Please remember to vote for my blog, Vesom Sechel, in the JIB Finals for Best Torah Blog!!!
A couple recently contacted me via email to ask me for help in preparing for their daugher's upcoming baby naming.
When my own daughter, Zehara Yehudit, was born, I found myself dissatisfied with the standard text for a girl's naming (we Sephardim call it a Zeved Habat.) In general, when called upon to name a newborn girl in my current synagogue, I freely amend the phraseology in the Siddur that I find objectionable. I followed the same practice when I served the Sephardic community in Riverdale, NY. There is nothing problematic about this, since the format of a baby naming is a matter of custom and not Jewish law.
I am certain that the lackluster and, in my opinion, blatantly sexist wording of the traditional Zeved Habat prayer reflects the general preference Jewish people (especially Sephardim) have for boys. Not to mention the fact that the birth of a male child is always followed by a Berit Millah and is therefore perceived by the community as a more significant event than the birth of a female.
As a result, just over two years ago, I took it upon myself to compose a prayer that is based on traditional sources but is more consistent with my personal view of the spiritual significance of the birth of a new daughter. I hope the thoughts and sentiments it contains resonate with my readership as well.
To download the Zeved Habat prayer, click here. Feedback will be much appreciated.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Introductory Guide to the Jewish Wedding and the Laws of Family Purity
I am proud to present a new guide to the laws of marriage and family purity, entitled "Shoshanat Yaaqov: A Guide to the Jewish Wedding and Family Purity in Light of the Fundamentals of Jewish Thought."
In addition to practical halachic guidelines, Shoshanat Yaaqov presents a philosophical framework through which one can better appreciate the meaning and significance of these important laws.
Since it is not yet fully edited, I would very much appreciate your feedback, constructive criticism, etc.
You can download a PDF version of the work here.
Shabbat Shalom!
In addition to practical halachic guidelines, Shoshanat Yaaqov presents a philosophical framework through which one can better appreciate the meaning and significance of these important laws.
Since it is not yet fully edited, I would very much appreciate your feedback, constructive criticism, etc.
You can download a PDF version of the work here.
Shabbat Shalom!
Monday, April 23, 2007
JIB Awards Nomination
It just came to my attention that my other blog, Vesom Sechel, has been nominated for "Best Torah Blog" on the JIB Awards Site (Group C).
I am honored to have been nominated, especially in view of the fact that my communal obligations have prevented me from posting on a regular basis for the past couple of months.
Of course, I plan to resume a more predictable posting schedule in the very near future.
Thank you to my readership for your kind support.
I am honored to have been nominated, especially in view of the fact that my communal obligations have prevented me from posting on a regular basis for the past couple of months.
Of course, I plan to resume a more predictable posting schedule in the very near future.
Thank you to my readership for your kind support.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Guide to the Laws of Passover
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Dairy, Meat and Hebrew
Q: Dear Rabbi,
Thanks for answering my question last week. My next questions for you are 1) What is our tradition regarding waiting after eating dairy before eating meat? Must we simply clean our mouths thoroughly, or do we have a waiting period, like Chabad? 2) Also, what do you think of the ultra-ancient Hebrew text? (http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/6_chart.html) Why isn't the Torah written in the earliest, ultra-ancient script, as shown in the chart? Is there anything special and holy about these particularly old Hebrew letters, as there is with the ones commonly known today?
Sincerely,
Michael N.
A: Dear Michael,
1) Our (Sephardic) custom is that meat can be eaten immediately after dairy. However, when we do this, we are required to first chew something pareve (such as a cracker or piece of bread) and then rinse our mouths out with water.
2) The Talmud discusses this issue at length in Masechet Sanhedrin. In Rabbinic parlance, the more ancient script is referred to as "Ketav Ivri" and the later form of writing is called "Ketav Ashurit". In the Gemara, the Rabbis debate the precise status of each of these scripts.
According to one view, the Torah was always written in "Ketav Ashurit", which was reserved for holy purposes; Ketav Ivri was the mundane, colloquial form of writing used for non-sacred matters.
Another opinion holds that the Torah was originally transcribed in Ketav Ashurit. After the sin of the Golden Calf, the script was temporarily changed to Ketav Ivri. Eventually, Ketav Ashurit was reinstated as the official form of sacred script.
A third view (which generally corresponds to the modern scholarly perspective) maintains that the Torah was originally given in Ketav Ivri, but that Ezra changed this upon the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel. Nachmanides explains that this change was one of many that Ezra initiated in order to commemorate the end of the Babylonian Exile (another example is the use of Babylonian names for the months of the year).
All agree that Ketav Ivri may no longer be used for sacred articles such as Torah Scrolls, Megillot, Tefillin or Mezuzot. In fact, if any of these were to be written in Ketav Ivri (or any script other than Ashurit, for that matter) they would not be considered halachically valid.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
A: Dear Michael,
1) Our (Sephardic) custom is that meat can be eaten immediately after dairy. However, when we do this, we are required to first chew something pareve (such as a cracker or piece of bread) and then rinse our mouths out with water.
2) The Talmud discusses this issue at length in Masechet Sanhedrin. In Rabbinic parlance, the more ancient script is referred to as "Ketav Ivri" and the later form of writing is called "Ketav Ashurit". In the Gemara, the Rabbis debate the precise status of each of these scripts.
According to one view, the Torah was always written in "Ketav Ashurit", which was reserved for holy purposes; Ketav Ivri was the mundane, colloquial form of writing used for non-sacred matters.
Another opinion holds that the Torah was originally transcribed in Ketav Ashurit. After the sin of the Golden Calf, the script was temporarily changed to Ketav Ivri. Eventually, Ketav Ashurit was reinstated as the official form of sacred script.
A third view (which generally corresponds to the modern scholarly perspective) maintains that the Torah was originally given in Ketav Ivri, but that Ezra changed this upon the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel. Nachmanides explains that this change was one of many that Ezra initiated in order to commemorate the end of the Babylonian Exile (another example is the use of Babylonian names for the months of the year).
All agree that Ketav Ivri may no longer be used for sacred articles such as Torah Scrolls, Megillot, Tefillin or Mezuzot. In fact, if any of these were to be written in Ketav Ivri (or any script other than Ashurit, for that matter) they would not be considered halachically valid.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Hair Covering
Q: Hi,
A: Dear David,
Your question touches upon a complex area of Jewish law. I will attempt to survey and summarize the basic issues in this area very briefly. As you will see, this topic is subject to a great deal of analysis and discussion in Jewish literature.
