- This topic has 64 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Yes, I asked my Rov, but he couldn’t find updated information to be able to properly answer my question. Does anyone here know if the Tablet K (looks like a K inside the luchos) is a reliable hechsher, and if so, who gives the hechsher on it?
a basic google search says no
No
DY-
No, you don’t know.
OR
No, it’s not reliable.
???
The major agencies do not accept it. One issue is that they follow an opinion regarding cheese which is not accepted by the mainstream hechsherim.
Please do not confuse it with the KSR of Montreal which uses a picture of the Luchos inside a black circle.
You can search Kosher Quest to get an idea of hechsherim.
One must be careful not to say a kosher symbol is not kosher. One can say it is “not recommended” but to say not kosher can bring lawsuits against it. (I’m not saying K inside luchos is not recommended, one should speak to their own Rabbi)
A lawsuit against someone saying an agencies hechsher is unreliable would fail. A secular court cannot rule whether a particular agencies kashrus certification is reliably kosher as it would involve determining a matter of ecclesiastical law, something Constitutionally impermissible for an American court to rule upon.
Not reliable. Thanks, golfer (although to nitpick, the other option was that no, nobody here knows).
Jewish thinker
You dont have to beat ariund the bush. Its NOT kosher. Dont tell people to eat it.
I repeat, its NOT kosher!
Joseph, a lawsuit for slander coukd go forwRd.
Tablet-K is:
Head of Institution: Rabbi Rafael Saffra
Administrator:
Address: edited
P.O.B:
City: Lawrence
Country/State: New York
Site:
more details: Telephone 1:
Telephone 2:
Fax:
Company number:
Contact:
edited
I don’t know if it’s good or not. I suggest you call one of the Kashrus agencies you trust and ask.
apushatayid: No a lawsuit could not go forward. If the comment is true it isn’t slander or libel and it is legally permissible to publicly be said. And in order for a court to determine whether it was or wasn’t slander to say that “Kashrus Agency Z is not reliable in giving kashrus certification” (or even commenting that Agency Z certifies non-kosher as kosher), the court would need to determine whether in fact Agency Z is reliable or if any of the food that they certify as kosher is in fact kosher. And no court in the United States is legally able to even attempt to make a determination of whether the foods Agency Z certifies is reliably kosher under Jewish Law. Because only Jewish Law can tell us whether the agencies kashrus certification is reliable or whether agency is certifying food that isn’t kosher. Only Jewish Law determine the kosher status of the food. And no American court is Constitutionally able to delve into or attempt to answer questions of what the laws of any religion determine. The court will be forced to throw out any libel or other such lawsuit filed on the basis that the court is Constitutionally unable to address an issue of ecclesiastical law.
That’s Rabbi Rafael Saffra a”h.
Plumber, I would never rely on that hechsher, but it’s not any less kosher than something without a hechsher, about which you can’t technically say “it’s not kosher”, unless you are referring specifically to a non kosher item.
Take, for example, a deli with Tablet K bagels. While I consider it highly irresponsible to allow a kashrus certificate to be hung in an establishment serving Boar’s Head, and I would certainly not eat the bagels, I dont think you can say with certainty that they’re treif.
They are mostly known for giving a hechsher to many cheeses. R’ Saffra held of a kula of Rabbeinu Tam, which we usually don’t pasken according to. Someone posted online that they had emailed him about it, and his response said, “he did not hold cheese produced with microbial media to be cheese in the traditional understanding, since microbial coagulant did not exist at the time of the Shulchan Aruch. He said it is a different product, so the gezerah was not applicable to it.”
Someone else wrote that the Conservative movement didn’t even really approve of his hechsher.
There was a Butcher on Long Island called Commack Kosher Butcher who has a conservative Rabbi as supervision. At the tine ny had a kosher law and the butcher was fined because they did not meet the orthodox requiremts. They sued based on they had conservative supervision and the law was declared un constitutional.
comments on some blog arent going to get you sued, but if someone local orthodox rabbi declared publically not to buy from a place with conservative supervision, the owner might have grounds for libel.
Joseph: False. A civil court in such a case has the authority to attempt to determine whether one is lying by claiming to be “Kosher”. And the plaintiff will always win such a case because there is no case we can make that we have a monopoly on defining the word “Kosher”. It’s not Kosher for us, but it’s Kosher for them.
Also, “not recommended” is a much more accurate term. The Tablet K is an Eid Echad telling us it’s Kosher. As long as the Mashgichim and Rav HaMachshir are Frum people, it’s technically Kosher. How reliable they are, I have no idea. But unless it’s a known fake Hashgacha (and I mean really fake), one would not be Over on Issurim like Neveilah and such if one ate it.
DaMoshe: They are also known for supervising establishments such as bakeries and cafeterias.
Sam: Let’s say an establishment sells products which require, at the least, yotzei v’nichnas, but the mashgiach never shows up. Would you still consider it an “eid echad”?
“I would certainly not eat the bagels, I dont think you can say with certainty that they’re treif. “
In the Bronx, almost all the bagels in independent retail outlets come from the same source, Just Bagels, which is under OU supervision. I’ve seen their trucks making early morning deliveries.
