will try to find the source. Sdim: how about my idea? ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/32 "2000-07-13T21:13:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*Sdim, your “compromise” altho not a bad choice, was no compromise at all, just the other 2 giving in. But here is the fair compromise. Bring in food that is acceptable to the Orthodox, however, THEY have to pay the entire “extra” cost (if any) for everyones meal. They give up a little $ to get the food they want. And the others can still eat the food, but will not have to pay extra for somebody elses wants/needs. Do I have a winner? > > \ > > Sdim: how about my idea?\*\* **Daniel** , this is what I was trying to avoid. I asked my original question in general terms because I didn’t want to have to give everyone the sordid details of the politics of my Jewish Community. The fact of the matter is that the eatery in question is a cafe at a new local Retirement Community. It is open to the public (hence the “Community” label) and it operates out of the same kitchen used to make meals for residents. The problem is that, unless a resident specifies that he or she wants Kosher food, the facility gives them non\_kosher food. They claim that to operate the entire facility Kosher would be an _imposition_ on those residents who don’t want to eat Kosher! That idea offends me. Not that they want to eat treif food; hell, they could eat sand for all I care. But it seems to me that the food served at a facility serving the Jewish Community should be Kosher. How kosher? Kosher enough for **every Jew** in town. [/rant] ---
**Author:** ![oldscratch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ed655f/32.png) [@oldscratch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oldscratch)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/33 "2000-07-13T21:32:29Z")
I agree with you on this one sdimbert. I am 100% non-religious. Yet, if I heard of a “jewish” restuarant or eatery, I would expect that I could take **ANY** Jewish friend there. I shouldn’t have to specify what kind of food I want. The same would go for an Islamic center. All food should be hallal. If it weren’t it wouldn’t be islamic. Sure, they could still call it a community place. But, not an islamic community place. ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/34 "2000-07-13T22:44:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sdimbert \* > That idea offends me. Not that they want to eat treif food; hell, they could eat sand for all I care. But it seems to me that the food served at a facility serving the Jewish Community should be Kosher. How kosher? Kosher enough for **every Jew** in town. **sdimbert** , While I do not disagree with you that facility intended for the whole Jewish community should be kosher, your last sentence above may in some cases may be an impossible requirement. A friend in my community opened a kosher deli (in Boulder) here a couple of years back. There are two substantial Orthodox communities in nearby Denver, but my understanding is that neither one completely accepts the other’s _hasgacha_ (kosher supervision), so his deli (which had a full-time _mashgiach_ (kashrut supervisor), since my friend was not _shomer shabbat_(Sabbath observant) at the time) was only kosher enough for _some_ of the Orthodox. It wasn’t an issue of going with the most strict in order to include everyone–it was an issue of mutually orthogonal definitions of strict ;j. I will assume that your case is more straightforward than this, in which case using some reasonable Orthodox supervision standard (perhaps not requiring _chalav yisrael_ when perfectly good OU-supervised _chalav stam_ is available) seems like it’s the most inclusive. For those who think a non-kosher diet is too limited, I say “Feh!”; it is possible to make incredibly interesting kosher food if you don’t stick exclusively to the traditional Eastern European dishes (no offense intended–I love that stuff, just not all the time). Perhaps a good compromise would be to hire an outside food consultant (who need not be a kosher cook–find a gourmet restaurant and see if you can work with the chef) to come up with a nicer kosher menu. Incidentally, for a number of reasons the deli here closed after a year in business. I haven’t had a corned beef sandwich since, more’s the pity :(. (I eat dairy in non-kosher restaurants, but I won’t eat _treyf_ meat.) Rick ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/35 "2000-07-13T23:01:58Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by RickG \* \*\* [QUOTEIt wasn’t an issue of going with the most strict in order to include everyone–it was an issue of mutually orthogonal definitions of strict ;j. \*\*[/quote] **Rick** : “Orthogonal?” _ **"Orthogonal?"** _ Heh. \*\* > [@](#): > > I will assume that your case is more straightforward than this, in which case using some reasonable Orthodox supervision standard… seems like it’s the most inclusive. > \*\* I agree - I think the Rabbinal Council’s Vaad HaKashrus (Community Kosher Certification Organization) would be suitable, no? I’m glad to see some people who agree with me. 🙂 \*\* > [@](#): > > I haven’t had a corned beef sandwich since…\*\* Email me your address, I’ll send you one! ;j PS - _ **"Orthogonal?"** _ ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/36 "2000-07-14T08:40:12Z")