The Talmud in Tractate Ketubot states that married Jewish women may not appear in public with their hair uncovered. This prohibition is described as a Biblical law and a verse from the Torah is cited to substantiate it.
Two levels of obligatory hair covering are then delineated: complete and partial covering, respectively. Partial coverage of the hair fulfills the more basic standard of "Dat Moshe", or the "Law of Moses". This level is the one that the Rabbis say is alluded to in the Bible.
Complete coverage of the hair, though not mentioned in the Torah, is still necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of "Dat Yehudit", or "conduct deemed proper for a Jewish woman."
(I am leaving the definitions of "complete" and "partial" deliberately vague because they are a subject of scholarly debate, as we will see below.)
The vast majority of halachic decisors take the Talmud in Ketubot literally and maintain that a married woman who goes out with her hair totally exposed is violating a Biblical prohibition (Dat Moshe). On the other hand, the requirement to cover hair completely is only Rabbinical (Dat Yehudit).
By contrast, there is a small minority of scholars who interpret the Talmud differently. They argue that, while there is a Biblical allusion to the practice of married women covering their hair, the prohibition itself actually has the status of Rabbinic Law. According to this view, the term "Dat Moshe" means a law promulgated by Moses, but not necessarily a law he received on Sinai. These scholars maintain that the higher standard of "Dat Yehudit" is a matter of authoritative and binding Jewish custom rather than some kind of formal Rabbinic legislation.
To summarize, then, we have two levels of haircovering: "Dat Moshe" and "Dat Yehudit". Both are obligatory, although the statuses of the respective obligations differ. In order to observe this halacha, however, we must clarify two parameters: what constitutes full coverage of hair, and what is considered "public"?
With regard to the question of complete coverage, there are two basic approaches. One interprets the term literally and concludes that a married woman cannot have more than a tefah (handsbreadth, approximately 3-4 inches) of her hair exposed in public at any time.
The other approach posits that "completeness" with reference to hair covering should be no different than "completeness" in other areas of Jewish law. Generally speaking, we have a principle in halacha that rubo k'chulo, the majority of something is legally equivalent to its entirety. Based upon this concept, some hold that as long as a woman has the majority of her hair covered, we treat it as if she had all of her hair covered.
What constitutes "public" is also a matter of scholarly debate. Some suggest that anytime a woman is in the presence of three men who are not her immediate relatives, this is legally regarded as being "in public".
I came across your blog while browsing online. What is the halacha regarding married women covering their hair, with respect to fully or partially? Also is that Deorisa (Biblical) or Medarabanan (Rabbinical)?
Thank You,
David
A: Dear David,
Your question touches upon a complex area of Jewish law. I will attempt to survey and summarize the basic issues in this area very briefly. As you will see, this topic is subject to a great deal of analysis and discussion in Jewish literature.
The Talmud in Tractate Ketubot states that married Jewish women may not appear in public with their hair uncovered. This prohibition is described as a Biblical law and a verse from the Torah is cited to substantiate it.
Two levels of obligatory hair covering are then delineated: complete and partial covering, respectively. Partial coverage of the hair fulfills the more basic standard of "Dat Moshe", or the "Law of Moses". This level is the one that the Rabbis say is alluded to in the Bible.
Complete coverage of the hair, though not mentioned in the Torah, is still necessary in order to satisfy the requirements of "Dat Yehudit", or "conduct deemed proper for a Jewish woman."
(I am leaving the definitions of "complete" and "partial" deliberately vague because they are a subject of scholarly debate, as we will see below.)
The vast majority of halachic decisors take the Talmud in Ketubot literally and maintain that a married woman who goes out with her hair totally exposed is violating a Biblical prohibition (Dat Moshe). On the other hand, the requirement to cover hair completely is only Rabbinical (Dat Yehudit).
By contrast, there is a small minority of scholars who interpret the Talmud differently. They argue that, while there is a Biblical allusion to the practice of married women covering their hair, the prohibition itself actually has the status of Rabbinic Law. According to this view, the term "Dat Moshe" means a law promulgated by Moses, but not necessarily a law he received on Sinai. These scholars maintain that the higher standard of "Dat Yehudit" is a matter of authoritative and binding Jewish custom rather than some kind of formal Rabbinic legislation.
To summarize, then, we have two levels of haircovering: "Dat Moshe" and "Dat Yehudit". Both are obligatory, although the statuses of the respective obligations differ. In order to observe this halacha, however, we must clarify two parameters: what constitutes full coverage of hair, and what is considered "public"?
With regard to the question of complete coverage, there are two basic approaches. One interprets the term literally and concludes that a married woman cannot have more than a tefah (handsbreadth, approximately 3-4 inches) of her hair exposed in public at any time.
The other approach posits that "completeness" with reference to hair covering should be no different than "completeness" in other areas of Jewish law. Generally speaking, we have a principle in halacha that rubo k'chulo, the majority of something is legally equivalent to its entirety. Based upon this concept, some hold that as long as a woman has the majority of her hair covered, we treat it as if she had all of her hair covered.
What constitutes "public" is also a matter of scholarly debate. Some suggest that anytime a woman is in the presence of three men who are not her immediate relatives, this is legally regarded as being "in public".
Others, basing themselves on the simple reading of the Talmud, interpret "public" and "private" in terms of the political or social status of a particular location. According to this viewpoint, a place of residence is always considered private, no matter how many people are currently visiting it. And a mall or shopping center is always regarded as public, even if, at this moment, it is empty.
Many contemporary authorities go so far as to rule that a married woman may never have her hair uncovered in front of a man who is not her husband or a member of her immediate family. This, however, is a matter of middat hasidut, admirable or especially pious conduct, and is not legally mandated.
Now that we have reviewed the basic issues involved in this area of Jewish law, we can consider its practical implications. All agree that some form of complete coverage of hair is required whenever a married woman is in public.
Many contemporary authorities go so far as to rule that a married woman may never have her hair uncovered in front of a man who is not her husband or a member of her immediate family. This, however, is a matter of middat hasidut, admirable or especially pious conduct, and is not legally mandated.
Now that we have reviewed the basic issues involved in this area of Jewish law, we can consider its practical implications. All agree that some form of complete coverage of hair is required whenever a married woman is in public.
With regard to the definition of complete coverage, the majority of scholars maintain that no more than a tefah (3-4 inches) should be exposed. This is the view that should be followed in practice.
