BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 09:07 AM

GUEST,an Orthodox Jewess,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

However, because of studies in a previous lifetime, I am relatively well-informed about Orthodox Judaism, but at a rather high and abstract and broad theoretical/theological level.

I ask my questions here because I more interested these days in what real individuals believe than I am interested in the beliefs of the "pros" like Maimonides.

Individual believers is where the rubber hits the road, where we see the instantiation in real life of the grand theological and conceptual structures of the great thinkers.

You answered the question extremely well but at the rather highly abstract level with which I am already familiar.

I know that the phenomenon of bad things happening to good people has been dealt with extensively in Judaism. I am familiar the various ways of dealing with the question in a variety of religious contexts.

I know this because at one point I was fascinated by and formally studied a variety of abstract conceptual structures of belief. These days I find the beliefs of actual human beings much more interesting.

If we were face to face I would politely but persistently press you as you cited your authorities until you either revealed your own opinion told me it was none of my damn business. At which point I would politely shut up and apologize for my impertinence

In light of your last post I expect no reply to this, but I certainly appreciate your efforts.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: robomatic
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 06:00 AM

Guest, Orthodox Jew'ess' presumably Hitler is already rotting so it should be 'may he continue to rot'.

FWIW if you continue posting I recommend that you get an identity here and password protect it. Anyone can log in as Guest. Furthermore, your use of the word 'Jewess' is archaic at best and is frequently a term used in racist forums, so if it is necessary to include the information that you are female, you are also free to choose some friendlier term: Kosheress, Hebrew Miss, Mrs Frum, Freeda, Lilith Light, Rachel Dread, etc.

I do like your writing, but your chosen moniker makes me 'spicious.

Robo, the unkosher.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Grab
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 05:11 AM

Thanks for that info, Orthodox Jewess. Good posts.

As you say, honest discussion strengthens rather than weakens a belief system. It'd be a shame if you didn't come back - not having much contact with Judaism, it's interesting for me to learn this stuff.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 04:08 AM

From discussion may come understanding even if not agreement.

Why make it sound as if posting here is a sin?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 02:04 AM

Guest, Orthodox Jewess -

I, for one, would encourage you to continue posting. I find your messages easy to read and informative.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,an Orthodox Jewess
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 01:18 AM

the previous "guest" post is mine. I forgot to identify myself!

By the way, I stand corrected on something I wrote previously.I recently found out that there are reputable Torah Authorities who posit that Talmudic law does differentiate between glazed China and earthenware, and the community affected has been advised to clarify this with their local Orthodox Rabbi. (It is a very large community full of hundreds of Orthodox congregations and practicing rabbis).

Although I'm sure I will be tempted, I do not intend to post again. Best of luck to all of you, and enjoy your website!!

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Sep 06 - 01:10 AM

Bill-You are absolutely correct! There is only One Power that controls nature, and the course of history.

I do not claim to know the specifics of why G-d allowed the devastating tsunami any more than I know why he allowed Hitler (may he rot), to succeed as far as he did. The ocean does not have free will. As was said by an unspecified "Guest" before, "There are a few principles in Judaism that say this: Megalgilim Zechus Al Yedei Zakai..." folks who have done their utmost to do good are used to be good messengers, to be harbingers of good tidings etc. Vice versa"

So too, "migalgilim chov al yedei chayav" Those who desire to practice evil, are more than happy to sign up, when G-d decides that we have to suffer. But they are held liable for that desire and the thrill they get, as well as the degree of effort they invest to cause pain.

When a community finds itself to have clearly "sinned" albeit unwittingly (eating the non-kosher meat), they are supposed to do honest soul searching, and rectify behaviors that may not be as clearly seen by others. I only brought up the tsunami to express that we are called upon to do soul searching even when we only hear about a catastrophe that has not affected us directly, or to people we know.
It is obvious to practicing Jews that the calamity of the Holocaust was and is the subject of serious introspection, and improvement in our actions. However, to tell that directly to those who experienced the horrors (they already know) is considered using the power of speech to hurt others, and is the epitome of arrogance. That was the reason for my cautious wording:
"Any person who went through the Holocaust is free to do an internal private reckoning, of why they may have been due any sort of suffering. However, when others suffer, the rest of us are only supposed to do our utmost to relieve their suffering." What I meant is we should not point fingers at them. I should have included the statement "As far as ourselves are concerned, in the wake of the Holocaust, the Jewish Community of the diaspora had, and still has much to weigh and consider regarding proper performance of Torah Law!"

