BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,steve
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 03:55 PM

Ron

I said it was valid to question this a a tragedy. That statement also gave scope for others to question it otherwise. It only affects me in that If such a discussion came up socially, I would also question it the same.

I deeply respect judaism,not least for the wisdom I have come across from a book by Rabbi Lionel Blue, quoting rabbis over millenia. In fact I have written a song inspired by something he wrote. However nothing should be beyond criticism. If something was, the person criticising would be judged a fool.

If I am insensitive here, I am sorry for being insensistive

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:05 PM

I think I know where from you come, Michelle, but you are putting your world view or religious view on a religion that does not share it. As I said, Jews do not expect non-Jews to follow their religious strictures, and unlike most God-based religions Judaism generally does not seek converts who would have to share those beliefs. So, if a non-Jew eats Beef Stroganoff--a mixture of meat and dairy--that is a-ok with a Jew. But the Jew would not eat it, nor would they eat from the dishes and utensils that it was on at least until they were ritually cleansed.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:15 PM

Is that not rather the point? Why should religion be free from the requirements of logic and rationality?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 04:42 PM

No Richard, it isn't. Apply your intellect, logic and rationality. The subject of the thread isn't religion. It is about a fraud committed on a community. It is initiated by a member of our community, presumably to for the purpose of expressing his outrage at the fraud. It is being twisted into an argument on the merits of religion in general, and specifically on the dietary laws which observant Jews live by.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:02 PM

What is logic to one person is illogical to another. You drive on the "wrong" side of the road on the other side of the pond. Should I question the logic of that? No, there are reasons why it is different and it doesn't affect my world.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Jeri
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 05:16 PM

If a subject is remotely connected to a script or role some of these folks have already memorized, that's how they're ging to address the issue. People are often not smart enough to think up appropriate responses for specific, unfamiliar situations - they force the discussions into what they know well and have practiced a lot.

Rabbi Sol, I'm sorry this happened. I hope things can be made as right as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:41 PM

For heaven's sake (maybe the wrong choice of phrase): plainly there was a fraud (and infringments of copyright, too, possibly infringments of trade marks and/or passing off); plainly there was a breach of religious shibboleths - two different things.

Plainly it has caused distress: most regrettable; most culpable.


Is the suggestion that ceramic dishes cannot be cleaned rational? Is the suggestion that metallic surfaces have to be heated to cherry red rational?

My sympathy is more for those who will be irrationally directed to destroy cherished possessions for no reason. It's not about this religion, it's not about the idea of religion, it's about the fact that the manifestations of religions see themselves as entitled to dictate, without reason or sense. God may be above man. Priests are not.

The idea that the Christian religions were solely to be interpreted by the priests, and that man needed an intermediary between himself and his God was mostly long since chucked out as a restrictive practice designed to entrench the power of priests.

The idea of a divine being may help some to live lives with consciences. The manifestations we see about us make us question the merit and goodness in such thoughts.

I have no reason to doubt that Rabbi-Sol is a good, devout, and sincere man. But why should his or any other religion cause any form of suffering to anyone for irrational reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: LilyFestre
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:45 PM

I don't see many people who aren't outraged at the fraud that was committed. I do see many people without an understanding of it all and would expect that since not all people share the same faith. I also see this thread as an opportunity to share some answers and to clarify for those who are interested enough to ask. Questions aren't attacks!

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 06:52 PM

I am entirely in agreement with you on all points, Richard.

People all over this world are mentally enslaved by their various mythologies...the things they take for granted and never question...the beliefs they have taken on for no other reason than "that's what I was told to believe" or "it's in the Holy Book"... whether it be religious mythology, cultural mythology, racial mythology, scientific mythology, medical mythology, or political mythology, or even gender mythology, and they do the darndest self-defeating and crazy things because of it.

