Religion & Beliefs
The Heretic: Kosher Food Fighting is a Weapon in the Settler’s War Against Peace
By Shmarya Rosenberg / August 21, 2008
Did you know that the little kosher symbol on your food may have a geopolitical, rather than strictly religious, purpose – especially if you live in Israel? Some Orthodox rabbis in the Holy Land use that symbol to reduce the number of Palestinians working in Israel. Here’s how it works:
Jewish law requires that many foods be cooked by Jews. This means that even if the ingredients are fully kosher and the food was prepared in a kosher kitchen under the watchful eye of an Orthodox Jew, if a non-Jew did the cooking, Jews are not supposed to eat that food. Of course, if you’ve eaten a kosher restaurant lately, you probably noticed non-Jews working there. You may also have noticed that many of those non-Jewish workers seem to be directly involved in food preparation. That’s because Jewish law has provisions in place to circumvent the ban. And herein lies the story. Before the 16th century publication of the Shulkhan Arukh, the standard code still in use today, Jewish law was hodgepodge that varied much from place to place. While the biblical and Talmudic laws were constant, rabbinic laws, edicts, and interpretations were not. But the upheaval caused by the expulsion from Spain and the resulting Inquisition created a situation where Jews, all refugees from different towns and countries, now lived side by side as refugees. This meant Jews living in adjoining houses were each following, in effect, different laws. Rabbi Yosef Karo, an exile from Spain who settled in Tzefat, now in northern Israel, sought to rectify this situation by standardizing and codifying Jewish law. It almost worked. Karo relied on three major early legal works, the Rif, the Rosh, and Mishne Torah of Maimonides. The Rif was written in North Africa, and reflects the customs of prevalent there. The Rosh is representative of Ashkenazim, German Jewry, and its outgrowths. The Mishne Torah, although written in Egypt, reflects the traditions of Maimonides’ Spanish homeland. In effect, what Karo did is place the traditions of the three major Jewish communities extant at that time in front of him and decide the law based on the majority. So, for example, if Spain and Germany said "permitted," and North Africa said "prohibited," the majority won. For the most part, Sefardi and North African Jewish communities accepted Karo’s code. Eastern European Jewry did not. Rabbi Moshe Isserles, a leading Polish rabbi and contemporary of Karo known as the Rama, thought Karo had shorted Ashkenazi traditions. He wrote a commentary to Karo’s work, pointing out every case where current Ashkenazi practice differed from Karo’s decision. From the late 16th century onward, Karo’s Shulkhan Arukh has been printed with Isserles’ commentary interwoven in its text. Karo’s attempt at unity failed.
So, what does all of this have to do with our restaurant problem? Karo’s code calls for a Jew to start the fire used for cooking. Without this involvement, most foods cooked by non-Jews are forbidden for Jews to eat. Isserles allows a Jew to do a minor symbolic action – adding kindling to an existing fire, for example. In his view, this permits the food. In Israel today, Isserles’ view on this issue determines the law for restaurants and food producers that carry the Jerusalem Rabbinate’s basic kosher supervision. In practice, this means a rabbinic supervisor can visit most restaurants in the morning, light the oven’s pilot lights, and leave. The restaurants' non-Jewish cooks – generally Palestinians – cook without his direct supervision for most of the day, while the rabbinic supervisor spot checks the restaurants periodically. Karo’s stricter view is followed by restaurants and food producers carrying the Jerusalem Rabbinate’s mehadrin, “choice,” supervision. These restaurants tend to have a rabbinic supervisor on premises at all times, as well. But now a group of settler rabbis, overwhelmingly Ashkenazim of eastern European origin, are challenging the Jerusalem Rabbinate’s reliance on Isserles, the Ashkenazi codifier. Why? Because forcing the Jerusalem Rabbinate to follow the stricter Sefardi view would force many restaurants to hire more Jews and, more importantly for these settler rabbis, to fire Arabs.
Kosharot, supposedly meant to be a kosher industry watchdog, leaked a report smearing dozens of Jerusalem eateries. The charges range from lax supervision to allowing Arabs to place uncooked food on the fire. Meanwhile, the Jerusalem Rabbinate, itself under ultra-Orthodox control, blasted Kosharot’s report, pointing out significant errors of both fact and law. Rabbi Benny Lau, a leader of moderate Orthodox rabbis, investigated Kosharot’s charges and refuted them. He wrote, "There is a real concern that Kosharot's interests are not restricted solely to Halacha and kashrut. Rather, for them it is no less important to reduce the number of non-Jews working in Israel.” But this is far from the first time kosher food law has been misused for a non-food-related purpose. Perhaps the earliest account on record goes back to the dawn of Rabbinic Judaism itself, approximately forty years before the destruction of the Second Temple.
