Arts & Culture
Kosher in the Big Easy
By Mia-Rut / February 23, 2009
Not too long ago, I was in New Orleans on a three-day work conference. Having never been to the Crescent City before, I decided to seek out many of the city’s culinary delights. But after I had tucked into a bucket of boiled shellfish, enjoyed a platter of jambalaya, étouffée, and maque choux, at Mother’s Restaurant (World’s Best Baked Ham), slurped down a fried oyster po’boy and munched on a muffuletta – I was acutely aware that the only kosher thing I had enjoyed during my brief stay was a bucket-sized plastic cup of beer.
So, what could be kosher in New Orleans a city famed for its Creole cooking – a cuisine dependent on many non-kosher foods? According to one kosher-keeping Tulane alumni, and a couple of rabbinical students, it is tough to keep kosher outside of one’s home in NOLA. Before Hurricane Katrina ravaged the city there had been several vegetarian restaurants and the Creole Kosher Kitchen in the French Quarter – although to date none have reopened. Possibly the only kosher restaurant left in town is Casablanca and the Kosher Cajun Deli located in the suburb of Metarie. Café du Monde, the French market cafe famed for its beignets (fired dough doused in powdered sugar) and chicory coffee received its kashrut certification in time for Chanukah this past year. But are there any traditional New Orleans dishes that are kosher? One traditional dish NOLA revelers are treated to during the Mardi Gras season (Fat Tuesday can fall on any Tuesday between February 3 and March 9) is the King Cake. Twelfth Night Cake also known as King Cake is a braided yeast cake smothered in brightly colored royal gaze and sprinkles. A bean, coin or even a glass figurine is baked into the cake (this token represents Baby Jesus) and whoever finds the token in their slice of cake is crowned the “King” and is obligated to make the cake next year.
Mardi Gras is the celebration whereas Christians clean their kitchens of things that would be forbidden during the following 40 days of Lent – like a more debacherous Biur Chametz. This celebration manifests in various ways around the world – from the classy masked balls in Venice to the near-naked debauchery in Rio – New Orleans’s traditional Creole-influenced Mardi Gras celebrations involve weeks of parades kicked off with the Krewe du Jieux and the Krewe de Mishigas.
So, looking at recipes of King Cake, it sounds a lot like challah (except obviously for the Baby Jesus part) as challot are sometimes covered in sprinkles or baked with chocolate chips. I’m told there is a similar practice (at least in part) once a year when some Jews place or imprint their house key into the Schlissel challah.
But what else do people enjoy in the Big Easy? Anyone else know any other good kosher Creole dishes?
Cross-posted from the Jew and the CarrotÂ
POST A COMMENT
And while on the subject of Rabbi Lichtenstein, let me relate what his co-rosh yeshiva, Rabbi Yehuda Amital, says, just because the words are so beautiful, and I’m sure they will be appreciated, even if they have nothing to do with food.
Professor Marc B. Shapiro, at http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2008/8/29/Responses-to-Comments-and-Elaborations-of-Previous-Posts-III, notes:
Rabbi Amital, in Commitment and Complexity: Jewish Wisdom in an Age of Upheaval, p. 48, says:
We
live in an era in which educated religious circles like to emphasize
the centrality of Halakha, and commitment to it, in Judaism. I can say
that in my youth in pre-Holocaust Hungary, I didn’t hear people talking
all the time about "Halakha." People conducted themselves In the
tradition of their forefathers, and where any halakhic problems arose,
they consulted a rabbi. Reliance on Halakha and unconditional
commitment to it mean, for many people, a stable anchor whose purpose
is to maintain the purity of Judaism, even within the modern world. To
my mind, this excessive emphasis of Halakha has exacted a high cost.
The impression created is that there is nothing in Torah but that which
exists in Halakha, and that in any confrontation with the new problems
that arise in modern society, answers should be sought exclusively in
books of Halakha. Many of the fundamental values of the Torah which are
based on the general commandments of "You shall be holy" (Vayikra 19:2)
and "You shall do what is upright and good in the eyes of God" (Devarim
6:18), which were not given formal, operative formulation, have not
only lost some of their status, but they have also lost their validity
in the eyes of a public that regards itself as committed to Halakha.