They're also usually enslaved to money, of course, and that particular mental enslavement is what led to this ridiculous situation with the chickens. Someone valued a quick buck more than he valued behaving honestly and responsibly in his community.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:51 PM

Geez Mick, wasn't meant to be a lecture, more of an observation. If it's a contest to see who's been on the Mudcat (or the internet) longer, it'd be a tough call since I've been here myself about as long as you have, and online a good deal longer than that. You seem to be bemoaning the fact the the Mudcat ain't what she used to be, but neither is nostalgia. Rabbi Sol has gotten a very great deal of sympathy in this thread, as far as I can see, and rightly so. Why should folks who feel other than sympathetic - or sympathetic "but" be expected to hold back? From what I've read from him, I suspect Rabbi Sol is an intelligent grownup who can handle it, and I doubt he expected anything different from what's been posted. But you seem to be dedicated to shifting the focus of the thread from the heinous fraud committed to the failure of Mudcatters to live up to your expectations. With all due respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 09:52 PM

The Sabbath just ended here in Monsey so I am back on the board. In all synagogues plus at the sabbath dinner table the chickens were the major topic of discussion. Here are some new developments that have not as yet reached the media.

The chickens in question were not only "treif". They were also stolen. We do not yet know from who but the police are investigating. Therefore the profit that the perpetrator, Moshe Finkel, realized on them was even greater than first thought.

The Rabbis of Monsey have decreed a fast day for all Jewish members of the community to take place on next Sunday, September 17th. The principle of collective guilt is apparently weighing heavily on their minds. In performing this fast we are beseeching God to show mercy and refrain from any divine retribution or punishment for our community for creating an atmosphere that would allow such a tragic incident to occurr on such a massive scale.

More news should be forthcoming later this week and I will keep you all informed.
                                                 SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:17 PM

I really do not think that God will hold any of this misadventure against your community, Rabbi-Sol, unless God is as capricious and as totally unreasonable as some people are...

It's my impression that God always shows mercy. It is people and carnivorous animals who do not show mercy. In the animals' case, that's perfectly understandable and it does not carry any burden of what I would term "sin". In the case of people, however, I'd say it's quite a different story. People should know better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 10:38 PM

You may be right, but look what happened to Adam & Eve. And their offspring.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Sep 06 - 11:04 PM

Uh-huh. And look what happened to the Billy Goats Gruff and the Troll under the bridge. And Gilgamesh, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,barbara
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 12:39 AM

m. finkel is not a hasidic man. he is an orthodox man. 2 different things. and not everyone is throwing away their dishes. my rabbi, rabbi shlesiner, says, not necessarily so.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Lady Hillary
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 01:16 AM

EBarnacle here. Above it was stated that:

"Jewish dietary law in any case doesn't come under the ten commandments, and is a cultural aspect of judaism."

The ten commandments are only the ones which most people are most familiar with. If you try reading and understanding the remainder of the Torah, you will discover that there are five books, including Genesis and Exodus, which is where most people's knowledge seems to stop. By tradition, the content of these 5 books was handed from God to Moses and, thence, to the children of Israel. The last 3 books consist mainly of the laws which the Israelites are supposed to follow. There are several hundred of these laws. Each is important and they deal in issues of life and death, and community relations, as well as public health and sanitation.

Many of the laws do not seem to make sense to the community at large now. During times like the Middle Ages, they were often the cause of Jewish survival when those around them were dying of various communicable disorders, such as typhus and waterborne disorders. This difference helped create a community which those around them, mostly Christians, saw as practicing magic, instead of common sense. This identity has allowed the Jewish community to survive despite frequent attempts to eradicate Jews as a people and as a culture.

These rules are very slow to change and will not change unless a positive reason is shown for them to change. Two weeks ago, an orthodox Jewish congregation appointed a woman as its rabbi in all but name. It is a small but significant adaptation to the needs of the community.

In the case presented here, the sins have to be examined in terms of the Kaper Lanu prayer recited on Yom Kippur. These sins include sins committed in ignorance as well as sins committed intentionally. A sin is a sin, whether it is quitting smoking and regressing or unknowingly eating unclean food. The result is the same--a sin, a failure of a moral duty which a person has sworn, even if only to oneself. Having discovered the sin, it is up to the person to improve his or her ways and lead a better life.

The reason the community is fasting is as a duty to the larger community. There have been countless events in the past, such as plagues or invasions, [Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah's Flood come readily to mind] which are associated with moral failures within the community. These events were often what made the prophets famous in their efforts to clean up the community, often against public opinion that their ideas were not needed.