However, when it comes to the precise definition of "public", the rabbinic consensus is far from clear. Based on the sources, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the distinction between "public" and "private" is determined by the nature of the location in question. Therefore, in a private residence, a married woman is not required to have her hair covered, even if she has several guests visiting.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
However, when it comes to the precise definition of "public", the rabbinic consensus is far from clear. Based on the sources, it seems most reasonable to conclude that the distinction between "public" and "private" is determined by the nature of the location in question. Therefore, in a private residence, a married woman is not required to have her hair covered, even if she has several guests visiting.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Monday, February 05, 2007
Polyester Tsitsit
Q: Dear Rabbi,
My minhag is Edot ha Mizrach (Iraqi descent). What do you think about 100% Polyester Mesh Arba Canfot (or what about if they are only partially made of polyester?)? And do they need to be Menupitz Lishmo Tzitzits (regardless of the material of the garment)?
Regards,
Michael N.
A: Dear Michael,
According to all opinions, it is preferable to use a 100% wool garment to fulfill the mitsvah of wearing tsitsit. In fact, in the view of the Rambam and the Shulhan Aruch - the bases of Sephardic halachic tradition - garments made of materials other than wool or linen are only obligated in tsitsit on a rabbinical level. This means that, for us, wearing polyester tsitsit will not be considered a fulfillment of the Biblical mitsvah. However, if there is no four-cornered woolen garment available, then garments with tsitsit made of other fabrics are certainly acceptable.
The threads of the tsitsit must be prepared for the sake of the mitsvah. This requirement applies equally to all tsitsit, regardless of the material out of which they are made.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
A: Dear Michael,
According to all opinions, it is preferable to use a 100% wool garment to fulfill the mitsvah of wearing tsitsit. In fact, in the view of the Rambam and the Shulhan Aruch - the bases of Sephardic halachic tradition - garments made of materials other than wool or linen are only obligated in tsitsit on a rabbinical level. This means that, for us, wearing polyester tsitsit will not be considered a fulfillment of the Biblical mitsvah. However, if there is no four-cornered woolen garment available, then garments with tsitsit made of other fabrics are certainly acceptable.
The threads of the tsitsit must be prepared for the sake of the mitsvah. This requirement applies equally to all tsitsit, regardless of the material out of which they are made.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Monday, January 01, 2007
Laws of Shaving
Q: Hello Rav,
I was curious, what was the precedent in various Sephardic communities for both shaving and pay'ot? It would seem that only the Yemenites have had a custom of very long side-curls; others I have seen photographs in which even Rabbi's have been clean-shaven, and seemingly at a time before the electric razor. How was this done, and what halakhic precautions were or were not adhered to? Are there differences between the shaving restrictions for different minhagim?
Best,
Isaac
A: Dear Isaac,
The Torah commands us not to "destroy the corners of our beards" and instructs the Kohanim that "the corners of their beards shall not be shaved." Similarly, the Torah teaches that "you shall not round off the edge of your scalps."
The Talmud explains that the two verses regarding shaving actually complement one another. Taken together, they reflect a single legal formula - namely, that one may not shave the corners of the beard in a way that is considered "destroying", i.e., with a smooth razor blade. The use of scissors, however, is permissible.
One question debated in the early commentaries is the precise location of the "corners of the beard." Because of the variety of opinions on that subject, later authorities prohibited shaving any part of the face with a razor. Here is where the tremendous benefit of electric razors comes in.
In the olden days, men who were clean shaven typically used dipilatory creams to achieve that look. This involves no prohibition because it is not considered shaving. Similarly, one may shave the neck area with a regular razor because we are certain that no part of the neck is one of the "corners of the beard" that the Torah describes.
With regard to the prohibition of rounding the edges of the scalp, the Torah makes no distinction between the use of scissors, dipilatory creams and razors - all are prohibited. In other words, unlike the prohibition of shaving in which the method used to remove the hair is of paramount importance, the prohibition of rounding the scalp exists irrespective of the process of hair removal that is used; it is the result that counts, not the process. This means that while the beard can go (by permitted means) the sideburns must remain intact no matter what.
In some communities, the custom developed to allow peyot (sidecurls) to grow in fulfillment of the requirement not to remove the sideburns. Technically speaking, however, as long as the length of the sideburns extends to the cheekbones, they are halachically acceptable.
Incidentally, these commandments apply to men only. Women are not required to observe these laws at all.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
I was curious, what was the precedent in various Sephardic communities for both shaving and pay'ot? It would seem that only the Yemenites have had a custom of very long side-curls; others I have seen photographs in which even Rabbi's have been clean-shaven, and seemingly at a time before the electric razor. How was this done, and what halakhic precautions were or were not adhered to? Are there differences between the shaving restrictions for different minhagim?
Best,
Isaac
A: Dear Isaac,
The Torah commands us not to "destroy the corners of our beards" and instructs the Kohanim that "the corners of their beards shall not be shaved." Similarly, the Torah teaches that "you shall not round off the edge of your scalps."
The Talmud explains that the two verses regarding shaving actually complement one another. Taken together, they reflect a single legal formula - namely, that one may not shave the corners of the beard in a way that is considered "destroying", i.e., with a smooth razor blade. The use of scissors, however, is permissible.
One question debated in the early commentaries is the precise location of the "corners of the beard." Because of the variety of opinions on that subject, later authorities prohibited shaving any part of the face with a razor. Here is where the tremendous benefit of electric razors comes in.
In the olden days, men who were clean shaven typically used dipilatory creams to achieve that look. This involves no prohibition because it is not considered shaving. Similarly, one may shave the neck area with a regular razor because we are certain that no part of the neck is one of the "corners of the beard" that the Torah describes.
With regard to the prohibition of rounding the edges of the scalp, the Torah makes no distinction between the use of scissors, dipilatory creams and razors - all are prohibited. In other words, unlike the prohibition of shaving in which the method used to remove the hair is of paramount importance, the prohibition of rounding the scalp exists irrespective of the process of hair removal that is used; it is the result that counts, not the process. This means that while the beard can go (by permitted means) the sideburns must remain intact no matter what.
In some communities, the custom developed to allow peyot (sidecurls) to grow in fulfillment of the requirement not to remove the sideburns. Technically speaking, however, as long as the length of the sideburns extends to the cheekbones, they are halachically acceptable.
Incidentally, these commandments apply to men only. Women are not required to observe these laws at all.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Whisky and Wine
Q: Kvod HaRav,
Is single malt scotch whisky finished in wine casks kosher? Glenmoranige lists one of their single malts with this description: "Finished in Sherry butts after an initial maturation in ex-bourbon casks." No wine is added to the whisky, it only sits in casks that used to hold non-kosher wine.
If I am not mistaken yayin nesech is batel b'shesh. Obviously any wine left in the cask walls would be less than one in six. Do we hold by this and say the whisky is kosher or does ta'am k'ikar trump here and make the whisky non-kosher?