Professor Shapiro continues: "In his opposition to halakho-centrism, Amital finds a kindred spirit in R. Moses Samuel Glasner and cites the latter with regard to the following case. What should someone do if he has no food to eat, except non-kosher meat and human flesh. From a purely halakhic standpoint, eating non-kosher meat, which is a violation of a negative commandment, is worse than cannibalism. The latter is at most a violation of a positive commandment (Maimonides) or a rabbinic commandment according to others. Yet Glasner sees it as obvious that one should not eat the human flesh, even though this is what the "pure" halakhah would require, for there are larger values at stake and the technical halakhah is not the be-all and end-all of Torah.
Glasner writes as follows in his introduction to Dor Revi’i:
?? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??????, ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? . . . ???? ???? ??, ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ???? ??? ????, ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??"? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????, ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??????, ??? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ????, ????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????!
[My (Mikewinddale's) own quicke loose translation: "Everything that is accepted in the eyes of mankind, [specifically those] enlightened to abomination, even that not explicit/expressed in the Torah as prohibited – whoever transgresses it is worse than he who violates a decree of the Torah… Take, for instance, a sick individual in danger, before him unkosher meat and human flesh, which meat shall he consume? We may suppose that he may eat human flesh since there is no prohibition of of doing so, even though from the laws of propriety accepted by mankind, anyone who eats or feeds another human flesh is dismissed from inclusion in mankind; and [rather, we will] not [say for him] to eat the [unkosher] flesh which the Torah has prohibited. [But if we follow such a course,] Will one believe that we are the Chosen People, the Wise and Understanding Nation, and yet transgress the law of propriety such as this, to escape from the Torah prohibition [of unkosher meat]?!"
In other words, the Torah has an overarching ethos (Natural Law?) which is not expressed in any specific legal text, and this can sometimes trump explicit prohibitions.
In attempting to explain why there is no explicit prohibition against cannibalism in the Torah, R. Kook expresses a similar concept (Otzarot ha-Re’iyah [2002], vol. 2, p. 89):
?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???.
[My (i.e. Mikewinddale's) own quickie loose translation: "The Torah did not need to make an explicit prohibition, because a man does not need a warning to stay from that which is natural acquired to him by natural inclination."]
[Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov] Weinberg speaks of cannibalism as being against "the will of the Torah," even though not explicitly forbidden.
————-
See also Professor Shapiro at http://seforim.traditiononline.org/index.cfm/2009/1/28/Marc-B-Shapiro-Thoughts-on-Confrontation–Sundry-Matters-Part-
There, he says:
As to the general problem of laws that trouble the ethical sense of people, we find that it is R. Kook who takes the bull by the horns and suggests a radical approach. The issue was much more vexing for R. Kook than for other sages, as in these types of matters he could not simply tell people that their consciences were leading them astray and that they should submerge their inherent feelings of right and wrong. It is R. Kook, after all, who famously says that fear of heaven cannot push aside one’s natural morality (Shemonah Kevatzim 1:75):
???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????, ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ???? ????? ???, ??????? ?????, ????? ???? ???? ?? ????, ???? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???????. ??? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????, ???? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ???, ??????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ????, ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????.
[For translation, see below, "Worlds Destroyed, Worlds Rebuilt", below the next dotted line.]
These are incredible words. R. Kook was also "confident that if a particular moral intuition reflecting the divine will achieves widespread popularity, it will no doubt enable the halakhic authorities to find genuine textual basis for their new understanding."(Tamar Ross, Expanding the Palace of Torah (Waltham, 2004), p. 292 n. 38.) R. Kook formulates his idea as follows (Iggerot ha-Reiyah, vol. 1, p. 103):
??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??????, ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???, ?? ?? ???? ?"? ?"? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?"? ????? ?????? ???? ????, ???? ???? ?"? ???? ?????
[My own translation: If a question arises on some particular Torah law, that according to some ethical notion, [the Torah law] will need to be understand in another manner [than it traditionally has been], then, if indeed the Sanhedrin will decide that this law was stated only in conditions of the past which are no longer, then surely a source [for this ethical notion, which motivated a new understanding of the Torah law] has been found in the Torah.]
R. Kook is not speaking about apologetics here, but a revealing of Torah truth that was previously hidden. The truth is latent, and with the development of moral ideas, which is driven by God, the new insight in the Torah becomes apparent. In a volume of R. Kook’s writings that appeared in 2008, he elaborates on the role of natural morality) Kevatzim mi-Ketav Yad Kodsho, vol. 2, p. 121 [4:16]):
??????? ????? ????? ?????, ????? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????, ?????? ???????? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????. ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????.
