The Conscience of Kosher: Baby Moses, Bugs, and an Eight Dollar a Plate Wedding

(I have to apologize for my absence. I was away in New York and did not think to leave a note. As usual, my thoughts today are more impressionistic than objective.)

Thursday 11pm. Central Avenue, The Five Towns, New York.

My brother and I walked into a kosher shwarma shop filled with men and meat. There are Yeshiva students and Kollelman and several middle-aged fathers treating their middle-school sons.

A spit of Shwarma turns slowly, dripping fat and grease. A mist of vapor wafts from a vat of cholent, beef-chunks and bone jutting from the surface. Yet my eye is drawn to the cashier's counter where several hundred pigs-in-a-blanket rest tantalizingly on a large baking tray. In Hebrew--and to avoid aspersions to pork--the expression is Moshe b'Tayvah: 'Moses in his Basket.' And after my long and nearly food-less flight from Los Angeles, it was with great difficulty that I fought the urge to stretch forth my hand over the Nile and to adopt just one little Moses. But I remembered the Law engraved in stone: Thou Shall Not Steal.

Meanwhile, it was not a moment after this resolution had begun to chasten the growling protests of my stomach that I witnessed (to my horror and sickening jealousy) the hand of another stretch forth and snatch a piping hot Moses and pop the blanket (pastry crust, sausage and all) into a bearded mouth.

My brother turned to the Cashier: "Are they free?"


"No, 50 cents each."

Another customer spoke: "What if I just take one?"

The cashier, perhaps seeing the shadow of club and caveman in his customer's meat-crazed eyes, muttered. "Just make sure its only one."

But the flood-banks had been opened. Another hand darted in and kidnapped a Moses. My brother looked at me: "No wonder why they're 50 cents each."

I decided to buy two, one for each of us. I don't like having to overpay on account of others' indiscretions. But it seemed right to reward self-control with sausage.

Later, while waiting for a grilled chicken laffa at the pick-up counter, I observed another hand reach over the counter and sink into a large bowl of fries. I stared at this fellow, shocked by how a single individual can have so little respect for ownership, propriety, or even modern hygiene. He must have registered something of my horror. "Why are you looking at me as if I am crazy?" he asked. He had a point. In the city of the insane, the man who takes his medication is thought to be mad.

The following day, my brother and I went Jewish book hunting in Borough Park. My brother considers most of Brooklyn to be a giant mental hospital. I disagree. It's more like a mental hospital  inside of a prison that leases office space next to a sewage plant. But one shouldn't judge, a good many New Yorkers assume that Los Angeles has more rehab centers than Starbucks coffee shops and anyone who is unemployed can simply become an 'extra' on a movie set. After buying close to our weight in Jewish books, we head to a Borough Park bagel shop.

My brother ordered a falafel. But after the previous night, I didn't want to see anything fried ever again. I ordered a bagel as did the woman behind me, but she was attended to first. There are unwritten rules in certain New York food establishments: 1. There is no such thing as sequential service. The person who orders after you is just as likely to be served first, so too is the family of eight that walked in twenty minutes after you did.  2) There are no such things as lines. People call out what they want. If you try to make a line, people will cut.

Back to our story.

The Sandwich-Man asked the Woman: 'What kind of bagel?'

Woman: 'A white one.'

Sandwich-Man: 'Is this one white enough?'

Woman: 'Yeah, can you order me a cab?'

(I exchanged a look with my brother that says: 'Can you really order a cab in a bagel shop?' Well, yes, apparently.)

Sandwich-Man: 'What company?'
Woman: (muttered something)

Sandwich-Man snatched a hand-held phone and shoved it over the counter: 'Here.'

Later, my brother tells me that that was a very polite conversation. But back to our story.

Sandwich-Man to me: 'So what do you want on your bagel?'
Me: 'Do you have cream cheese?'
Sandwich-Man: 'Yeah, we got cream cheese.'
Me: 'Do you have lox?'
Sandwich-Man: 'Got that too. Anything else?'

I looked at the rather dead looking iceberg salad. "Do you check the lettuce for bugs?"

Sandwich-Man: 'Of course we check it for bugs.'

But the honest word of a Sandwich-Man is not enough in Borough Park, so the owner of the store rambled over.  "Four rabbis check it for bugs--an Ashkenazi, a Sephardi, a Hasidic rabbi and the Mashgiach."