That the community is willing to atone for an unintentional sin is laudable. They are showing the universalism for which Judaism is famous. "Am I my brother's keeper?" They believe so and are acting on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Marion
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 02:59 AM

Hello Rabbi Sol. I can certainly understand why this incident is so upsetting to you and the other folks in your community. I think that the people reading are focussing too much on the dishes and forgetting about how these people's bodies were violated. Through this act of fraud, the thief took away his victims' right to control their own bodies.

I'm a vegetarian, and my aversion to meat is visceral and deep-seated. If I learned that somebody had tricked me into eating meat, I would feel violated, profoundly disgusted, and furious, and it's almost certain that my relationship with that person would be irrevocably ended. So I think I can empathize with what you're feeling. (I should add that I'm not speaking here for any vegetarian but myself - there are many different combinations of reasons why people choose not to eat meat, and not all vegetarians share my aversion).

For those of you reading this thread who don't relate to religious taboo or to vegetarianism: the closest equivalent for you would probably be your aversion to cannibalism or to feces. So please imagine how you would feel if somebody tricked you into eating human flesh or excrement, and keep that feeling in mind when you think about this situation.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:05 AM

I sympathise with those who feel that they have been sullied. I appreciate the feeling that the guilty in this case should be held up to public opprobrium. I am sure that Rabbi-Sol is perfectly genuine and justified in his outrage at the fraudsters and thieves. But why do I feel that I have to keep emphasising that, when I go on to discuss other perfectly genuine concerns?

It will seem morally repugnant to many that they who were (if they were, and were not wilfully closing their eyes) wholly unaware that they were eating food that was proscribed by their religion should be regarded as in any way guilty. Offences of strict liability are rightly regarded by most legal systems as extreme measures.

It will also seem morally repugnant to many that a whole set of persons - including they who not only are under no moral guilt (see above) but even they who have themselves not eaten such food at all - should be required to atone. It is quite definitely wrong to punish the innocent for the sins of the guilty (unless there is a very very good public policy reason as in the case of employers' vicarious liability for the torts of thier servants committed in the course of thier employment).

To take Marion's example, should a person tricked into eating human flesh be punishable for cannibalism? Should their parents or children who did not eat human flesh be punishable for cannibalism?

I note above that even different factions of the religion in point do not agree that the relevant china dishes need to be destroyed or given away. Maybe there are some who would say that metal dishes can (as they in fact can) be sterilised without heating to red heat.

How should we judge a religion that requires its followers to harm themselves and/or to make payments to the infrastructure or members of the infrastructure of the religion for things that those followers have not done or for which those followers have no guilt?

There are a number of religions that we rightly criticise for fundamentalism. In this sense I mean, by fundamentalism, the belief or assertion that texts and prohibitions of the religion are literally true and must be literally obeyed, despite their impossibility or irrationality (or, in some cases, not the present case, inherent evil). Even small requirements by a religion that are irrational are the thin end of the wedge in this respect, and they need to be tested to see whether they ought to be changed.

I have been thinking about all this at least partly (apart from my inherent pedantry) because I am currently having a bit of a crise de confiance in a moral belief system with which I am myself involved, and I do not know whether I will be able to continue with it, despite the much good work it does, because of irrationalities that I see within it. I respectfully suggest that ritual cleansing requirements need to be examined in the light of knowledge and reason, and if appropriate discarded. If they do no good and may lead to harm should that not be so?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 04:36 AM

I was not sure about this thread or the implications. I am glad I read it because it has made me think a little - always a good thing:-)

Firstly, I think it goes without saying that that my sympathies are with the community concerned.

The bit I thought most about was this thing about having to destroy or rekosherise the utensils. I reaslised after a while it was not realy about the crockery at all. It is about teachings. Whether they are right or wrong is completely irrelevant. The laws of that religion say that this must happen. Whether people do it or not is a test of their religious beliefs. Do you love your religion more or your possesions? How strong are your beliefs?