The schools of Hillel and Shammai, the two competing camps that made up Rabbinic Judaism in the 1st century, disagreed about many aspects of Jewish law. One of those aspects was Judaism’s treatment of non-Jews. Shammai’s school waned gentiles kept as far away from Jews as possible. It viewed gentiles as a corrupting influence, and contact with them, in Shammai’s view, posed an unacceptable risk of intermarriage. Shammai’s school tried to pass legislation banning contact with gentiles and enhancing the spiritual “cleanliness” of Jews. Hillel’s school opposed this. Shammai’s followers did not have the votes to win – so they went dirty. The Jerusalem Talmud (Shabbat 1:4) describes what happened. The sages were meeting at the home of a prominent supporter, on the roof deck of his house. Beit Shammai came armed, murdered several members of Hillel’s school, and blocked the exits from the roof. Hillel’s remaining followers were held at spear-point until they cast votes for Shammai’s anti-gentile legislation. The 18 gezerot (decrees) proposed by Shammai’s school were then passed into law. The Jerusalem Talmud calls this day the “blackest day” to befall the Jewish people since the destruction of the Temple. Most of those 18 gezerot are in force to this day, including bans on gentile-baked bread and gentile-produced wine. The theory was, if you can’t eat a gentile’s bread or drink his wine, you can’t eat in his home. If you can’t eat in his home, you can’t socialize with him. And, if you can’t socialize with him, you probably won’t marry him. The law forbidding food cooked by non-Jews is a derivative of those laws. What Israel’s settler rabbis are doing isn’t that different from what Shammai’s followers did. What they could never gain legitimately they seek to gain through fraud and deceit. A flip side to this is B’maaglei Tzedek, a moderate Orthodox justice organization that certifies restaurants treat their employees fairly. About one third of Jerusalem restaurants now carry this certification alongside kosher supervision from the Jerusalem Rabbinate.
While Rabbinic Judaism claims to be following the traditions of Hillel’s school, the truth is far more complex. Rabbinic Judaism is a blend of both Hillel and Shammai’s outlook. In most ritual matters, we follow Hillel. But, in matters relating to contact with gentiles, Shammai’s view – the more radical and restrictive – still prevails. Fanatics see the world in black and white, and their law reflects that. Moderates understand that nuance exists and that there is room for compromise. The fanatic position is easier to sell – think right wing talk radio – because moderation requires living with complexity and the uncertainty that always shadows it. Although the Academy was dominated by Hillel’s moderates, the populace was solidly in Shammai’s corner and would remain so until the Second Temple was destroyed. Indeed, it is thought that many of the zealots who helped cause the destruction were children of Shammai’s followers.
Just like in ancient times, there are two polarizing forces in Rabbinic Judaism. One is ever more radical, restrictive and exclusionary; the other, moderate.
Have the lessons of the past been learned? Only time will tell.
POST A COMMENT
I'd like to take a moment to note that some of the people here pretending to, uh, not be the same people as each other.. Actually are the same people. If that makes sense.
Anyway. As a warning, that's "sock puppeting." I've updated our Comments Policy to indicate that if you "sock puppet" and post under different anonymous names for the purpose of making yourself seem like more than one person, you'll get in trouble.
Here's some people who were doing that:
One guy posted all these:
Anonymous: I think Shmarya Is
Anonymous: What exactly is the nature
Rev Yirmiyahu Right: The world according to.
Anonymous: cant shmarya speak for
Rev Yirmiyahu Right: Shmarya has already made
Shmatta Rosenberg: OK, you twisted my arm..
Another guy posted these:
Anonymous: "war against peace" = ultra-Leftist Orwellian Double-speak
Anonymous: No, they aren't.
The guy posting as Zeevico also posted:
Anonymous (6:37 am): "can't shmarya speak for
Lastly, a fourth guy posted:
Anonymous: Still haven't heard Schmatta
Anonymous III: I know we are all to dense
So.. That's for those keeping score. And for Shmarya's own sanity.
[Editor's note: Please don't creepily post pictures of our bloggers. It's threatening.]