We have sustained many tragedies throughout our history (e.g. The Spanish Inquisition) at the hands of many villains. We continue to recognize G-d's direction in these, and we are required to remember them, especially to effect changes in our behavior. This is in no way meant to depress us. We have specific, limited times during the year, that we are supposed to revisit such events, and consider their implications.

I encourage you, if you are genuinely interested in reasonable answers to your questions to follow my previous recommendation that you google the concept of punishment and reward, as well as suffering, according to traditional Torah Judaism. You will undoubtedly also encounter the concept of Free Will in relation to these topics.

Your inquiries are encouraged. Judaism is not based on mindlessness leaps of Faith. Sincere honest research should not be a challenge to true Judaism! It only strengthens it. Keep asking, until you are truly satisfied. If your approach is open-minded, you may be surprised by the "logic and reason" within. There are many serious Torah Scholars who would be happy to take the time to help you find answers to the questions that are posited by your G-d given mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 11:43 PM

Bill - You give me hope that Judaism is a living, growing religion, founded on inquiry. I would hope that Talmudic scholars of today realize this and that dogmatism doesn't destroy a perfectly reasonable approach to life.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 10:03 PM

Let me start by saying that I am Jewish---born to that faith. I mention that so as to state that I am certainly not a devout person and, frankly, like logic and reason better than organized religion.

That said, I can continue to comments above regarding Holocaust, Tsunamis, etc;   Like an ethnic comedian only one of the same ethnicity should make the jokes. I don't intend any humor here.

The writer above mentions "introspection" regarding a Tsunami and a "prvate reckoning regarding holocaust".   

I fail to see the difference.   A disaster has befallen people and the question to me is why, if you believe in this almighty being, do you feel we have to be introspective?   Seems to me that both are hohorrible occurences. One made my man. One made by nature. Either way a disaster of great proportions.

If you say that God (note I left out the inane - ) (why not say Jawah) punished people in a Tsunami then it would have to follow--logically---that He (note the capital letter) also endorsed Adolf. One cannot have it both ways.   

Nature is nature---and man is man---and is capable of terribly horrible acts---and also great ones.   If you truly believe in some great diety and say that diety gave one the power to think logically then the rest is on the individual. Courts ---these days with psychiatrists---not withstanding.   


Hope I covered most of the bases---and I do not even like baseball and that is the coin of reference these days.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Sorcha
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:30 PM

Also, take a look at the Talmud commentators, Mammonaides (sp???) in particular. Each of the Commentators had/has a different take on the Law.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,an Orthodox Jewess
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 07:50 PM

I came back here to see if anyone had read my post.
Regarding your questions, Russ:
The concept that bad things happen to good people is dealt with extensively in teachings of Judaism.
In this case, the previous guest explained that G-d has allowed many righteous people to sin unwittingly, and the proper personal response of one who was directly affected.
This is different than a holocaust, where innocent people suffer unspeakable horrors. Any person who went through the Holocaust is free to do an internal private reckoning, of why they may have been due any sort of suffering. However, when others suffer, the rest of us are only supposed to do our utmost to relieve their suffering.
The bottom line is that a situation that affects a community, does, and should require a broader form of internal reckoning.
All "disasters" are supposed to awaken us, from our complacency. Including disasters that happen to others. In reaction to the Tsunami along the Asian coast, many Rabbinic leaders called publicly for all Jews to introspect, and to improve their service to G-d. This means being far more careful to follow Torah laws that are between man and G-d (e.g. making blessings; eating kosher)as well as G-d's laws that are between man and his fellow man (e.g. honesty in business; not taking revenge).
Sometimes in fact, suffering is not a punishment, but rather a means toward a positive end. (analogical to a surgical procedure that saves a life.) Any suffering (not self inflicted) that a person experiences in this world wipes away countless "debts" that the soul may owe in the next world, which is eternal.
In addition, those righteous people who live on an entirely different plain than most of us, yearn to increase their closeness to the Creator. G-d may offer painful situations as a test for such people, so that they can in fact draw even closer in their unwavering faith, and continued adherence to the Torah, even in the most difficult of circumstances.
The bottom line is, we do not know. But we have plenty of food for thought, and inspiration for improvement.