Kol tuv,
Aric K.
A: Dear Aric,
Your basic assumption is correct. The only caveat is that we must calculate based upon the dimensions of the cask itself and not our estimation of how much wine its walls absorbed. We treat the entirety of the cask as if it is non-kosher wine. Now, if we know for sure that the total volume of the casks is less than one sixth of the volume of the whisky that is finished in them, then that whisky is kosher.
By definition, the fact that we use the measurement "one sixth" rather than "one sixtieth" means that we are not concerned with taam k'iqar here. In other words, the possible or actual presence of wine flavor in the whisky would be irrelevant in this case.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
UPDATE: A good friend informed me via email that I overlooked an important halacha in the Shulhan Aruch that addresses this case. In reality, even if the volume of the casks is greater than one-sixth of the whisky inside, the whisky remains permissible. This is because of a special leniency regarding non-kosher wine - the halacha is that the absorbed wine taste is automatically nullified by any non-wine beverage that is placed in the non-kosher wine vessels. The one-sixth ratio is only necessary when actual non-kosher wine becomes mixed into a kosher beverage.
Is single malt scotch whisky finished in wine casks kosher? Glenmoranige lists one of their single malts with this description: "Finished in Sherry butts after an initial maturation in ex-bourbon casks." No wine is added to the whisky, it only sits in casks that used to hold non-kosher wine.
If I am not mistaken yayin nesech is batel b'shesh. Obviously any wine left in the cask walls would be less than one in six. Do we hold by this and say the whisky is kosher or does ta'am k'ikar trump here and make the whisky non-kosher?
Kol tuv,
Aric K.
A: Dear Aric,
Your basic assumption is correct. The only caveat is that we must calculate based upon the dimensions of the cask itself and not our estimation of how much wine its walls absorbed. We treat the entirety of the cask as if it is non-kosher wine. Now, if we know for sure that the total volume of the casks is less than one sixth of the volume of the whisky that is finished in them, then that whisky is kosher.
By definition, the fact that we use the measurement "one sixth" rather than "one sixtieth" means that we are not concerned with taam k'iqar here. In other words, the possible or actual presence of wine flavor in the whisky would be irrelevant in this case.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
UPDATE: A good friend informed me via email that I overlooked an important halacha in the Shulhan Aruch that addresses this case. In reality, even if the volume of the casks is greater than one-sixth of the whisky inside, the whisky remains permissible. This is because of a special leniency regarding non-kosher wine - the halacha is that the absorbed wine taste is automatically nullified by any non-wine beverage that is placed in the non-kosher wine vessels. The one-sixth ratio is only necessary when actual non-kosher wine becomes mixed into a kosher beverage.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
Direction During Prayer
Q: Rabbi Maroof,
Here in North America, the shortest distance from NY to Jerusalem follows a great circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle) which is an arc which starts its bearing at NE and eventually becomes SE. Therefore maybe we should face northeast. On the other hand the rhumb line ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhumb_line) has a constant bearing of SE. What is the definition of the halacha for where we are to face during davening?
Abraham B.
A: Dear Abraham,
The Aruch Hashulchan addresses this question and explains that the halacha does not require us to be precise when it comes to facing Jerusalem during prayer. As long as the general direction "East" is accurate, we need not be concerned with nuances of Northeast and Southeast - all variations are equally acceptable.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Here in North America, the shortest distance from NY to Jerusalem follows a great circle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_circle) which is an arc which starts its bearing at NE and eventually becomes SE. Therefore maybe we should face northeast. On the other hand the rhumb line ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhumb_line) has a constant bearing of SE. What is the definition of the halacha for where we are to face during davening?
Abraham B.
A: Dear Abraham,
The Aruch Hashulchan addresses this question and explains that the halacha does not require us to be precise when it comes to facing Jerusalem during prayer. As long as the general direction "East" is accurate, we need not be concerned with nuances of Northeast and Southeast - all variations are equally acceptable.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Moment Magazine on "The Birds and The Bees"
As part of its bimonthly "Ask the Rabbis" feature, Moment Magazine asked me to respond to the question "When and how should Jewish parents talk to their children about sex?" My answer appears in the December 2006 issue of Moment and can be found here.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Singing Verses of Tanach
Hi,
I took voice lessons for a year and a half many years ago and I plan on going back to take more lessons in order to become a chazzan. Many times I have sung at chupahs. I know that it is forbidden to sing pesukim (verses of Tanach). However, at many weddings people want the person singing at the chupah to sing Im Eschacheych etc. but I have never sung it because of my concern that it may be forbidden. Is a person allowed to sing these words at a chupah since its forbidden to sing pesukim?
I took voice lessons for a year and a half many years ago and I plan on going back to take more lessons in order to become a chazzan. Many times I have sung at chupahs. I know that it is forbidden to sing pesukim (verses of Tanach). However, at many weddings people want the person singing at the chupah to sing Im Eschacheych etc. but I have never sung it because of my concern that it may be forbidden. Is a person allowed to sing these words at a chupah since its forbidden to sing pesukim?
Thank you,
Elazar
Dear Elazar,
In his responsum Yoreh Deah (II):142, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein discusses the prohibition of singing verses from Tanach. It is based upon a statement in the Talmud that suggests that using words of Torah as lyrics for a song is inappropriate and disrespectful to their sanctity.
However, at the end of his letter, Rabbi Feinstein indicates that the prohibition of singing verses of Tanach applies only when it is done for frivolous enjoyment ("l'zimra ulis-chok"). In cases where there the singing serves to highlight the meaning of the words for educational and/or other constructive purposes, it may not be problematic.
We can corroborate this interpretation from another angle. Rabbi Feinstein applies the restriction on singing to the Oral Torah as well. This means that we are not allowed to sing blessings, Talmudic passages, etc. Yet, the Talmud criticizes a person who is "Shoneh Belo Zimra", i.e., who studies without singing, since chanting the words we are learning helps us to remember them. It is clear, then, that this prohibition is only relevant in situations where the singing is frivolous, and where the verses are being "used" to enhance the singing. When, on the other hand, the singing is done to intensify our focus on the verses, it is permitted.
It is difficult to see how the recitation of "Im Eshkachech" at a wedding, which is done to help us recall the destruction of the Holy Temple, could possibly be construed as frivolous song. If anything, it is a solemn tribute which is further enhanced through the use of melody.
Much success in your pursuit of a career in Hazzanut!