OK, you twisted my arm. Honestly, I dont care about the Park Hotel or Cafe Hillel, or the Dolphinarium or other places where Jews got killed. More people get trampled by donkeys every day in Cairo then get killed in the zionist entity. Those Jews had it coming because of the obscene and foul religious practices that I have documented in my previous columns. It is the stubborness of the Jews in persisting in these customs and not becoming citizens of the world that have ignited anti-semitism. It is not going too far in saying that everything the Jews have suffered they have brought upon themselves. I also think the Nazis were misunderstood, and they were participating in their own form of Tikkun Olam. Jews need to realize that if they want peace, they need to give up their claims to separate identity and victimhood and make reparations to those who are TRULY oppressed (Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, etc). I hope I am being clear enough for you stupid peeple
Shmarya has already made clear that he opposes terrorist bombings…. I must have missed that statement.Can you point me to the point in this thread, or any other thread in Shmarya's writings where he condemns the Park Hotel bombing, or other attacks against Jews?
Shmarya brought politics into this discussion. The US did not employ enemy alien Japanese or German citizens in armament plants during WWII. I dont see why Israel is obligated to employ enemy alien Palestinians in its kitchens.
Dem kosher chickens have come home to roost
"cant shmarya speak for himself? cant one condem a terrorist bombing and
Jewish practices he disapproves, or are they all part of a package?"
Regardless of what shmarya thinks, the answer to your latter question is no. They are not 'part of a package'. They are conceptually distinct ideas.
Shmarya has already made clear that he opposes terrorist bombings. He has already made clear that he does disapprove of Jewish practices. He disapproves of politicising Jewish practices that ought to have nothing to do with politics. This is the essence of this article. If you disapprove of politicising laws that have nothing to do with politics, then you agree with Shmarya.
If you think Arabs shouldn't be employed in Israel, you disagree with Shmarya on an entirely different issue.
For the record, I oppose the ideology of those who committed these bombins and agree with Shmarya
For the record, I looked up Israeli-Arab opinion polls and cannot find a recent one to the effect that a majority of them support, in the ideological sense, terrorist attacks. My apologies for bringing up a point that was was wrong and inaccurate.
A poster here–Walter–wrote that poverty does not make 'Islamic terror.' He did so in the context of a discussion regarding whether or not Israeli-Arabs should be allowed employment reasons in Israel. Walter apparently contends that they should not be allowed such employment because they pose a safety risk to the Israeli public. I will try to address the phrasing of Walter's statement first, because I find it difficult to respond to it stand.
The first issue with Walter's statement is the use of the word 'Islamic', that is, pertaining to Islam. There are many things that pertain to Islam and there is great disagreement and debate between those who claim to follow that religion as to what exactly the meaning of that word is. A Sunni would tell you one thing; a Shia another. For our purposes, 'Islam' is really nothing more than a collection of books: the Koran, the Hadiths, etc, from which people choose to accept certain religious practices or teachings. A 'Muslim' is a person who accepts those beliefs. Nowhere in the Koran is it said: Thou Shalt Take Plastic Explosives, Strap Them To Your Body, And Explode Thyself in the Midst of Thy Enemy. Nor is it said: When Thou Does This, Thy Purpose Is To Cause Him To Change His Ways. Nor do all Muslims agree on whether terrorism is permissible according to their religion. Many Islamists–namely, those Muslims that believe in the introduction of a world-wide caliphate and Sharia law according to their belief in it–condone and inded encourage the use of terrorist tactics. Groups such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad are Islamist, despite their sectarian differences. Islamist describes a specific political-religious ideology. Islamic describes practically anything.
The second issue is that many Palestinian terrorist groups are not Islamist; rather, they are nationalist, secular, or communist. Some of these groups craft public relations statements with references to Allah so as to encourage religious Muslims to support them, but their ideology is not Islamist. Rather it is nationalist, or communist.
I will now explain why I find it difficult to respond to Walter's statement.
It could mean any of the following:
(1) Poverty does not cause terrorism;
(2) Poverty does not cause Islamist terrorism;
(3) Poverty does not cause Palestinian Islamist terrorism;
(4) Poverty does not cause Palestinian terrorism.
I will take try to respond to the first statement, because it is the broadest and really encompasses all the others anyway. I agree–poverty does not cause terrorism.
However–drawing back to our original debate–I would say that firing every Israeli-Arab person working in Israel today would cause terrorism. The issue is not one of poverty per se. It is about ideology and opportunity. Firing Arabs for being Arab would cause them to view the state as illegitimate or discriminatory, even moreso than before. It would alienate them entirely from Israeli society, making it much easier for them to condone the perpetration of violence as against them. This is so simply because Israelis will become faceless after this segregation. It's one thing to attack and kill co-workers; it's another to attack and kill people who have fired you on the basis of your ethnicity, as opposed to your political beliefs or the danger you pose to society, which was judged according to a minute minority of other Israeli-Arabs who did participate in terrorist attacks. And it's altogether another thing to join and support an organisation that hits back at Israel and being paid to do it once you hate Israelis, believe they caused your poverty and that of your family and have no other means of employing yourself.