The owner sports a smart salt-and-pepper beard, a dark velvet skullcap, and a buttoned white shirt with several smudges. The twinkle in his eye assures me that even he thinks four lettuce-checkers is a little absurd.

"I am sure they did," I say, "but who checks the rabbis?"

On Sunday, I attended a very special wedding of two very special people in Riverdale, NY. Now, as both bride and groom are vegetarians it was no surprise that the food was dairy. What was a surprise were the baskets laid out in the lobby, asking guests to donate to one (or more) of three causes: 1) An organization that feeds hungry children, 2) a wedding fund for poor brides and grooms, and 3) a social justice organization.

After the ceremony, a very modest meal was set-up breakfast buffet style. (The highlight for me were the French toast and pancakes.) The message was obvious. There are other worthy places to invest money. It is not necessary to have endless trays of sushi and sashimi, speared roast beef and of course, piles and piles of pigs-in-a-blanket.

Who is a Rabbi? Who is a Jew? Round III

For “Who is Rabbi? Who is Jew? Round III” I thought I would translate and present a short responsum of Rav Moshe Feinstein.  (For those who wish to read the previously posted Reform and Conservative responsa on conversion, see Round I and Round II .)

A bit of background. In 1956, Rav Moshe became famous for his Teshuva rejecting the halachic validity of Reform weddings. The decision was motivated by a desire to permit children of 2^nd marriages born within the Reform movement to marry other Jews (Orthodox or otherwise). The Reform movement had dispensed with the obligation of giving a traditional get at the time of divorce—this created the possibility of their being mamzerim—who would be prohibited from marrying nearly every sort of Jew. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks writes quite a bit about this in his book, “One People?”, concluding that the ends justified the means. (See pages 188-194)

Within Orthodox circles, Rav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin objected to this decision on halachic grounds. Within Reform circles, the decision was look upon (as it was) as the de-legitimization of their movement. To their credit, the Reform movement for a long time now has insisted that women married under Orthodox auspices receive a proper Orthodox get if they wish to remarry using a Reform rabbi . This decision was upheld in a heart-rending case of an agunah: See this 1946 Responsa  as well as in this more recent case involving the question of supporting a citywide religious ban against a man who refused to give his wife a get: Responsa.

In any event, the Teshuva I would like to look at continues our previous theme of boundary crossing. This time the issue surrounds the status of a converted Reform family who seem poised to embrace the Orthodox lifestyle. The Responsa is dated “The Eve of the 9^th of Av, 5720” (August 1^st, 1960). (Found in Igroth Moshe: Yoreh Deah III.105) As Rav Moshe disqualified Reform weddings, so too he disqualified Reform conversions. But observe well dear reader, for here there is an interesting twist.  

The Query: “A woman had a Reform conversion and afterward gave birth to a son. As he was assumed to be a ‘son of Israel’, they circumcised him accordingly (like any other Jewish male.) Now, they have drawn close to Hashem and his Torah. The mother has agreed to immerse her son in a mikvah, but she is unwilling to allow her son to undergo hataphat dam brit—as the boy is weak. Moreover, this boy stands to become a Bar Mitzvah in the coming days…”   [What should we do?]

Response: “In an ideal halachic situation (L’chatchila), one ought to require hataphat dam brit. Nevertheless, in a time of great need like this, one can support the forgoing of the requirement since he was originally circumcised for the sake of Judaism. The case resembles one found in the Talmud Yavamot 45b…”

As Rav Moshe Feinstein simply gives citations, I shall try to explain it in full. The Talmud presents the following case: ‘The servant of Rabbi Chiya bar Ami had a certain idolatress immerse in a mikvah so that he could marry her.’  As this immersion was done for the sake of Niddah, the question arose: Would this immersion count for conversion? The Talmud concludes that it works and both the woman and the daughter (conceived from the union) are to be considered Jewish.  It would seem then that intent to observe the ritual of immersion for Niddah speaks loud enough for the woman’s desire to become Jewish. (Rashi)

(Tangentially, the Gemora does not mention if this woman had previously accepted the mitzvoth before Beit Din. Tosafoth and Tosafoth Chad Mikamei assume as much.)