Whether I agree or not I must say that anyone who has the conviction to destroy lots of goods, maybe costing lots of money, maybe with deep sentimantal value, because of their beliefs shows a great faith in their religion. Some may say this is madness but I say, provided it does not affect me, it shows a strength of character far greater than many have. In fact it saddened me a little when a post above said that some are not destroying the china. Sounds like bending the rules to suit themselves. When I decided that the rules of the Catholic church were not for me I did not ask them to bend the rules, I got out.

On the whole I am happy for people to follow whatever beliefs they want. As long as they don't expect me to follow them. Good luck to those who have put their trust in their god and passed this test.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:45 AM

Finally, a couple of people that get it. Dave and Marion, you have said it better than I could. It isn't about the china or the religion. It is about empathizing with community members.

It is interesting that when you illustrate it so clearly, some choose to continue to try to shift the premise.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Akiva from Ashdod
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:19 AM

I know of someone who is planning an answer for the Heavenly court when he reaches 120.

When they ask him, "Did you eat kosher?" He plans to say," I don't know. but I certainly paid for it."


I do not live in the US but I have had in recent years "Mahadrin chicken" Airline meals. They were supervised by a Rav from Monsey. I sure hope Mr. Finkel had nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 12:51 PM

"How should we judge a religion that requires its followers to harm themselves and/or to make payments to the infrastructure or members of the infrastructure of the religion for things that those followers have not done or for which those followers have no guilt?"

The simple answer is - your judgement really doesn't matter. My judgement doesn't matter. As EBarnacle eloquently pointed out, the following of faith is a matter of personal conviction.

Unless you are being affected by this religion, is it our place to question?

I am sure that if Rabbi Sol or anyone else came on Mudcat and started to preach to us that his path was the one that all of us should follow - there would be an uproar. Most of us won't answer the door when Jehovah's Witness members ring the bell, we turn our heads when a street preacher tries to hand us a pamphlet, and we switch the station when an evangalist is peddling their wares on TV. Those of us who chose our own paths feel somehow violated when we see that.

Yet, there are those of us who feel it necessary to tell others how to live their lives - when there was no call for such input.   Isn't that a bit hypocritical? To strike out at a doctrine that we feel is restrictive and infer that people should be following a different set of rules is one and the same.

What do they say about people living in glass houses?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 02:19 PM

Oh, I don't mind people atoning for unintentional "sins" if they want to. Fine with me. That's up to them.

I am simply raising a philosophical question here: Would God punish people for unintentional sins? If so, why? What good would it do? I think it's worthwhile for people to ask themselves and others such questions.

I grew up to eventually question every basic assumption that was put in front of me when I was a child...no matter who it had come from. I discovered that a lot of those assumptions were based on nothing real whatsoever, while others were founded on solid groung.

It puzzles me when other people do not question the basic assumptions of their culture. How will they ever learn to think originally and clearly if they don't? And how will they escape the automatic prejudices and misconceptions that are passed on IN every culture?

Or maybe they don't want to?

One more question: Why does anyone need an organized religion to have a relationship with God?

I ask that because Dave asked: "Do you love your religion more or your possesions? How strong are your beliefs?"

Interesting point, Dave. I would say this. I love my own personal ability to think and reason and arrive at my own judgement on things better than I love the idea of belonging to an organized religion that tells me what to think.   

I believe that God would rather I use my own intelligence than have someone else think for me and just do what they say.

When people follow what is in the Torah or any other ancient religious text they are merely following what someone else wrote down a very long time ago. No one can prove that that someone else was a literal scribe for God and that God agrees NOW with everything that someone else wrote way back then. Furthermore, no one can prove that God hasn't altered some of the friggin' rules of practical daily life in the last few thousand years as the conditions in human society changed!

And I am suggesting that a God who was sane and rational most certainly would have altered some of the rules between now and 4,000 years ago in the Middle East in a society with no refrigerators, etc.... It's just laughable to think otherwise, as a matter of fact.

For people to tie themselve to 4,000-year-old thoughts is a form of mental paralysis. The world changes, and we change with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:06 PM

There is nothing unusual about following dietary rules, many religions require it. For Rabbi Sol I have a lot of sympathy, he and his community were betrayed and soiled by the actions of a few members of the same faith. Such a shock and disbelief can and does hurt people much deeper than other types of criminal activity. I am sure it is his shock and horror that caused him to post here.