The American military has said much the same thing, and countless people have opined that firing the Iraqi army was a terrible mistake. The day upon which it was done was the day America made '500,000 enemies'. Israel is a nation of 6,000,000. It will make 1,000,000 enemies if it commits this act.
That, essentially, is why this ban is a nonsense. It will not just fail to prevent Israeli-Arabs already involved in terrorism from participating in terrorist attacks–that they can do simply by driving up to a person and beating them up, kidnapping them or killing them–but it will cause many others to help these people by providing them with aid, a hiding place, money, etc–things they would not otherwise do. Many others will join Palestinian terrorist groups. The Israeli army would be forced to intervene and enter Israeli-Arab villages, causing even more Israeli casualties. This policy will lead Israel to civil war. If that is what you desire, then I think your tactics are about as monumentally stupid (and not entirely dissimilar from) the tactics employed by the Palestinians.
Smaryah, I usually like your articles. This time though, you are off the mark. Also, being bitter and demeaning to the people who take time to comment on your work is a bad taste.
2) Shmarya believes that Jews are the greatest practitioners of evil on the planet and are the ultimate misanthropes. Therefore, those celebrating a Satanic Seder "had it coming", because the "root cause of all evil" is Judaism
Why is it, that everytime someone brings up any sort of criticism about the behavior of certain sects within Judaism that they are immediately and without question relegated directly into being either Nazi or Terrorist sympathizers? Is it treyf to question the authority or behaviour of a fellow Jew? Since when?
I think the reason that the author hasn't come out condeming the Park Hotel seder attack would mainly be because the article was not about Park Hotel, nor actually about terrorist attacks, per se. It was specifically about the 'massaging' of the food laws to meet political means.
As usual, not being able to keep commentary to the subject at hand, the Orwellian sheep go for the Nazi, Suicide Bomber, Jew Hater angle.
The world according to Shmarya
Slaugher of cows at Agriprocessors in Postville-treif
Slaugher of Jews at Seder at Park Hotel-kosher
I guess dem kosher chickens have come home to roost
I know we are all to dense for the blinding intellect of Shmarya, so please clarify it explicitly for us peons. There are two ways of looking at the matter that make a great deal of difference
1) Shmarya has a problem with Jewish practices, but thinks that acts of terror against Jews are morally wrong, or
2) Shmarya believes that Jews are the greatest practitioners of evil on the planet and are the ultimate misanthropes. Therefore, those celebrating a Satanic Seder "had it coming", because the "root cause of all evil" is Judaism.
It is not clear those of us of low intelligence which one it is. However, given the vehemence of Shmarya's rants and refusal to answer a simple question explicitly, we think it is (2). If Shmarya does support terror against Jews, Jewcy should not be hosting him
>>>The question Shmaryah, has difficulty to clariby does he of doesn't he support terrorism aganst the Jews?<<<
It isn't unanswered. In your case, though, it is unprocessed.
The question Shmaryah, has difficulty to clariby does he of doesn't he support terrorism aganst the Jews?
Ismail, please don't try to answer it for Shmaryah. Remember, You Are Not Shmaryah.
>>>You write: "How many settlers have been directly implicated in attacks against Arabs in the territories? 5? 10? 100? 1000? I don't know the number – but I do know it is closer to 1000 than it is to 10." I don't think so. B'tselem in 2001 claimed: "Since 1987, 119 Palestinians have been killed by settlers and other Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories. Of these, 23 were minors" Long way to go to 1000.<<<
Please.
I wrote "attacks," not murders. But even using your stats there were more Palestinians killed by settlers (albeit some of these killings were surely in self defense), and more settlers doing the killing, than there were Arab waiters killing Jews.
>>>How many Arab attacks in toto have there been against Jews/Israelis/non-Jews/tourists/etc./et al. that someone might find justifable for kicking them all out? <<<
That is a political and defense issue, Medad. And, as I clearly noted (and you sidestepped) the military doesn't support banning all Arabs. Neither do politicians or diplomats. Your view can't win a popular election or a Knesset vote.
>>>your manipulating of your harsh antagonism of establishment Judaism as an attack of "settler rabbis" in this context was wrong. I know you never admit to being wrong because you seem never to fail yourself.<<<
Except, Medad, that the rabbis who wrote and then leaked this ahalakhic report were – gasp! – rabbis of West Bank settlements.