For further questions, I recommend that you google the concept of punishment and reward, as well as suffering, according to traditional Torah Judaism.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 04:06 PM

GUEST,

Thanks for the feedback.

Each answer seems to lead to another question.

Does this reasoning also apply to the holocaust?

Are communal disasters in general always God's punishment?
Are only certain kinds of disasters God's punishment?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 02:40 PM

yup to the question about a community's virtue letting good things happen. There are a few principles in Judaism that say this: Megalgilim Zechus Al Yedei Zakai..." folks who have done their utmost to do good are used to be good messengers, to be harbingers of good tidings etc. Vice versa. Those who mess up, their punishment is sometimes that they are inadvertantly led to have harm come from them. There is another principle in play here: which is where you have your moral struggle, if you don't win that battle in private, oft times you end up losing in public. So, therefore, in this case, a Jew has multiple laws of how to keep Kosher. If, and it is possible, we were not careful enough to keep these with full intentions and wanting to keep the nitty-gritty (i.e. checking allour veggies for bugs, making blessings before and after eating, not eating out of boredom and on and on), then it could be that G-d brought about that we noticed a huge error in our eating habits in public. The concept is that anyone who "defames" which means disobeys G-d in private, while in the end be "outed" by having been found to have done a no-no in public. Therefore, the Monsey community is searching inwards, coming to terms with this huge public instance of thousands eating non-Kosher food and wondering what within ourselves, within our private homes, was the precedent for this.
Logical - who is to be judge of our minds. Where does logic end? What logic do folks share in common? Is my logic the same as Saddam Hussein's? Will the real logic stand up? When folks say that, they sometimes mean science. However, science is ever changing (take non-planet Pluto for one). Therefore, it cannot be the final arbiter. More often than not, as time goes on and science evolves, it just bolsters what Jews have done illogically for years. An example would be kashering utensils which some here have derided. If one is to learn the properties, chemistry, of dishes, heat, absorption, you would see that the very intricate laws of Halacha take all these science factors into play. Glass, for example is the most non-porous. Hence, glass is not fired up when Kashring, because most food will have not been able to have penetrated below the surface of the vessel.
I'll stick to Jewish law and wait until your science catches up.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:19 AM

"If you want me to somehow become totally inoffensive to everybody and never say anything that might somehow cause offence to someone here, there's only one way. I log off Mudcat permanently and never say anything again about anything on this forum."

I'm not trying to dictate what you should do, that is a call you need to make for yourself.

I have been pointing out how you are coming across. Your statements were not pointing toward the words "some" but came out more dictatorial toward all rules.

You are right, this is becoming repititious. As Bob Dylan once said to Joan Baez "It ain't me babe".

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 09:12 AM

Rabbi Sol,

This discussion continues to be fascinating.

Another request for information.

If the event under discussion is God's punishiment, is the converse true?

If good things happen to the community, are they God's reward for virtue on the part of the community?

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 03:25 AM

Nice to see a man and a woman agree so completely on something (grin).

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: GUEST,An orthodox Jew
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 02:43 AM

