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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Idolatry
Murder
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.
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.
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.
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.)
[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 agree - I think the Rabbinal Council’s Vaad HaKashrus (Community Kosher Certification Organization) would be suitable, no?
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.
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.
**
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.”
**
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!
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.
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.
Oh, boy! This is the first time I made a word choice that sparked a side debate. <pats self on back>
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 :).
It ain’t an easy problem to solve!