>>>Another example of your failed logic. You write: "Israelis don't like those attacks against Arabs. They express this dislike repeatedly in public opinion polls and in the voting booth. Perhaps, following your logic, Israel should ban all Jews from living in areas like Kiryat Arba – Hevron? Of course, if Israel did so, you would call that decision racist." So, since all the Jews were summarily kicked out of Gush Katif, we have been through that experience. And, except for a small number (ah, numbers, again) of extremists, I don't hear "racist Israeli government!" bursting out of tens of thousands of mouths of Jews who oppose such policies as I should expect from your description of the atmosphere out here.<<<
I don't follow your logic.
I said "YOU" would call that move racist, Medad. I did not say all or most Israelis would.
>>>And last, different Sfardi/Ashkenzai customs are not racist simply because of geographical distinctions but are based on centuries-old traditions and, of course, there is a lot of mix-ups in their development.<<<
Of course, I never said different Sefardi and Ashkenazi customs were racist.
What I said was, following your logic one would have to conclude that those differing customs – and the need for rabbis to know them – would be racist.
Remember, my original point was that Ashkenazi rabbis suddenly adopting ONE Sefardi halakha out of thousands and claiming this halakha has always been and should continue to be the halakha for all Jews is disingenuous at best.
YOU attacked this point as "racist."
If you want to ban all Arab workers from Israel, do it through the political process.
You won't win?
Then sit yourself down and spend some time trying to understand why the "truth" you follow is rejected by so many Israelis – even by many Israelis who have right wing credentials at least as good as yours.
"He has made an entire career of defaming Judaism."
I don't know his entire career, but on the basis of his remarks at this site, I'd say he cares rather deeply about Judaism and is horrified by those individuals or groups who seem to him to be hijacking Judaism for their own political ends. Christian fanatics do this, as do Muslim fanatics, Hindu fanatics et al. You think maybe Jews don't?
I pity the religious believer or patriot who finds deep structural problems with elements of his group; he must forever hear that he is a "defamer" or hater of his country from those who can't bear hearing bad news.
"Why cant he say-I have problems with x,y, and z aspects of Judaism but I condemn the Park Hotel bombing?"
And then what? Would you feel one iota different about the actual substance of his criticisms?
"…I am concerned about his failure to condemn the Park Hotel murders."
What exactly is the nature of your concern? Do you seriously believe that Mr. Rosenberg endorses or is indifferent to murder? I mean seriously…not as a rhetorical tactic, but as an honest belief. If so, where in his writings do you discern even a scintilla of a suggestion that he is such a moral brute?
Or are you perhaps saying that if Mr. Rosenberg buys into your completely irrelevant demand, you will scratch your head and say, "Gee, maybe he has a point…I hadn't thought of that" about his substantive comments? Can a ritual incantation acknowledging the horror of murder really have such power to you?
Or is this just the ten millionth instance of a defender of Israel's least savory policies hauling out an immaterial demand when he can't come up with an apposite reply to his critic?
Inquiring minds want to know.
First, statistics.
You write: "How many settlers have been directly implicated in attacks against Arabs in the territories? 5? 10? 100? 1000? I don't know the number – but I do know it is closer to 1000 than it is to 10." I don't think so. B'tselem in 2001 claimed: "Since 1987, 119 Palestinians have been killed by settlers and other Israeli citizens in the Occupied Territories. Of these, 23 were minors" Long way to go to 1000.
And if you want to play numbers, well, you actually did by assuaging my fears of terrorism by claiming, how, I don't know, that only 5 Arabs have been implicated in food poisoning incidents (blowing up restaurants either by former workers or not doesn't count?). But forget that area of terror. How many Arab attacks in toto have there been against Jews/Israelis/non-Jews/tourists/etc./et al. that someone might find justifable for kicking them all out? You mention, quite silly of you actually, Hebron. How many Arabs should have been kicked out of that city after Jews came back based on what happened in 1929 and in May 1834 when more than half of all Jewish females were raped? To what does this all add up?
I am not sure. But your manipulating of your harsh antagonism of establishment Judaism as an attack of "settler rabbis" in this context was wrong. I know you never admit to being wrong because you seem never to fail yourself.
Another example of your failed logic. You write: "Israelis don't like those attacks against Arabs. They express this dislike repeatedly in public opinion polls and in the voting booth. Perhaps, following your logic, Israel should ban all Jews from living in areas like Kiryat Arba – Hevron? Of course, if Israel did so, you would call that decision racist." So, since all the Jews were summarily kicked out of Gush Katif, we have been through that experience. And, except for a small number (ah, numbers, again) of extremists, I don't hear "racist Israeli government!" bursting out of tens of thousands of mouths of Jews who oppose such policies as I should expect from your description of the atmosphere out here.