Something jogs my memory about God being forgiving in Jewish religion, if people were forcibly defiled by criminals. I pray that it is so; and in the spirit of compassion hope his community will grow stronger despite the actions of a few that undermined it temporarily. We all have possessions that if stolen or lost could never be replaced in our hearts; and it would seem that some may now be forced to lose objects of such sentimental value it will hurt a great deal, an added burden to their grief.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:14 PM

We frequently judge and someties condemn religions and belief systems that affect only those within them. Take "female circumcision" for example.

If a religion requires its followers to do something irrational and to their detriment we must in all fairness question it. Some of the most fundamental cases about "undue influence" are about spiritual leaders benefitting from their disciples.

We should apply even handed good sense to all religions and thier teachings, for they are capable of robbing their followers of their judgment and hence possessions. This applies as much to the estabished religions as to new age mysticism and the eastern belief systems, and the inspirations and visions of all of them. It seems from other threads LH that you ascribe to some beliefs that many might think irrational, so can you even-handedly apply the judgment that beleifs are irrational to this religion?

I'm not defending Judaism in any form, as much as I am not attacking it. I do assert that logic and proportion should everywhere apply.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 03:34 PM

I am going to suggest that we take the discussion of secular vs. religious thought to THIS THREAD and leave this one for the Rabbi to discuss his community's loss, and for questions with regard to dietary law. Of course, you don't have to honor this, but I have started a thread to discuss the broader issues raised.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:28 PM

Little Hawk - Reliously observant Jews do things and use things they did not have knowledge of 4000 years ago. For instance, Jews no longer practice plural marriage. Jew no longer actually sacrifice animals as they did in Temple times. Jews drive cars and fly airplanes.   Jews even use electricity, telephones, washing machines AND refrigerators (there are Christian groups that do not). Refrigeration seems to me an odd example you used to denigrate the beliefs of observant Jews. What is significant to you in singling out refrigerators?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:39 PM

Err - John - keeping food non-toxic.

That wasn't hard was it?

Mick, although thread drift is part of the 'Cat (I wonder when I first posted, have I been here as long as you, it's a great community wasn't it?) I think you may be right that a spinoff thread is a good idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Grab
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:44 PM

I have complete sympathy with the Rabbi and all his community for what's happened to them. If someone's seriously religious, that's a major part of their identity, and having someone mess with that is serious. No, it probably isn't as serious as death and destruction. But "tragedy" is a personal judgement - losing your job would be a big deal for you, even though life still goes on.

I'm still curious about why things can't be "rekasherised", given that they were presumably originally "treif". But I guess there's some deep ruling behind that from some long-dead religious bloke, so no worries - just curiosity. And giving the stuff away (instead of ceremonially smashing it or something) is eminently sensible.

What scares the crap out of me though is Rabbi Avraham Chaim Feuer and his bizarre idea of "we as a community are collectively guilty of not doing something right if God can let such a major tragedy befall us". Sorry, but no. I believe Job is common to Jewish and Christian texts, and a whole load of shit happened to Mr Job even though he was a good guy, because God wanted to test the depth of his faith.

So let's look at this from the religious PoV. If it's not God's doing, God won't care. But since this is related to religious observance, we have to assume God was involved. If it's God's doing, either it's a trial (to test faith) or a punishment (for lack of faith). But if it's a punishment, who's it punishing in failure to observe rituals? And check out what happened to the Egyptians for what happens when God's pissed off. Sure it could be a punishment, and it may serve as a reminder to people to keep following the rules.

But look at the other alternative though - the test of faith. Suppose you find that your recent observances of your faith's tenets have been brought down by some outside force. There's two ways you could react to that happening. The first is that you say "well it's not done me any harm, so I might as well not bother observing those rules", and you debase your beliefs as a result. But the second, you say "I don't care that someone else caused me to fail to observe those rules. I know in my heart that I did all I could, and I'll continue to follow those rules to the very best of my ability. God knows what I did, and God knows what I'll continue to do." Is this starting to look like familiar ground...?