I chanced upon this thread because I was googling this story. I can see that there are some people here who have asked respectful questions, while others are only mocking. I am addressing the former:
Torah Judaism is the observance of Judaism, with all its laws, rules, and mindsets, as was given to the Jewish Nation by G-d at Sinai. This is far more than the 10 commandments! The Written Torah (5 books of Moses) is the BASIS for all the precepts of Judaism. It includes stories, laws, and history. The DETAILS of these laws, the relevance and ramification of the stories, and the deep significance of the history were taught to Moses Orally. In addition, Moses was taught the rules by which the written Torah may or may not be explained. Moses in turn taught this to the nation. We do not and can not properly understand the Torah or practice Judaism without the Oral law, known colloquially as the Talmud. For 2,000 years, the Oral Law was just that: Oral. Transmitted from father to son, from teacher to student. However, after dispersion of the Jews following the Roman conquest and destruction of our Holy Temple,(approximately 1,940 years ago)there was a serious concern that the oral law would be forgotten. Therefore it was written down, albeit cryptically. They presented most of the Oral Torah Law in conversation format between the sages of the time arguing the law between themselves using intense logic. Those who are uninformed, have sometimes concluded that the Rabbis made up the laws. This is far from the truth, as the laws were taught by G-d to Moses, who transmitted them according to the rules. The proper way to study this Truth was and is by analyzing with intense logic. Over the years, practical rulings were determined by reference to previous learning, going back all the way to Sinai. Reknowned scholars who had broad knowledge of all aspects of Torah and Talmud were able to apply these rulings to new situations (e.g. the lightbulb; corelle; chewing gum). They studied these inventions, their properties, and their mechanisms, to properly classify them so that proper Torah law could be applied (e.g. permissable use on the Shabbat; or the status of a non-kosher vessel; or the proper blessing to make on a food).
The consensus on China dishes has always been that they fall in the category of earthenware, despite the glaze, and therefore if they become non-kosher, this status can not be reversed.
There are, and have always been disagreements on some final decisions in Torah law. These are only relevant if they are between life-long scholars of equal stature, whose only purpose in determining the law is for the proper practice of Torah Law. Among Jews whose heritage has remained intact, the differences in actual practice between Jews of different cultural backrounds are remarkably few. Knowledge of these disputes, as well as logical analysis is integral to the study of Talmud by all Jews, regardless of their host society. Studying Talmud is studying Torah.
As far as a tragedy is concerned: Judaism considers 2 different levels of life: physical and spiritual. Kosher laws are in the realm of spiritual. For a Jew, eating non-kosher is considered seriously damaging to the soul. The proper preparation of animal meat is very detailed, and is considered a very serious matter. Yes it is a serious tragedy for a people so attuned to the health of their souls, to consider that they have ingested "spiritual poison".
Since, according to the Torah, non-Jews do not have this requirement, they will not sustain such damage. There is absolutely no harm to them from non-kosher food, and there is no reason for them to avoid dishes that have been used for such food. I hope this clarifies some of the issues that I read on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Sep 06 - 01:05 AM

Ron, I think you could find people in ANY religion who use their religion in a lazy, unthinking way, so as to narrow their minds...and other people in the same religion who use it in a very creative way that expands their minds. Agreed?

I am not attempting to condemn the religions themselves, holus-bolus, I am expressing a concern about the misuse of religions by some (perhaps many) of the people IN those religions.

Maybe you're finding offence in the things I say because you have already decided it must be there...and so you are looking for it. One does tend to find what one looks for...

Why assume that I am speaking about ALL the members of a religion when I say any of the things you quoted me saying? I am NOT speaking about ALL of them. I might be speaking about 20% of them...or 50%...or 10%...or 5%. I am speaking STRICTLY about the people whom I see not using their religion in an intelligent way...and ONLY about those people. Would you agree that there are some such people in any given religion?

If so, then we are on common ground.

If you want me to somehow become totally inoffensive to everybody and never say anything that might somehow cause offence to someone here, there's only one way. I log off Mudcat permanently and never say anything again about anything on this forum.

That would make Clinton Mammond happy. ;-) But I'm not going to do it. ;-) Not yet anyway. When I finally get totally, absolutely bored and fed up with this place, with people's defensiveness, hangups, hypersensitivity, and plain narrow-mindedness, then I'll log off, and seriously, that could happen anytime at this point.

As Bob Dylan said once to Joan Baez, I'm really getting "sick of all this repetition".

Subject: RE: BS: Monsey's (non) Kosher Chicken Crisis
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 11 Sep 06 - 10:30 PM

Show me wear you compared beliefs.    Was it when you said "People all over this world are mentally enslaved by their various mythologies" or "Why does anyone need an organized religion to have a relationship with God?" or "Probably because it never occurred to them that they had any real alternatives...or maybe it's just mental laziness."

That is not sharing, that is not philosophy. That is you trying to dictate your opinion without acknowledging theirs.

Don't hide behind philosophy. Aristotle and the rest raised questions, but they did not pontificate the answers.

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.