And last, different Sfardi/Ashkenzai customs are not racist simply because of geographical distinctions but are based on centuries-old traditions and, of course, there is a lot of mix-ups in their development.
So, let's cool off and argue without polemics and to the issue.
Yisrael Medad
http://www.myrightword.blogspot.com
>>>Sitll havent heard Schmatta Rosenberg condemn the attack at the Park Hotel-was it terrorism or creative entertainment? Inquiring minds want to know<<<
I'm not sure you could be said to have a mind let alone one that has the ability to inquire.
In your 'wisdom' you must think that everyone to the left of you politically is a Hamas supporter and a terrorist – either that, or you use these pathetic tactics to smear people whose arguments you cannot answer.
Sitll havent heard Schmatta Rosenberg condemn the attack at the Park Hotel-was it terrorism or creative entertainment? Inquiring minds want to know
Sorry,
That previous comment was written when I wasn't logged in.
Yisrael Medad
http://www.myrightword.blogspot.com
Shmarya wrote: "But now a group of settler rabbis, overwhelmingly Ashkenazim of eastern European origin, are challenging the Jerusalem Rabbinate’s reliance on Isserles, the Ashkenazi codifier."
I checked that JPost story. It mentions one name, that of Rav Elyakim Levanon. He is Ashkenazi. He is a revenant Jew living in a part of the historic land of Israel not yet under full Jewish sovereingty (not a "settler". "Settlers" are the Dutch in So. Africa or, Ashkenazi, East-European Jews in America). The way that sentence is phrased, one would think a rabid antisemite wrote it.
As far as I know, over the past year, many efforts have been made to limit the employment of Arabs in Jewish establishments. Most of that work is being done by S'faradim (I am not sure if they originate in East Europe or East-East (Iraq, Syria) or West-West (Morocco, Algeria, France).
In any case, that type of writing is inflammatory, biased, and possibly racist.
The subject is legitimate and I do not support organized discrimination although being safe is the first mitzva in living. For example:
"Two Arabs from Nablus, Ahab Abu Riyal and Anas Salum, were arrested by Israeli Shin Bet officers last month before they could carry out their mission to poison Israelis on behalf of Hizballah. They are members of the Fatah-al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, part of Mahmoud Abbas' "moderate" Fatah organization. The cell was led by two wanted terrorists, Hani Kabi and Husni Tsalag. They were hired as kitchen workers by the Grill Express restaurant near the Diamond Exchange in Ramat Gan, apparently after presenting Israeli-issued IDs allowing them to work in the country. Their orders were to dump a slow-acting colorless, tasteless and odorless poison in the food of customers. It would take effect after four hours, enough time to murder a large number of Israeli diners. The Shin Bet did not identify the substance. One of the two men was detained on March 19, just days before the mission date. The second was picked up at the home of an Israeli Arab friend in Jaffa."
http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/12780.htm
So, since Shmarya and I have dialogued, I hope he responds to this considered post.
"A majority of Arab-Israelis already support, in the ideological sense, Palestinian terrorism." These are your words!!! yet you would still want to employ them in your home and resaurant ???
I'm sorry I have to bring this up but….It has been proven time and time again that Islamic terror does not stem from financial despair. (even Yair Lapid said so).
I can't speak for the rest but I was born in Israel and have been living here almost my entire life (28 years). This is no excuse for my spelling mistakes though. We leave comment because we are arguing with the author! Some of the facts are true but some are not. Mostly though, what bothers me at least, is the way he presents the facts with his seemingly plausible explanation.
Also I would like to say that it seems the author himself doesn't live in Israel but hey! i might be wrong.
1. Many of the posters have claimed that public safety calls for denying Arabs employment, specifically in the food industry (though I see no reason why this argument cannot be extended to the entire Arab sector).
2. That policy may not be racist, but it could have dire consequences. Arab-Israelis are tied to the Israeli economy and Israeli society in a way that Palestinians are not. Denying them that link on the basis of their ethnicity, even in the name of public safety, will likely cause many of them to turn to terror. A majority of Arab-Israelis already support, in the ideological sense, Palestinian terrorism. They likely would not be willing to harbour a terrorist in their homes or translate that ideological support to violent acts. The policy suggested by the posters above is the perfect way to turn those Arab-Israelis to terrorism, especially in light of the fact that terrorists' families are often financially compensated. If you fire Arab employees, they're going to start looking elsewhere for employers–and Hamas is already holding one non-stop recruitment drive.