“he did not hold cheese produced with microbial media to be cheese in the traditional understanding, since microbial coagulant did not exist at the time of the Shulchan Aruch. He said it is a different product, so the gezerah was not applicable to it”
My rav told he that Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l ate such cheese. My rav doesn’t accept Tablet K for other reasons, not this one.
Sam: The eid echod is dead.
And there is in any event certainly way more than enough of a reiusah on whatever eidus there is, that you would need to look into it. I don’t think eid echod means that you are allowed to be willfully blind.
My rav told he that Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l ate such cheese. My rav doesn’t accept Tablet K for other reasons, not this one.
Your rav implicitly holds Rav Soloveitchik was a bigot and was peddling false halacha (chas v’shalom), and he should not rely on him.
Joseph, you can (and people HAVE been) successfully sue if an agency declares your supervision “not kosher”. It is why NY States old kosher laws had to be rewritten. If Rabbi Shirley Temple claims it is kosher and certifies it as such, you can not claim “anything certified by rabbi temple is not kosher”, since the law will not recognize one standard over another. You may say it doesnt meet standard X or something similar, but to say “not kosher”, you will lose every time. In NJ all certifying agencies must state what standards their kosher claim adheres to.
“but the mashgiach never shows up. Would you still consider it an “eid echad”?”
On the one hand, is there a din bagel shenisalem min ha’ayin, on the other hand, how reliable is the proprietor to begin with? often there is zero ne’emanus as far as the proprietor is concerned and just because an ou certified bagel was delivered at 5am, it doesnt mean that all bagels sold in the store at 8am are from this source. If you wish to believe the proprietor, we may as well do away with all store supervisions and rely on the non jewish owner that all product are from the certified source. Are you really making such an argument?
Are you really making such an argument?
No, I’m actually making the same argument you are, that if there is no actual supervision, a certificate is generally worthless.
DY: What needs Yotzei V’Nichnas Mei”ikar HaDin? Unless you know for a fact he is lying (or he lacks Ne’emanus by being a Mechalel Shabbos B’farhesia), MeIkar HaDin you can believe him, yes.
I’m talking about establishments owned and run by people with no halachic ne’emanus.
Apushitayid
“If Rabbi Shirley Temple claims it is kosher and certifies it as such, you can not claim “anything certified by rabbi temple is not kosher”, since the law will not recognize one standard over another.”
I dont follow , if they (the courts) say I cant say Shirley’s certification is non-kosher. Then they ARE recognizing one standard over another.
If I say, I’ts notkosher because she relies on R”T and I don’t hold that way (to ue an above example) for the court to rule in her favor would be recognising her standard over mine. Which you say they wont do. And I agree they shouldnt get involved in a “machlokes” whether we can rely on R”T’s shita.
To use an extreme example if she says pork chops are Kosher. In court she can claim that according to her interpretation of Kosher law pork is kosher (say she claims it is kosher if treated humane or something). I say thats nonsense and Pork, even if certified by Rabbi shirley is non-kosher. How would a court be able to rule whose interpretation of “kosher law” is correct?
My rav told he that Rav Soloveitchik z’tz’l ate such cheese.
No, what R’ Soloveitchik allegedly ate was a new variety that had never been manufactured with animal rennet.
Charlie, the Mechaber and Rema clearly assered, the only machlokes is whether a community which has a minhag to be meikil (not relevant to us) may or may not continue to do so.
“I dont follow”
The only thing you should worry about following is the psak of your Rav.
I will try to be clearer. In short, if “rabbi” shirley temple certifies something as kosher, I can be sued for slander by stating it is not kosher (tip: try calling the OU, OK, star-K or any well known kashrus agency and ask them if “supervision X is reliable”). The law does not recognize or accept as kosher, (for example) the CRC standard of kashrus any more then it does hers. If she claims it is kosher all she must do it show that she supervises to her standard of “kashrus” and you cant claim it is not “kosher” under the law. The law will not decide whose standard of kashrus is correct (nor do we want them getting involved either).
The cRc does have a list of acceptable (to them) hechsherim.
FYI when I was in Paris, they told me the o-U was not acceptable
You dont have to go to Paris to hear that. Within a couple of miles of OU headquarters you can find lots of people who will tell you the same thing!
In fact, you can hear that right here in the CR! (Should I link popa’s thread?)
Apushitayid
“The law will not decide whose standard of kashrus is correct “
so then how can she sue me. She drags me to court she says pork is kosher, I say it isnt and her hechsher is garbage, we ask the judge to rule “The law will not decide whose standard of kashrus is correct ” and we both walk out.
The kashrus agencies say reccomended, as DY pointed out becasue you cant say anything with, say a triangle K is Treif. It may or may not be. It is simply “not recommended”
“the Mechaber and the Rema”
Not all Acharonim pasken according to the Mechaber or the Rema.
“the o-U was not acceptable”
They can say it (in Paris). We can’t (in America). You simply cannot keep kosher in the United States if you don’t accept the OU unless you make all your food from scratch using only raw agricultural products, because every other kashrut agency in America relies on the OU.