That's where your quote of Rabbi Feuer gets my goat - the assumption that anything bad that happens, ever, unto the end of the world, is automatically a punishment for some failing. If he said "we MAY be collectively guilty" then he'd be correct. But the absolute "we ARE guilty" is plain wrong. Under any of the Judaism-based religions, it's clear that this statement is bad theology and bad philosophy, so it's worrying to me that someone who'd make a statement like that is in charge.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Big Mick
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:48 PM

I came as a guest in 98, became a member in 99, Richard.
Yep, it's a great place.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 06:56 PM

"We frequently judge and someties condemn religions and belief systems that affect only those within them. Take "female circumcision" for example."

If you honestly feel that people are being hurt to such a degree in Monsey, I guess there is nothing more to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:06 PM

Richard -- Thank you, the was the simplistic answer I expected. But you know that Jews DO use refigerators and freezers so that that is not the answer. The answer is a religious stricture, not a pragmatic one, so it is as applicable today as it was in Biblical times...for the observant.

Sorry, but I have to leave. The Chabad (a sect of ultra-Orthedox Jews) Telethon is on. [How modern of them to use television!] If you, or anyone reading this between 7pm - 1am EDT live in LA, NY, Miami or any of several other cities, you might get an insight into the world of Judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Keef
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:19 PM

The idea of having to use a blowtorch or heating to cherry red in order to "kosherise" does seem bizzare but those nasty little PRIONS take some killing.

Sterilizing surgical instruments

From New Scientist, 13 February 1999 Ian Mason and Michael Day

The heat is on. The temperatures routinely used to sterilise surgical instruments in British hospitals might actually help to spread the deadly brain disease CJD, say researchers in Scotland. However, the finding could lead to more effective ways of disinfecting surgical instruments contaminated by prions, the rogue proteins thought to cause the disease.

Concerns that surgeons' instruments might pass on new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), the human form of BSE, intensified last month with news that the infection is present throughout the lymph tissue of victims, not just in the central nervous system (This Week, 23 January, p 5). [Only tonsil has actually been studied thoroughly in lymphoreticular system -- webmaster]

Because there is no sure way of sterilising instruments contaminated with prions, the discovery prompted calls for surgeons to use disposable instruments for operations involving lymph tissue. But so far the British government has not committed itself because of the high costs.

Now there is evidence that attempts to disinfect instruments by "pressure cooking" them at high temperatures in an autoclave might do more harm than good. David Taylor of the Institute for Animal Health in Edinburgh found that increasing the temperature of the autoclave actually made it harder to destroy CJD prions. In one experiment, infected tissue samples were heated at 134 ƒC for 9, 18 and 30 minutes. The treated samples were not infectious. However, when the experiment was repeated at 138 ƒC, the tissue was still infectious. In Britain, the standard temperature range for autoclaving instruments is 134 to 138 ƒC.

Taylor believes the slightly higher temperature "fixed" the prion, allowing chemical links to form that made the molecules more stable. He is preparing his results for publication. {not published as of 6 Mar 99 but see other similar studies by DM Taylor -- webmaster

I used to think Jehovahs Witnesses where over the top regarding blood transfusions...and then along came AIDS etc.
Perhaps these guys know something after all!
I'm off for a bacon sanger!
(well cooked)

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 07:35 PM

1999?

138 degrees?


It's a simple issue about responsibility. I've told you several times I'm not attacking you or your God. Take it to the other thread. I may not be there tonight, getting late over here.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Lady Hillary
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:08 PM

EBarnacle here, Graham

It hasn't done me any harm, therefore it's not so bad.

The theory behind this statement is flawed, based upon the Orthodox and other philosophical rationales. Among various religions, that way lies damnation. Road to Hell, etc. The point of the orthodox rationale is that the strictures are deliberately not easy. If they were, there would be no test of character and the soul would not grow strong. The object is not to get away with variations on the rules, it is to adhere strictly to them despite inconvenience.

Consider that YHWH, the tetragram for God is often translated as "I am who I Am." Similarly the concept behind Orthodox Judaism is "We are who we are." Note the differences in capitalization. If you, as do the Orthodox [or Frum (meaning proper or correct)] Jews believe that Jews are the Chosen People, what does chosen mean? They were chosen because they accepted what was presented as the word of God, with all of its rules and strictures.