But here is the critical point. In an explanation brought down by Tosafoth, the issue of concern is not so much that the woman immersed for the sake of Niddah and not conversion—as explained above, her intent to become Jewish was clearly manifest by her actions—rather the issue is that the immersion was done without the knowledge or presence of a Beit Din. The answer offered is that since her immersion was publicly known—which is seemingly why the Beit Din must be present for immersion in the first place—the immersion counts for conversion. (Tosafoth: “Mi  Lo Tavlah L’Niduthah”)

Now back to Rav Moshe: “…if there were three kosher witnesses [=Beit Din] for the original circumcision, it would certainly be good. But if not, one can rely on the fact that the circumcision was publicly known. This accords with the view brought down in Tosafat [above] Mi  Lo Tavlah L’Niduthah…”

The end of the Teshuva is utterly prescient of the woe that has fallen upon the converts of today. Even though Rav Moshe must have been confident of his decision, he predicts that the absence of hataphat dam brit may lead another rabbi to claim that the boy’s Jewish status is in error.  Rav Moshe writes therefore that the mother ought to be made aware of this possibility down the road. Not unlike the tact later evinced by Rabbi Novak, Rav Moshe suggests that this be done quietly and one ought to be careful to use the term “incomplete” instead of “illegitimate” when describing the conversion.

For those who wish, the Teshuva is pasted in Hebrew below: 

שו"ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק ג סימן קה

 בדבר תינוק נכרי שנימול בחזקת שהוא יהודי אם צריך הטפת דם ברית ערב ת"ב תש"כ לכבוד הרב נחמן מאיר בערנהארד שליט"א

בדבר אשה שנתגיירה בגירות ריפורמית, ואח"כ הולידה בן, והוחזק כבן ישראל ומלו אותו כאילו הוא בן ישראל ועכשיו נעשו קרובים לשם ולתורתו, והאם מסכימה שיטבול בנה, אבל לא רוצה להניח שיטיפו דם ברית מבנה, מאחר שהוא ילד חלש, והילד עומד להיות בר מצוה בעוד כמה ימים, הנה אף שלכתחלה צריך הטפת דם ברית, מ"מ בשעת הדחק גדול כזה, יש לסמוך שלא להצריך הטפת דם ברית, באשר שמלו אותו לשם יהדות כהא דמי לא טבלה לנידותה (יבמות מ"ה ע"ב) ואם היו ג' כשרים בשעת המילה, ודאי טוב, ואם לא, הא יש לסמוך על פרסום שהולכין למול, כסברת הי"מ בתוס' ד"ה מי לא טבלה בפרט שעצם הטפת דם ברית הוא ספק

ומה שכת"ר אינו רוצה לגלות להם מה באמת הספק לא טוב כי אח"ז רב יוכל לטעון שהיה בטעות לכן צריך לומר להם שלא היתה גרות גמורה ויכול לומר להם בחשאי שלא בפרסום 

גם את האם מכיון שמחזיקים אותה לגיורת גמורה יש לדבר אליה שתטבול כדין 

ידידו, משה פיינשטיין 

Who is a Rabbi? Who is a Jew? Round II

In yesterday's blog, I posted a Reform Teshuva that sought to determine the Jewish status of an individual who underwent a 'Secular Humanist Jewish' conversion before endeavoring to join a Reform congregation. Along these lines, I thought it would be interesting to present a comparable excerpt from a Conservative Teshuva that is too occupied with issues of Jewish identity.
The fascinating responsum, "The Status of Non-Halachic Conversions" was authored by Rabbi David Novak and adopted by majority vote of the Law Committee in 1982. I should mention that there were several "postscripts" to this Responsum, containing concurrence and dissent.  Thus it would be unwise to base a general statement solely on this Teshuva such as: "Conservative policy on Reform conversion is X..."

Here is the Query:  "She’elah: The Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly has been asked on several occasions about the status of persons converted to Judaism in a non-halakhic manner, that is, men who did not undergo milah and/or tevilah and women who did not undergo tevilah. This question has assumed rather dramatic proportions in recent times due to the attempt in the State of Israel to amend the “Law of Return” (Hok Heshevut) so that only those who have undergone halakhic conversions (giyyur kehalachah) are entitled to automatic Israeli citizenship. Also, in America the whole issue of pluralistic Jewish community, which most Conservative Jews recognize as both a fact and a desideratum, raises the question of the status of numerous persons who consider themselves bona fide members of the Jewish community and are considered as such by others, yet who did not undergo the prescribed procedure for conversion. The question therefore calls for renewed attention."