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Drums on Shabbat
I am asking this question for my son, who is 20 years old, a soldier in the Israeli army and also – a drummer. He wants to know if he can play the drums on Shabbat – and if this is forbidden, the reasons why it is not allowed. Why this is any different than tapping one's fingers to a nigun sung at the Shabbat table? He adds that he can put special pads on the drums so that the sound is almost nil.
Thank you so much,
Mrs. Levy
Dear Mrs. Levy,
According to Halacha, one may not play a musical instrument on Shabbat. The Rabbis prohibited the use of musical instruments because they frequently require tuning. The Rabbis were concerned that people might tune their instruments on Shabbat. Tuning an instrument on Shabbat or Yom Tov is Biblically prohibited because it involves "fixing" or "repairing" a vessel.
As far as I know, concerns about tuning do not apply to a drum in the same way they apply to, say, string instruments. However, the Rabbis did not make any distinction in their broad ruling on this matter, and forbade the use of any and all musical instruments on Shabbat.
In fact, even clapping hands, slapping knees, snapping fingers, dancing and banging on tables are included in the Rabbinic decree. This is discussed explicitly in the Shulhan Aruch, Orah Haim, 338:1-4 and 339:3.
That being said, while not allowed on Shabbat, playing an instrument is a wonderful thing. Please extend my warmest blessings to your son for continued success in developing his musical talent.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Thank you so much,
Mrs. Levy
Dear Mrs. Levy,
According to Halacha, one may not play a musical instrument on Shabbat. The Rabbis prohibited the use of musical instruments because they frequently require tuning. The Rabbis were concerned that people might tune their instruments on Shabbat. Tuning an instrument on Shabbat or Yom Tov is Biblically prohibited because it involves "fixing" or "repairing" a vessel.
As far as I know, concerns about tuning do not apply to a drum in the same way they apply to, say, string instruments. However, the Rabbis did not make any distinction in their broad ruling on this matter, and forbade the use of any and all musical instruments on Shabbat.
In fact, even clapping hands, slapping knees, snapping fingers, dancing and banging on tables are included in the Rabbinic decree. This is discussed explicitly in the Shulhan Aruch, Orah Haim, 338:1-4 and 339:3.
That being said, while not allowed on Shabbat, playing an instrument is a wonderful thing. Please extend my warmest blessings to your son for continued success in developing his musical talent.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Communicating with the Dead
Hello Rabbi Maroof,
Please tell me if it is a wrong thing to be a medium; if I can form a link with a soul from the next world and relay information to the sitter, is that wrong?
Thank you,
David.
Dear David,
In the Book of Deuteronomy, we are told:
There shall not be found among you one who passes his son through the fire; a diviner, an astrologer, one who reads omens or a sorcerer. One who charms animals, one who inquires of Ov or Yideoni, or one who consults the dead. For anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem; and, because of these abominations, Hashem, your God, banishes the nations from before you.
The Torah clearly prohibits any attempt to communicate with the dead. Maimonides explains the reason for this law:
All of these things are matters of falsehood and lies, and they are the very means through which the idol worshipers fooled the nations of the world into following them. And it is not proper for the Jewish people, who are exceptionally wise, to follow after these vanities, nor to entertain the possibility that they have any benefit...Anyone who believes in these things and things like them, and thinks in his heart that they are true and wise but that the Torah has prohibited them; he is one of the fools and those lacking knowledge... But those who possess wisdom and sound mind know by clear demonstration that all of these things that the Torah prohibits are not things of wisdom; rather, they are emptiness and vanity that fools stray after, and all of the paths of truth have been corrupted because of them. Because of this the Torah states, when it warns us about these vanities, "Perfect shall you be with Hashem, your God."
In other words, we reject these practices because they encourage magical and mystical ways of thinking that contradict the wise paths of our holy Torah. There is no rational basis for them whatsoever.
Those who seek mediums are usually emotionally troubled individuals who have unresolved issues with loved ones who are deceased. Instead of attempting to gain insight into their internal conflicts and resolve them, these people turn to charlatans who offer to help them "reconnect" with their dead relatives - for a price, of course.
The best thing you can do is suggest that these unfortunate human beings seek professional help to deal with their emotional difficulties. This is the healthy, reasonable approach that is advocated by our Torah. Perhaps then they will no longer feel a need to chase after fantasy and will begin to appreciate the value of wisdom.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Please tell me if it is a wrong thing to be a medium; if I can form a link with a soul from the next world and relay information to the sitter, is that wrong?
Thank you,
David.
Dear David,
In the Book of Deuteronomy, we are told:
There shall not be found among you one who passes his son through the fire; a diviner, an astrologer, one who reads omens or a sorcerer. One who charms animals, one who inquires of Ov or Yideoni, or one who consults the dead. For anyone who does these is an abomination of Hashem; and, because of these abominations, Hashem, your God, banishes the nations from before you.
The Torah clearly prohibits any attempt to communicate with the dead. Maimonides explains the reason for this law:
All of these things are matters of falsehood and lies, and they are the very means through which the idol worshipers fooled the nations of the world into following them. And it is not proper for the Jewish people, who are exceptionally wise, to follow after these vanities, nor to entertain the possibility that they have any benefit...Anyone who believes in these things and things like them, and thinks in his heart that they are true and wise but that the Torah has prohibited them; he is one of the fools and those lacking knowledge... But those who possess wisdom and sound mind know by clear demonstration that all of these things that the Torah prohibits are not things of wisdom; rather, they are emptiness and vanity that fools stray after, and all of the paths of truth have been corrupted because of them. Because of this the Torah states, when it warns us about these vanities, "Perfect shall you be with Hashem, your God."
In other words, we reject these practices because they encourage magical and mystical ways of thinking that contradict the wise paths of our holy Torah. There is no rational basis for them whatsoever.
Those who seek mediums are usually emotionally troubled individuals who have unresolved issues with loved ones who are deceased. Instead of attempting to gain insight into their internal conflicts and resolve them, these people turn to charlatans who offer to help them "reconnect" with their dead relatives - for a price, of course.
The best thing you can do is suggest that these unfortunate human beings seek professional help to deal with their emotional difficulties. This is the healthy, reasonable approach that is advocated by our Torah. Perhaps then they will no longer feel a need to chase after fantasy and will begin to appreciate the value of wisdom.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Friday, October 20, 2006
Moment Magazine on Trick-or-Treating
As part of its bimonthly "Ask the Rabbis" feature, Moment Magazine asked me to respond to the question "should Jewish children Trick-or-Treat?" An edited version of my answer appears in the October 2006 issue of Moment and can be found here. The original response I composed is posted here.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Tefillin at Minha on Fast Days
Dear Rabbi Maroof,
Why do Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews wear Tefillin at Minha on the Fast of Gedaliah?