Refer again to my previous note. As sin is a sin. Any sin diminishes the soul. Intent is worse than lack of intent but there is still a level of diminishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:18 PM

I'm sorry your community has been betrayed by one of your own. I'm sorry for the inconvenience as well. It is not, however, a crisis. I will refrain from listing all of the cultures that are truly in crisis.

I also don't think its right to punish everyone for the sins of another. God might require a test of faith but I don't another human being can require you to 'prove your faith'.

In fact, I think its wrong to follow rules that made very good sense long ago but make very little sense today.

I prefer to think of Judaism as a living and growing faith that is not bound by conventions that serve only to employ the priestly caste.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:40 PM

I was not going to get involved with this discussion but some of the postings made me want to add a few thoughts---brief ones because I do believe that this has taken on, as most threads do, minutae and moved into other areas.

First off---Rabbi Sol posted his note and, basically, reported local news reports. I am not sure for what end.   I doubt very much that this group has very many theoligians in it---I could be wrong. But, even if there are, what is the point?   Seems to me that no person sinned (other than the "butcher"). I am Jewish and admittedly non- practicing---(why do people practice--don't they ever get it right---Doctors, Lawyers,etc;). Seems that unkowing involvement is not sinful. I am, here, saying something that I am not that versant with and yet have to say thay my logical thinking makes me say it. Following that logic---and if one believes in a greater power than one would say that HE also gave us the power to think logically.

What interests me as well is the involvement with the local authorities.   I live in the same county as Rabbi Sol. Seems the "butcher" committed fraud and FOrgery (the labels he printed for the non-kosher chickens). There is more to that story than we want to read here---coincidences as to how this was discovered, etc;.

I am intrigued---and also delighted---how civil authorities will bring charges for fraud on what is a "religious" fraud.   Granted it is fraud. (Good for the U S and its laws---unlike other nations0. Fraud on a par with, say, someone selling you a set of Rosary Beads that they said was blessed by the Pope.   
My problem is the seperation of Church and State and the involvement of the latter with the former. I have never understood the consistency of religious orders looking to civil authorities for remediation.   I could give many examples from all faiths. Let it be ended here with the last sentence to cover that.

Bill Hahn




                  .

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 08:45 PM

Fraud is fraud. If a vendor claims things about his product that turn out not to be true, he's committed fraud. Makes no difference whether the false claims had to do with provenance, ingredients, or manner of preparation: it's a false representation and it's actionable. Especially since (I surmise) that good which conform to the representations are sold at a premium.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:11 PM

Buck: True! The difference is approx. $1.25 / lb. from news reports. That makes for quite a windfall.   

         So---now how do we get the almighty ( if there is such a being) to join the civil authorities in an actionable action.

You gotta love the word play.

BH

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: BuckMulligan
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 09:22 PM

I think if it gets pissed enough, the perps will know. But I suspect that the Almighty knows quite well that his creatures (chosen and otherwise) will handle it. That's faith!

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Rabbi-Sol
Date: 10 Sep 06 - 10:54 PM

If he got the non-kosher chickens from a legitimate source the profit would be $1.25 per pound. If however the chickens were stolen goods as some have reported, the profit can be even greater. If there was unreported income I am sure that IRS will soon get involved in this case as well. The New York Times reported that the kosher suppliers stopped shipping to him because he owed them money. If this is the case he may have been into the loan sharks and may have been forced to do what he did by organized crime. I am sure that the Feds will look into this aspect of the case as well. In any case he has disappeared from his home in Monsey and is rumored to be somewhere out of state. Protective custody ? Perhaps.

                                           SOL ZELLER

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 12:39 AM

"... he may have been into the loan sharks and may have been forced to do what he did by organized crime."

...but we don't really know why he did it, only that he did it.

Sounds to me the "organized crime" bit is a convenient cover. It was obviously very organized but by ??? Basically there are many people involved.

Can't be our own!?

It must be organized crime!

Lets see what happens next. This is big news in the Jewish Community.

A group sacrifice (work and dishes) would serve the purpose of alleviating any 'group guilt' the community may be feeling (for whatever reason) and could also create a sense of unity.