So I'm trying to understand the last few comments.
Presently, Arabs and Israelis are at war and Arabs use terrorist tactics to achieve some of their aims in that war.
Ergo it is a religious obligation not to hire non-Jews to do cooking for Jews and food cooked by non-Jews is non-kosher?
I could understand if the argument was one based on public safety–i.e. don't hire Arabs because it's too risky–but I fail to understand why the 'prohibition' covers all non-Jews. If it is an argument based on public safety, then the posters here have altogether failed to make one: the Park Hotel bombings were not committed by an Arab
waiter, as a previous poster falsely claimed. I'm not accusing you of
lying, just laziness. Next time direct your sarcasm more accurately
towards its targets.
I googled 'arab israeli terrorists' and couldn't find any precise numbers, but I imagine this would be one of the points of contention here–namely how many Israeli Arabs (or Jerusalemite Palestinians) are or were involved in terrorist attacks. The next point of contention would be how to deal with that involvement or support. A ban on employment is one method–the question is whether it's the most effective method.
The trouble is that if we were to apply the 'public safety' argument to its logical conclusion, Jews would be forbidden from hiring Israeli Arabs at all. In other words, suddenly these people are unemployed, alienated (even moreso) from the state, facing discrimination and with nothing left to do with their time. Meanwhile, the Israeli economy takes a big hit. What do you think more and more Israeli Arabs are going to do with their spare time? This policy invites civil war.
Why is food preparation a 'special case' then? What do you think Arab waiters, who have just been fired simply for being Arabs, are going to do or think? Of course they might just try take up another low-paying job (presumably waiters don't have a very wide skill set). And on the other hand suddenly joining Hamas looks pretty tempting. And blowing yourself up will probably net your family quite a lot of money. And hey–you get to kill the people that fired you. In other words, you've just created some textbook terrorists–all in the name of public safety.
Do you people know how to read? Can you process information?
My column is about rabbis twisting kashrut halakha to achieve a political result.
That said, following your 'logic,' more than half of Israel's Jewish population are traitors.
As I wrote above, "Fanatics see the world in black and white, and their law reflects that. Moderates understand that nuance exists and that there is room for compromise. The fanatic position is easier to sell – think right wing talk radio – because moderation requires living with complexity and the uncertainty that always shadows it. "
You people are poster children for that statement.
I havent seen any comments from Shmarya condemning the Park Hotel attack by Arab labor in Mar 2002. Until he explicitly condemns it, I assume that Shmarya supports the attack. After all, the victims were elderly holocaust survivors who were leaving too much of a carbon footprint
not to mention the recent plots to poision food that were foiled thank god.
I think Shmarya is absolutely correct. I remember that an Arab waiter provided Jews with service they will never forget at the Park Hotel in Netanya duing a Seder celebration. It was truly an explosive performance. Im sure Shmarya wishes Jews to have many such more experiences (as long as he is not present)
Shmaryas victims
Shmarya's idea of an ideal Passover Seder- Park Hotel, Mar 27, 2002
it's my guess that most people who leave comments on here try their best to be as cynical and argumentative as possible. it's odd to me that anyone who has ever been to israel would doubt the truth (or possibility of truth) of this article. but i guess it's also fair to say that most people leaving comments here have never been to israel.
Walter: You make a good point. It is possible that caution or fear, rather than racism, motivates some or most of the people who support this move. But I simply don't know: no links showing the 'racist/tolerant' credentials of the people supporting this whole thing have been given by the author. I mean, no doubt Kach supports this sort of thing, but that's like 2 people and a dog out in the west bank (or rather a town of a thousand or something, but whatever). I'll have to look this up on jpost or the net. Thank you for your comment, regardless.
Also, because I feel like being a pedantic ass, you'll notice that I didn't actually support the author's argument in that comment. I merely tried to summarise it and see who, if anyone, had actually addressed it. Minus the moronic 'settlers against peace' headline and the absence of citation or linkage it was an interesting article.
Now if there were citations or links to prove that rabbi X or community X is racist, and supports this move for racist reasons, then we'd be cooking. Otherwise this is a history lesson with some added contemporary hot air–sorry, commentary.
2. a. "Those political reasons are racist. "
Is that all you can say about our attitudes toward the plestinians in Israel? Racism? These attempts at ridding Israel's restaurants from Arab workers might be problematic and uncalled for, but it does not stem from racism. Rather, it stems from the continuing involvement of "Israeli" Arabs in terror attacks and attempts at building terror cells.