Thanks,
I.M.
Dear I.M.,
Many Sephardic communities have the custom of donning Tefillin at the Minha (afternoon) service on all fast days (except, of course, Yom Kippur). This practice is mentioned by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his classic commentary, the Bet Yosef.
Three main reasons are offered for the custom. The first explanation relates to berachot (blessings). We are required to recite a minimum of one hundred blessings a day. A typical daily routine, including blessings on foods, etc., will satisfy this requirement almost "naturally". However, on fast days, the fact that we don't consume any food takes a toll on our "beracha count." Wearing Tefillin at Minha gives us the opportunity to make an additional blessing.
Another explanation of the custom is based upon the laws of Tefillin themselves. Theoretically, Tefillin should be worn all day long on weekdays. This is problematic because wearing Tefillin requires a level of purity of thought and focus that is difficult to attain, let alone to sustain for an entire day of work, school, etc. Therefore, our custom is to wear Tefillin only during the morning service since, even during Minha prayers, we tend to be quite distracted. On Fast Days, though, our abstention from food and drink brings us to a higher level of spiritual awareness. As a result, we are capable of donning Tefillin at Minha time as well.
A third explanation of the custom points to the function of Tefillin as tools that enhance our kavanah (concentration). When we have Tefillin on our arms and heads, we remain more vigilant about the direction of our thoughts and more definite in our sense of purpose. On Fast Days, we wish for our prayers to be of an especially high quality. Therefore, we wear Tefillin at Minha as well as Shaharit, to help us engage our minds even more fully and intensely in the all of the services of the day.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Why do Sephardic/Mizrahi Jews wear Tefillin at Minha on the Fast of Gedaliah?
Thanks,
I.M.
Dear I.M.,
Many Sephardic communities have the custom of donning Tefillin at the Minha (afternoon) service on all fast days (except, of course, Yom Kippur). This practice is mentioned by Rabbi Yosef Karo in his classic commentary, the Bet Yosef.
Three main reasons are offered for the custom. The first explanation relates to berachot (blessings). We are required to recite a minimum of one hundred blessings a day. A typical daily routine, including blessings on foods, etc., will satisfy this requirement almost "naturally". However, on fast days, the fact that we don't consume any food takes a toll on our "beracha count." Wearing Tefillin at Minha gives us the opportunity to make an additional blessing.
Another explanation of the custom is based upon the laws of Tefillin themselves. Theoretically, Tefillin should be worn all day long on weekdays. This is problematic because wearing Tefillin requires a level of purity of thought and focus that is difficult to attain, let alone to sustain for an entire day of work, school, etc. Therefore, our custom is to wear Tefillin only during the morning service since, even during Minha prayers, we tend to be quite distracted. On Fast Days, though, our abstention from food and drink brings us to a higher level of spiritual awareness. As a result, we are capable of donning Tefillin at Minha time as well.
A third explanation of the custom points to the function of Tefillin as tools that enhance our kavanah (concentration). When we have Tefillin on our arms and heads, we remain more vigilant about the direction of our thoughts and more definite in our sense of purpose. On Fast Days, we wish for our prayers to be of an especially high quality. Therefore, we wear Tefillin at Minha as well as Shaharit, to help us engage our minds even more fully and intensely in the all of the services of the day.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Monday, September 11, 2006
New Blog - Vesom Sechel
Please take some time to visit my new blog, http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com.
"Vesom Sechel" is dedicated to the study of Tanach, especially the weekly Parasha. For the next month or so, posts there will explore aspects of the upcoming Holidays from the perspective of Torah Shebichtav (the Written Torah). It is amazing how much depth one can add to one's understanding of the holidays merely by paying closer attention to the nuances of the Torah's text.
I hope to add a new installment to Vesom Sechel each week, and any feedback you leave in the comments section will be greatly appreciated!
Rabbi Maroof
"Vesom Sechel" is dedicated to the study of Tanach, especially the weekly Parasha. For the next month or so, posts there will explore aspects of the upcoming Holidays from the perspective of Torah Shebichtav (the Written Torah). It is amazing how much depth one can add to one's understanding of the holidays merely by paying closer attention to the nuances of the Torah's text.
I hope to add a new installment to Vesom Sechel each week, and any feedback you leave in the comments section will be greatly appreciated!
Rabbi Maroof
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Evolution and God's Existence
Q: Hello Rabbi,
Until last night, the idea that life originated by itself without any of Hashem's guidance seemed very unlikly, considering that only to randomly assemble the proteins (enzymes) in a functioning bacterium, from already existing set of amino acids is a 1 in 10^40,000 chance (this is taken from "Origins: A Skeptics guide" by Robert Shapiro). However, my very good and skeptical friends, who would never pass a chance to argue, said that... he agrees with me that this is very unlikly however there is still, as small as it may be, a chance... and since the universe is endless (i agreed with him that the universe is endless), even the least likely things can occur. my question is- what do I tell a person who claims this, and tries to disprove, like you have said: "that the existence of matter and its lawfulness is the result of God's design"?
Thank you very much and Shabbat Shalom!
RS
A: Dear RS,
First of all, I must say that I am impressed with your sincere pursuit of truth. Many people are satisfied with simple faith in God. Others will accept incomplete or flawed answers to their questions in order to avoid facing difficult realities. You, however, seek a solid rational basis to support your beliefs. This is not only an admirable characteristic, it is also a tremendous mitsvah.
Living organisms are remarkably complex entities that certainly appear to be purposefully "designed." The elegance and efficiency of their anatomy and physiology - the intricate systems, from the molecular level upward, that must operate in harmony with one another to sustain even the simplest creature - seem to bear the signature of a Creator. Indeed, the very phenomenon of "life" and the circumstances of its emergence are still poorly understood by scientists, and are ranked among the most tantalizing mysteries of nature. This is probably the reason why philosophers from time immemorial have regarded the "miracle" of life as the most compelling evidence for the existence of a Deity.
We may add that the genesis and evolution of life through a combination of random mutations and natural selection would have required a lot more than one fortuitous accident. The number of "accidents" that would have had to occur is practically incalculable. Consequently, the amount of time that would have been necessary for these accumulated mutations - slowly sifted through via the mechanism of natural selection over countless generations - to bring forth the species as we know them today makes the theory of evolution seem unrealistic, if not incredible. This fact leads many people to the conclusion that Creationism is a more parsimonious solution to the riddle of life than Evolution.