[My own translation: When the natural moral instinct strengthens in the world, in any form that it will be, every person is obligated to incorporate this into himself from its source, namely from its revelation in the world, and its details will be explicated by the Torah, and then the pure morality will come into his hands, pure and refined.]
Later, Professor Shapiro brings Rabbi Norman Lamm, who "develops the notion of a developing halakhic morality in which our evolving understanding of morality lead us back to the Torah "to rediscover what was always there in the inner folds of the Biblical texts and halakhic traditions"".
————-
See also "Worlds Destroyed, Worlds Rebuilt: The Religious Thought of Rabbi Yehudah Amital" by Rabbi Dr. Alan Brill, http://www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/BRILL_5_2.pdf. There, at the bottom of page 4, Rabbi Brill quotes Rav Kook, being followed by Rabbi Amital:
[This text is the one that I promised a translation of earlier.]
It is forbidden for fear of Heaven to push aside one’s natural morality, for then it would no longer be pure fear of Heaven. The sign [by which one can recognize] pure fear of Heaven is when the natural morality which is rooted in man’s honest nature ascends by means of [the fear of Heaven] to higher levels than it would have attained without it.
But if there should be a fear of Heaven, such that without its influence, life would tend to function better, and would actualize things beneficial to the individual and society, whereas with its influence that actualizing power would diminish–such a fear of Heaven is invalid. (Orot ha-Qodesh, Vol. III, p. 27, cited at But the Earth, p. 30. Compare “Morality in its natural state, with all its profound splendor and might, must be fixed in the soul, so that it may serve as a substratum for the great effects emanating from the strength of Torah.” (Orot ha-Torah, 12 2-3).)
[Rabbi Brill continues] From this natural morality, R. Amital also approvingly cites R. Samson Raphael Hirsch’s universalism to show that Judaism by definition consists of morality, “humanity and justice and all the spiritual and moral assets of man received their eternal confirmation through this divine echo in the hearts of man..” (Hirsch, Genesis 18 cited on But the Earth p 34. Compare a similar approach in Walter Wurzburger, “Samson Raphael Hirsch’s Doctrine of Inner Revelation” Fox IV (1989) 3-11.)
Someone once told me that people in the south will ask a Jew how he eats vegetables. When he replies, "Errr…with a fork?", the southerner will reply incredulously, "But the lard…pig’s fat…??!!". And the Jew will finally realize that to the southerner, "vegetables" cooked in anything else is a misnomer.
And a rabbi of mine related a story of a student of his in the south: this student was at the baseball stadium, when a little old lady came up to him and asked, in a tone that only a little old lady could get away with, "’Ey boy, what dem strings handing out yo’ pants?". Quick wittedly, he replied, "Numbers 15!". She furrowed her eyebrows for a moment, and pointedly asked, "Ain’t there sposed to be sum blue in there?"
And while I’m relating stories from my rabbis, another one I’m reminded of: one of my rabbis, this one Australian, had a student learning in university in Australia. This student related that in English class, his professor one day remarked about an article by a Professor Aharon Lichtenstein, a renowned expert in Milton. However, sighed this professor, Professor Lichtenstein had seemingly disappeared years ago, and no more articles on Milton had appeared. My rabbi’s student called out, "Oh, Rabbi Lichtenstein! He’s the head of a Jewish sect in the Judean desert!" (I can only imagine the English professor conjured images of a professor of Milton abandoning all wordly possessions and ensconcing himself at Qumran. However, what the student had in mind is that Rabbi Professor Aharon Lichtenstein is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Etzion, in Gush Etzion, Israel.)
And speaking of Rabbi Lichtenstein: my same Australian rabbi related that one his other students was completing her PhD in English, when she asked my rabbi (the Australian) whether she may read her English literature on Shabbat. So, my rabbi turned to one of his rabbis, Rabbi Shlomo Aviner. Rabbi Aviner replied to the effect that, "English literature? What’s she studying that stuff for? Forget Shabbat, she shouldn’t study it all!" My rabbi realized that this answer wouldn’t be helpful to his student, so he turned again, this time to Rabbi Lichtenstein. Rabbi Lichtenstein replied, "There’re two kinds of English literature: there’s shtiut [nonsense], and there’s real mamash [really truly] hochmat goyim [wisdom of the non-Jews]. The latter she may study on Shabbat. But really, Shabbat is a day for spiritual upliftment and Torah, and ideally, she shouldn’t study her English literature on Shabbat." This student was so impressed with Rabbi Lichtenstein’s response, that she indeed decided not to study her literature on Shabbat.
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!