The way the author depicts the story of the Rama and Shulchan Aruch is a distorted. The fact is the Rama recognized the importance of R. Karo's undertaking and instead of publishing his own book of laws to counter the Shulchan Aruch, he chose to have it printed together even though it meant him having to play "second fiddle" to R. Karo. He called his book "hamapa" the tablecloth for the "set table" written by R. Karo. It enabled the new book to serve the entire Jewish world of the time.
I have no idea what the comments here actually have to do with the topic at hand. The writer here presents the following argument:
1. Certain Jewish laws as to 'kosher' cooking were introduced in order to prevent or discourage social interaction between Jews and non-Jews.
1.a. Those laws were introduced by force and by threat of force, rather than by consensus.
2. That today, the proponents of a stricter interpretation of the 'kosher' laws also support those laws not for religious reasons but for political reasons.
2. a. Those political reasons are racist.
These contentions have not been addressed thus far by the posters above.
Unfortunately, painting settlers with such a broad brush, as the author does, is indicative of his prejudice against settlers and specifically religious settlers. These are people who are not necessarily racist, even though a vocal portion of their community is racist. The writer would have done well to point to specific rabbis, individuals or communities that support this 'racist' approach. He has not linked, quoted or cited any article to this effect. This is lazy.
Depicting this issue as a struggle for or against 'peace' is nonsensical. It implies that settlers oppose peace. They do not; no one does. Every person–whether Jewish, Arab, Likud, Meretz, Fatah or Hamas–has his or her own conception of what he wants to achieve. Among the aims of all groups is the eventual achievement of stability in the region (the only sensible definition of 'peace' in this context).
The writer would have done well to make clear that this issue is not so much to do with Arab-Israeli peace or the settler movement as such as it is do with racism, which most people abhor regardless of their political affiliations. As it stands, this article's headline and part of its body is inappropriate, prejudiced and has little connection with is topic.
Also, I have an ego the size of a large planet and the writing skills of a pretentious hobo.
"War against peace" How does one wage a war against peace exactly? Can you explain that? The Arabs want peace, or they want Israel in their possession with an Arab/Islamic govt? Simple question.
While Jews are unemployed you would prefer the arab enemy be given the jobs instead…. And you would like to give them the water, homes, and land too…. Of course you don't live there, so the more the Arabs are encouraged that "they can win" the more Jews they will kill and blow up, and the more they will continue to be appeased and told 'they can win' the more they will attack Jews, and so on, since the violence gets them what they want, they are encouraged to do more… But will your cushy life be affected? Even those in Tel Aviv are effected by the surrendering and the terror, but not the galut…. at least not yet….
You are no doubt a big supporter of the Oslo treason and the Expulsion from Gush Katif. Just worthless far leftist drivel, I stopped after the headline that said 'war against peace.' I'm too busy waging a "war against idiocy" to read your nonsense.
Since I'm familiar with this issue, I can comment without reading your drivel. You want to have things both ways, don't you. When the Israeli chief rabbinate is paid off by the Israeli state you don't know what to do with yourself. Afterall, their still "Orthodox" so they have to be the "villain" by default in your twisted worldview. But that would make the state the villain, since the state controls the pursestrings and the state does the corrupting w/ willing participants in the Rabbinate. And how could you ever blast your precious state with its precious govt that so preciously wants to make peace agreements with Arabs and give them land and guns and other weapons? So then it must be the "other" Orthodox Jews who criticize the state Rabbinate that are the wicked corrupt villain instead huh? You want anything orthodox labeled as the villain but when it suits your purposes, you will pretend that the Israeli Rabbinate is the shining beacon of truth and justice….
Fascinating article. It's strange to me that a vote made under these circumstances would be considered authoritative.
Though you describe yourself as a heretic, I think you would make an exceptional rabbi.
Shmarya, I mean Ahmed, is being paid good money acting as a hamass spokeswhore. The Fakestinians, it's a fact that "Palestinians" don't exist, are waging a war against the Jews and their homeland. They should not be allowed in Israel for whatever reason.
Countless Jewish children have being blown up to bits by Fakestinian terrorists who gain access into Israel. It's nice that "Jewcy" or I should say "anti-semiticsunited" lives up to it's anti-Jewish anti-Israel reputation. Keep up the good work. You're the favorite website of Arab terrorists.
"…moderation requires living with complexity and the uncertainty that always shadows it."
Well said! It is far easier to declare everything assur than to delve into the gray area that exist and live with balance. I disagree with a lot of what you write, but on this you got it right. Kosharot ought to be ashamed. (They won't be, but they should!)
Wanna post your own comments? Gotta log in first!