Fascinating as it is, we shall skip to the resounding end:

"Conclusion: I find no cogent basis in halakhah for accepting even ex post facto, converts who did not undergo specific tevilah for the sake of conversion, unless it can be shown that they are strictly observant Jews, particularly scrupulous in the use of a mikvah. The fact that they may have been taken to be Jews by themselves or by others does not change the need for tevilah for the sake of conversion. The fact that most of these conversions have been conducted under Reform auspices makes the matter especially difficult because of the cordial relationships which exist between Conservative and Reform rabbis and lay people. Nevertheless, this halakhic requirement is not meant as a public rebuff to the Reform movement. If a Reform rabbi conducts giyyur kehalakhah, I accept his converts as bona fide Jews. I might also add that I do not accept converts of non-Reform rabbis if the conversion was not conducted according to objective halakhic criteria. These objective halakhic criteria, which alone protect the purity of Jewish identity, should not be compromised in the interests of an ultimately meaningless Jewish unity. However, rabbinical experience has taught me that a Conservative rabbi can exercise compassionate tact in urging proper tevilah in these cases.  I do not tell such converts that their conversions invalid, but rather, that they were incomplete, for even the most liberal conversion involves study, thus minimally fulfilling hoda’at mitvot. I tell them that they inadvertently overlooked an important specific. At the tevilah I ask them to reconfirm their kabbalat ol malchut shamayim and converts have thanked me for helping them to legally assure their unambiguous Jewish identity. […]"

We shall see tomorrow if an Orthodox Teshuva is as tactful. I'll save you a seat for Round III...

Who is a Rabbi? Who is a Jew? Round I

In the last 5-6 years, there has been a great deal of internal debate within Orthodox circles over just which Orthodox rabbis should and should not be able to perform conversions.  Orthodoxy’s near ubiquitous dismissal of non-Orthodox’s converts has been going on for half a century or more, so that’s nothing new, whatever one’s feelings on the matter.  Yet there is a grim irony in the idea of Orthodox rabbis who have dismissed non-Orthodox conversions as illegitimate now finding their own conversions called into question. Call it “measure for measure,” or, “what goes around comes around,” or, to riff a fancy phrase, “the karma of exclusion has run over the dogma of exclusiveness.” Many of us Orthodox have come to know the feeling of being ‘rendered out-of-bounds.’

Over the weekend, I had an opportunity to rehash these thoughts, but they were prompted by an unusual source, a Reform Responsum, titled “Who Is a Rabbi?” (CCAR 5759.3).   Though the actors were different, the plot was very much the same. Here is the query:

“She'elah A new congregation has been formed in my city, founded by a woman who has attended the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism (IISHJ), the rabbinical school of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. She serves as the congregation's rabbi, even though she has yet to be ordained by that school. She has been licensed by the state to perform weddings, and also does conversions. Should we accept these conversions as valid, even though they were supervised by someone other than an ordained rabbi? In general, what is our position with respect to individuals who have received private ordination or who claim to possess ordination from seminaries, schools or yeshivot with which we are unfamiliar? Do we recognize them as rabbis? Do we accept them as colleagues in our communities?”

I shall not paste the entire Teshuva below. But I will tell you the final score: 1-1. The convert was accepted, even  though the greater portion of cited legal sources and various arguments seemed to lead the reader the other way! The "rabbi" though, was not so lucky. Here is the final paragraph:

“To summarize: not everyone who may be called "rabbi" is necessarily deserving of that distinction. Your community is under no obligation to recognize the rabbinical credentials of those individuals who have received "ordination" privately or from lowly-regarded institutions. The rabbis in your city are similarly under no obligation to accept these persons as colleagues and as members of your local rabbinical association. You should, of course, act towards them with grace, cordiality and tact, with all due concern for communal unity, in the spirit of a tradition that calls upon us to follow "the paths of peace." Yet the ultimate message is clear: if we as rabbis truly care about the quality and the reputation of our calling, it is our duty to advocate that membership in the rabbinate be restricted to those who clearly meet the proper educational standards.”

Justified, yes. Sensible, certainly. But I feel the sting.

(To read the Teshuva in its entirety, click here: Who Is a Rabbi?)