If God wants you to blow torch your kitchen as a sacrifice, go for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:15 AM

I still find worrying the concepts that the observant who genuinely did not know that the chickens were not properly kosher committed any sin or that those who did not eat them ought to atone.

Certainly they committed no crime and have no obligations under civil law.

I also still find worrying rules that cannot be exposed to rational discussion.

Perhps if there are others who wish to discuss this train of thought they would go to Mick's other thread, the title of which is not wholly apt to these issues, but it will serve.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Grab
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 06:26 AM

Ebarnacle, that's the whole point. It's a test. And if you fall for the "It hasn't done me any harm, therefore it's not so bad" bit, then you've failed the test.

I disagree with you about sin and intent. If you could reasonably have seen it coming, then yes - that's a sin of omission. But if you've made a real effort to avoid it happening and it *still* happened despite all your preparations, then it's down to you to assess whether you could have done more to prevent it happening. If you think you could, then it's a sin for which you may feel some atonement is necessary. But if you think, honestly, that there wasn't any more you could have reasonably done, then I don't believe it can be considered a sin (and note the "honestly", because trying to fool yourself is itself a sin). That seems to be confirmed by Rabbi Sol saying, "Those individuals who have unwillingly and unknowingly eaten "Treif" as a result of being misled in this instance have not committed a sin."

I also disagree with that orthodox line on "it has to be hard for it to be good for you". As you said earlier, some of the Jewish rules are pure common-sense for an age without refrigeration, sterile conditions, good cooking equipment or any good way to clean things properly. I think there's an urgent need to differentiate between those kind of rules and the *moral* rules of "thou shalt not kill" and the like. That comes back to what I said on the other thread - if a religion fits exactly what you believe, then that's fine. But if a religion says "now you're one of us, you must do a lot of illogical things otherwise you can't stay as part of the gang", then it becomes a means of control rather than a means of praising God. On that, I agree with LH - refrigeration and all those other good things have made many of those non-moral rules irrelevant. For any religion to stay relevant, it needs to not only add new standards for moral conduct when new situations arise (eg. IVF treatment) but also be prepared to ditch old rules when it's clear they no longer apply. That's why there's such an urgent need to establish which rules are "core" moral rules that are inviolable, and which rules are "current situation" guidance for how to behave morally in the world as it currently exists. Leviticus is the classic example of rules created by Man for health and safety purposes, which are interesting from a historical perspective but utterly irrelevant to modern life.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Rabb J
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:33 AM

I wanted to add, that it is absolutely permitted to sell your China to a non jew on ebay or any other way. Just make sure it is a non jew.

The only thing you are not allowed to get benefit from is Milk-and-Meat products

Rabbi J

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Lady Hillary
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 12:08 PM

EBarnacle here.
The issue is differentiation. As mentioned above, cultural evolution does take place. It just takes place slowly. There is no question that it is easier to to take advantage of everything modern. If, however, you don't need to, there is no reason to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:03 PM

My point, John, was that people tend to let other people (either directly or in the form of an ancient book) do their thinking for them on a whole lot of issues. This suggests to me that they are suffering from a rather limited ability to think for themselves. If so, that's not so good.

Why do they do it? Probably because it never occurred to them that they had any real alternatives...or maybe it's just mental laziness. They DO have real alternatives at all times if they would just pick up their own mental reins, guide the horse, and think.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 04:06 PM

Yet you feel that you can think for them Little Hawk by posting your thoughts? Who are you to determine what path an individual should follow? You feel confident that you can determine that a person is "suffering from a limited ability to think for themselves" by a reading a few postings?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 05:34 PM

I think that those interested in the irrationality or otherwise of religion ought to go to Mick's Science vs religion thread or the debate about the reality of observations of chakras - where amazingly Amos asserts that they are real despite his hard-headedness here..

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 07:32 PM

I'm simply talking about philosophy, Ron, and raising questions. I'm thinking for myself. If you interpret that as a personal attack on other people, well...sorry...but I think you would have not have gotten along too well with Aristotle, Socrates, or any of the other great philosophers, because they too raised questions about anything people took for granted.

I'm interested in comparing beliefs. One can't really discuss them without comparing the differences, can one?