I would have to agree that, from our vantage point, the likelihood is slim that life came into existence by pure chance and then developed into the diverse forms we now observe. It is hard to imagine that the fantastically complicated and highly specific set of preconditions that are necessary for even the most primitive life form to emerge simply fell into place by coincidence, without the involvement of Divine Providence of some sort. It is similarly remarkable that the exact combination of physical conditions and constants that are required to sustain life on our planet "just happen" to be incorporated into the fabric of the cosmos. It is almost as if the Universe were "expecting us." In his book The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Search of Sophia, Professor David Conway addresses this issue briefly, in the course of an insightful discussion of the Argument from Design. You might also find The God Hypothesis, by Michael Corey, an interesting read.
Nonetheless, it is ultimately a bad idea to try and prove Hashem's existence from the presence of inexplicable and mysterious phenomena in nature. When we do this, we end up positioning ourselves against science and fiercely resisting intellectual progress. The reason for this is clear. If we base our belief in God on the fact that there are still things we are unable to comprehend, then the more things science can rationally explain, the less "room" is left for belief in Hashem. The truth is that matters that are incomprehensible to us today may appear perfectly reasonable in the future in light of new scientific discoveries and intellectual breakthroughs. It would be foolish for us ignore these developments or to go out looking for new "unexplained mysteries" each time science advances further.
For this very reason, in Judaism, we do not depend on the "unexplained" to justify our belief in God. On the contrary, it is precisely the intelligibility, beauty and sheer elegance of the Universe that commands our respect and points to the infinite wisdom of its Creator. The graceful consistency of the natural world, directed by scientific law of the utmost depth and precision, testifies to Hashem's existence more than any "miracle." As King David wrote, "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament recounts His handiwork." The intricate order of creation, with its unfathomable subtlety, reflects a Mind far greater than any of ours. Although physical events may be attributed to mere chance, the exquisitely formulated principles that govern our world cannot possibly have been the result of an accident. The laws of nature clearly emerged from a "Lawgiver" Who crafted the Universe in accordance with them. For more on this and related subjects, you might enjoy reading God and The Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, or The Mind of God, by Paul Davies.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention one last important point. Scientific evidence of God's existence is extremely valuable, but it remains beyond the grasp of many ordinary people. This is why the Torah provides us with universally accessible "proofs" of Hashem's presence and providence - the Exodus from Egypt and the Revelation at Sinai. These unique events in human history were witnessed and recorded by an entire nation of men, women and children and, as such, could not possibly have been fabricated. Our knowledge of Hashem is firmly established upon the testimony of our ancestors who stood at the foot of Sinai, heard the voice of God, received His Torah and commandments, and transmitted a faithful account of their experiences to their children and grandchildren after them. I have posted briefly on this topic on my other blog, http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com.
Incidentally, I am not in favor of the idea that the Universe is endless. Although it is impossible for us to measure its dimensions at the present time, even something as vast as the Universe is still a physical entity which is by definition finite and thus limited in size. Our minds cannot really handle the concept of infinity anyway, so, in my opinion, trying to utilize it in thinking about the material world can only be counterproductive!
Best wishes for success in your quest for true knowledge of Hashem.
Rabbi Maroof
Until last night, the idea that life originated by itself without any of Hashem's guidance seemed very unlikly, considering that only to randomly assemble the proteins (enzymes) in a functioning bacterium, from already existing set of amino acids is a 1 in 10^40,000 chance (this is taken from "Origins: A Skeptics guide" by Robert Shapiro). However, my very good and skeptical friends, who would never pass a chance to argue, said that... he agrees with me that this is very unlikly however there is still, as small as it may be, a chance... and since the universe is endless (i agreed with him that the universe is endless), even the least likely things can occur. my question is- what do I tell a person who claims this, and tries to disprove, like you have said: "that the existence of matter and its lawfulness is the result of God's design"?
Thank you very much and Shabbat Shalom!
RS
A: Dear RS,
First of all, I must say that I am impressed with your sincere pursuit of truth. Many people are satisfied with simple faith in God. Others will accept incomplete or flawed answers to their questions in order to avoid facing difficult realities. You, however, seek a solid rational basis to support your beliefs. This is not only an admirable characteristic, it is also a tremendous mitsvah.
Living organisms are remarkably complex entities that certainly appear to be purposefully "designed." The elegance and efficiency of their anatomy and physiology - the intricate systems, from the molecular level upward, that must operate in harmony with one another to sustain even the simplest creature - seem to bear the signature of a Creator. Indeed, the very phenomenon of "life" and the circumstances of its emergence are still poorly understood by scientists, and are ranked among the most tantalizing mysteries of nature. This is probably the reason why philosophers from time immemorial have regarded the "miracle" of life as the most compelling evidence for the existence of a Deity.
We may add that the genesis and evolution of life through a combination of random mutations and natural selection would have required a lot more than one fortuitous accident. The number of "accidents" that would have had to occur is practically incalculable. Consequently, the amount of time that would have been necessary for these accumulated mutations - slowly sifted through via the mechanism of natural selection over countless generations - to bring forth the species as we know them today makes the theory of evolution seem unrealistic, if not incredible. This fact leads many people to the conclusion that Creationism is a more parsimonious solution to the riddle of life than Evolution.
I would have to agree that, from our vantage point, the likelihood is slim that life came into existence by pure chance and then developed into the diverse forms we now observe. It is hard to imagine that the fantastically complicated and highly specific set of preconditions that are necessary for even the most primitive life form to emerge simply fell into place by coincidence, without the involvement of Divine Providence of some sort. It is similarly remarkable that the exact combination of physical conditions and constants that are required to sustain life on our planet "just happen" to be incorporated into the fabric of the cosmos. It is almost as if the Universe were "expecting us." In his book The Rediscovery of Wisdom: From Here to Antiquity in Search of Sophia, Professor David Conway addresses this issue briefly, in the course of an insightful discussion of the Argument from Design. You might also find The God Hypothesis, by Michael Corey, an interesting read.
Nonetheless, it is ultimately a bad idea to try and prove Hashem's existence from the presence of inexplicable and mysterious phenomena in nature. When we do this, we end up positioning ourselves against science and fiercely resisting intellectual progress. The reason for this is clear. If we base our belief in God on the fact that there are still things we are unable to comprehend, then the more things science can rationally explain, the less "room" is left for belief in Hashem. The truth is that matters that are incomprehensible to us today may appear perfectly reasonable in the future in light of new scientific discoveries and intellectual breakthroughs. It would be foolish for us ignore these developments or to go out looking for new "unexplained mysteries" each time science advances further.