Orthogonal is a perfectly good word, it means :“of or involving right angles” (Oxford), but how that fits into the sentence, i don’t know. Ok, Sdim, now we need some solid facts. Who paid for the Center? Who pays for the food? And how is it paid for? if it is public funds, would you expect a soup kitchen to be run Kosher? If it was set up for the “community” by public funds, but the “community” get to decide how to use it, then I am sorry my freind, majority rules. However, if the Orthodox volunteered to pony up the funds so ALL could eat Kosher, then I believe that would come under “reasonable accomedation”. But you can’t expect the non-“Observant” to pay for the Observant’s dietary restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/37 "2000-07-14T15:06:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden \* > \*\*Orthogonal is a perfectly good word, it means :“of or involving right angles” (Oxford), but how that fits into the sentence, i don’t know. > \*\* My sentiments exactly. 🙂 \*\* > [@](#): > > Ok, Sdim, now we need some solid facts. Who paid for the Center? Who pays for the food?.. > \*\* You’re not going to like the answer: Everybody did. The whole Jewish community (all flavors) through donations by individuals as well as organizations, plus whatever private financial backing the owners have. But, the fact of the matter is, that point is irrelevant. \*\* > [@](#): > > If it was set up for the “community” by public funds, but the “community” get to decide how to use it, then I am sorry my freind, majority rules. > \*\* Nope, you’re over-simplifying. Go back and re-read the relevant parts of this thread again; you’re glossing over the very issue I opened this thread to discuss. **Oldscratch** put it well when he said, “if I heard of a “jewish” restuarant or eatery, I would expect that I could take **ANY** Jewish friend there.” \*\* > [@](#): > > …you can’t expect the non-“Observant” to pay for the Observant’s dietary restrictions. \*\* In last weeks’s issue of the Jewish Newspaper, the President of the Rabbinical Council said something along the lines of, “If the community wanted a strictly Kosher facility, we could afford it, just as Jewish communities have been doing for thousands of years. It saddens me that this has not occured here.” And she (yes, SHE - a female Rabbi, very modern of us, no?) does not personally keep Kosher! In this weeks issue, a letter to the editor says: > [@](#): > > _(slightly edited to protect the anonymity of this small burg)_ > Jewish dietary laws for Jewish communal organizations should not be a matter of personal preference for one simple reason. A Jew, who chooses not to observe a Torah commandment that has its origin with the patriarch Abraham and appears any number of times in the Torah, is free to eat anywhere. A Jew who chooses to observe the ritual dietary laws cannot eat anywhere and is very limited in his or her choices. Practically speaking, this means that a non-kosher keeping Jew could eat at a non-kosher _name-of-facility_ while a kosher keeping Jew could not. For _name-of-facility_ to truly be a Jewish communal organizations its policies, procedures and practices should be that all Jews are welcome and not just those Jews who choose not to observe our dietary rules. (Excuse the double negative). Comments? ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/38 "2000-07-14T15:50:18Z")
Comments? Next time the community should think of this bloody obvious problem before someone lays the concrete slab (totally unhelpful I know, but sheesh). I’ll defend “orthogonal”. Yes it means at 90 degrees, but it is frequently used to mean “unrelated to”. I find it _amazing_ that this issue has been left hanging until (I presume) after the centre has been built. The number of times I’ve seen observant Jews (no offense meant) mournfully opening cut lunches or not come out with their mates because of the time or place makes me staggered that this could escape attention until it is a hassle. picmr ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/39 "2000-07-14T17:01:47Z")
I just think it’s cool that, in the midst of a non-mathematical discussion in a not overtly mathematical environment, the word ‘orthogonal’ pops up in the discussion, and practically everyone knows what it means; the only thing being debated is whether it was used appropriately. This board is one of the few places where I can imagine that happening. Boy howdy, I love this place. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RickG](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rickg/32/5174_2.png) [@RickG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickG)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2000, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038/40 "2000-07-14T17:55:34Z")
Oh, boy! This is the first time I made a word choice that sparked a side debate. \ 🙂 Now, let’s see if I can justify it… I was trained as a physicist (theoretical), and I tend to use “orthogonal” when I mean that there is no overlap between two entities (think of orthogonal functions, rather than right angles). In that sense, I guess I overstated the disagreement between the two O communities–they obviously agree on many standards, they just don’t accept one another’s supervision in all cases. Chalk it up to hyperbole. Scratch “orthogonal” then. But to keep this in mathematical terms, instead say that neither set of standards is a proper subset of the other :). Gut shabbos to all, Rick [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-nature-of-compromise/25038.md?page=3)