For this very reason, in Judaism, we do not depend on the "unexplained" to justify our belief in God. On the contrary, it is precisely the intelligibility, beauty and sheer elegance of the Universe that commands our respect and points to the infinite wisdom of its Creator. The graceful consistency of the natural world, directed by scientific law of the utmost depth and precision, testifies to Hashem's existence more than any "miracle." As King David wrote, "the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament recounts His handiwork." The intricate order of creation, with its unfathomable subtlety, reflects a Mind far greater than any of ours. Although physical events may be attributed to mere chance, the exquisitely formulated principles that govern our world cannot possibly have been the result of an accident. The laws of nature clearly emerged from a "Lawgiver" Who crafted the Universe in accordance with them. For more on this and related subjects, you might enjoy reading God and The Astronomers, by Robert Jastrow, or The Mind of God, by Paul Davies.
I would be remiss if I failed to mention one last important point. Scientific evidence of God's existence is extremely valuable, but it remains beyond the grasp of many ordinary people. This is why the Torah provides us with universally accessible "proofs" of Hashem's presence and providence - the Exodus from Egypt and the Revelation at Sinai. These unique events in human history were witnessed and recorded by an entire nation of men, women and children and, as such, could not possibly have been fabricated. Our knowledge of Hashem is firmly established upon the testimony of our ancestors who stood at the foot of Sinai, heard the voice of God, received His Torah and commandments, and transmitted a faithful account of their experiences to their children and grandchildren after them. I have posted briefly on this topic on my other blog, http://vesomsechel.blogspot.com.
Incidentally, I am not in favor of the idea that the Universe is endless. Although it is impossible for us to measure its dimensions at the present time, even something as vast as the Universe is still a physical entity which is by definition finite and thus limited in size. Our minds cannot really handle the concept of infinity anyway, so, in my opinion, trying to utilize it in thinking about the material world can only be counterproductive!
Best wishes for success in your quest for true knowledge of Hashem.
Rabbi Maroof
Friday, June 16, 2006
Chewing Gum
Q: Dear Rabbi,
Since I am not eating the gum--what difference does it make if the gum is not certified Kosher?
A: Dear Yehuda,
Gum does need to be kosher, because it contains flavoring that we swallow while chewing it. However, provided that the ingredient label does not suggest the presence of any non-kosher substances, rabbinical supervision would not be necessary.
I am not familiar with the specific brand of gum in question. If I can be of any assistance in evaluating the ingredient list, please feel free to email it to me and I'll be glad to review it. The main ingredient to be on the lookout for is probably grape juice.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Since I am not eating the gum--what difference does it make if the gum is not certified Kosher?
The gum in question is Koolerz watermelon gum made by Hershey foods, but is not certified by anyone. There doesn't seem to be any non-kosher ingredients--but some one said even gum is non-kosher.
But I am not eating it--what's the facts.
Thanks
Yehuda
A: Dear Yehuda,
Gum does need to be kosher, because it contains flavoring that we swallow while chewing it. However, provided that the ingredient label does not suggest the presence of any non-kosher substances, rabbinical supervision would not be necessary.
I am not familiar with the specific brand of gum in question. If I can be of any assistance in evaluating the ingredient list, please feel free to email it to me and I'll be glad to review it. The main ingredient to be on the lookout for is probably grape juice.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Indian Foods
Q: Good Morning Rabbi,
I was curious: I am interested in bringing a particular processed food into my kitchen, which are not supervised under kashrut authorities. However, they are under supervision of Indian national food authorities, which do have accurate labeling for vegetarian food items (denoted by a green dot, whereas foods with animal products have a red dot) as a significant portion of their population has dietary restrictions from eating animal products (Brahmin/priestly caste). Given the existence of an established supervisory body forfood products, is it permissible to bring them into a kosher kitchen? Or, is it considered permissible by some to bring them in to a kosher Sephardic kitchen, such as one that follows such guidances like those of Rabbi Abadi (http://www.kashrut.org, an example, he permits the consumption of certain "gelatin" products as truly non-problematic)?
Thanks,
Tzahi
A: Dear Tzahi,
The answer to your question depends on the reliability of the food classification system in India. If a company would be fined or otherwise penalized for falsely labeling an item "vegetarian", then we may assume that the classifications they assign to their products are accurate. If, on the other hand, there are no consequences attached to such misrepresentation, then there is no basis upon which to trust the labeling process. We would have to be concerned about the possibility that business owners will make fraudulent claims about their foods simply in order to increase their profits.
Even if a product is reliably certified as vegetarian, one would still need to be sure that it contains no grape juice or wine. Grape juice and wine are not kosher unless they have been prepared under rabbinical supervision.
In our country, the halachic reliability of ingredient labels is based upon this very principle; namely, we assume that a company will provide accurate information to the consumer for the purpose of avoiding law suits, fines and liabilities of various kinds. If not for the careful monitoring of the food industry here, we would continue to harbor a healthy skepticism toward the representations made on product labels.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
I was curious: I am interested in bringing a particular processed food into my kitchen, which are not supervised under kashrut authorities. However, they are under supervision of Indian national food authorities, which do have accurate labeling for vegetarian food items (denoted by a green dot, whereas foods with animal products have a red dot) as a significant portion of their population has dietary restrictions from eating animal products (Brahmin/priestly caste). Given the existence of an established supervisory body forfood products, is it permissible to bring them into a kosher kitchen? Or, is it considered permissible by some to bring them in to a kosher Sephardic kitchen, such as one that follows such guidances like those of Rabbi Abadi (http://www.kashrut.org, an example, he permits the consumption of certain "gelatin" products as truly non-problematic)?
Thanks,
Tzahi
A: Dear Tzahi,
The answer to your question depends on the reliability of the food classification system in India. If a company would be fined or otherwise penalized for falsely labeling an item "vegetarian", then we may assume that the classifications they assign to their products are accurate. If, on the other hand, there are no consequences attached to such misrepresentation, then there is no basis upon which to trust the labeling process. We would have to be concerned about the possibility that business owners will make fraudulent claims about their foods simply in order to increase their profits.
Even if a product is reliably certified as vegetarian, one would still need to be sure that it contains no grape juice or wine. Grape juice and wine are not kosher unless they have been prepared under rabbinical supervision.
In our country, the halachic reliability of ingredient labels is based upon this very principle; namely, we assume that a company will provide accurate information to the consumer for the purpose of avoiding law suits, fines and liabilities of various kinds. If not for the careful monitoring of the food industry here, we would continue to harbor a healthy skepticism toward the representations made on product labels.
Best Regards,
Rabbi Maroof
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)