Not all Acharonim pasken according to the Mechaber or the Rema.
Yes, we are all aware of how your religion has gone from identifying a shitas yochid that nobody has held of in a thousand years, to simply alleging that “not everyone paskens like that”, or “there are other shittos.”
APY/Sam/ubiq:
All civil courts in the United States lack any authority to answer a question of religious law such as whether a claim that kosher certification is unreliably kosher. I can say a particular hechsher’s is unreliable in certifying foods as kosher, or even say that they certify non-kosher food as kosher, and even if I am wrong the agency cannot successfully sue for damages in court. This is because in order to determine damages the civil court would need to answer whether the agencies certification is in fact kosher under Jewish law. And civil courts legally cannot attempt to answer that question.
The idea that anyone can certify anything as kosher and no one is permitted to outright dispute their claim of it being kosher — because the certifyer can claim it is kosher under their own standards — is inaccurate. I can claim it isn’t kosher under MY standards. And if I say it isn’t kosher I mean it isn’t kosher under my standards.
No one has been successfully sued for saying an agencies kashrus standards are unreliable or even non-kosher unless they’ve had grossly incompetent counsel. And you can check court case history and you will not find any such example(s). I can say with impunity that Agency Z certifies non-Kosher food as kosher; or say Agency Z’s kosher certification is unreliable. If Agency Z sued me the case would be tossed out of court in a heartbeat.
If I publicly say that the kosher certified food is in fact non-kosher, I am saying that it isn’t kosher under MY standards of kosher. And I have the right to say that.
In fact, fairly recently there was a somewhat analogous court decision precisely along these lines. Hebrew National was sued for claiming their food is kosher where the plaintiff claimed it in fact was not kosher. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank in St. Paul federal court ruled that he does not have jurisdiction over a dispute that he described as “intrinsically religious in nature.” Frank said he was constrained by clear Supreme Court precedent barring civil judges from resolving faith-based disputes. “Any judicial inquiry as to whether defendant misrepresented that its Hebrew National products are “100% kosher” would necessarily intrude upon rabbinical religious autonomy,” Frank wrote. “Naturally, therefore, this court cannot determine whether defendant’s Hebrew National products are in fact kosher without delving into questions of religious doctrine.”
The original claim in this case isn’t the important point I am bringing. Primarily note the reasoning and logic the federal court used to throw out the case without trial.
Tablet K should be treated like the first luchos… BROKEN!
They are not acceptable to reliable kashrus agencies. G’vinas Akum – no problem. Bishul Akum – no problem. Infestation – no problem.
STAY AWAY!
Mark Levin: to be clear, the issue runs far deeper than any problematic standards they may have. The bigger issue is that the rav hamachshir is dead.
Popa, it wasn’t any better when he wasn’t. Although, it is kind of illustrative of the fact that the problem is not merely unacceptable standards.
“This is because in order to determine damages the civil court would need to answer whether the agencies certification is in fact kosher under Jewish law”
To determine damages the courts will determine whether the certifying agencies reputation (business) was damaged by negative remarks. Don’t take my word for it, look up the case law or ask a lawyer who deals with defamation cases.
“The bigger issue is that the rav hamachshir is dead.”
who said the food is fresh?
APY it is not defamation if it is true even they were damaged by the remarks.
For example if I say John is a molester, he sues me becasue now his child care he runs in his basement is suffering. If it turns out he is a molester, I am not liable even if his business suffers. In order to determine liabilities the court will decide if my remarks were true.
Now on to kashrus
If I say Shirley’s organization is unrelaible and her “hechsher” business suffers. In order to be found liable the court would have to determine if I am right or not. However, as you correctly pointed out, “The law will not decide whose standard of kashrus is correct ” Therfore the case will get thrown out even if her business suffers since the court can not determine whose interpretation of Kashrus is correct.
This isnt limited to kashrus. If I say a mikva isnt kosher would be the same thing
Any specefic (recent) case you can cite that says anything different?
(In the old days there were laws protecting Kosher. Kosher was determined to be only by orthodox standards. Then (not anymore in NY) the opposite of what you say could occur, since I could ahve sued Shirley for claiming to be Kosher when she wasn not by orthodox standards. But this is moot today)
CURRENT NY State “kosher laws” are really “labeling” laws. Anyone who offers certification must fill out a form that among other thing details (in the words of NY State) “a statement of their qualifications for certifying food as kosher.” The state of NY will not get involved in determining if the shulchan aruch and nosei keilim or lihavdil the jts handbook on kashrus is what determines kosher. You can definitely say this persons qualifications do not meet my standards, but you can not say “the food that person certifies is not kosher”. The more private an individual the better chance they have at a successful defamation suit.
APY The start of your last post is spot on up until here:
“but you can not say “the food that person certifies is not kosher”. The more private an individual the better chance they have at a successful defamation suit.”
This part contradicts your first few lines
In order for the court to determine whether the defendant’s saying “the food that person certifies is not kosher” is defamation or not the court would – by definition- have to get involved “in determining if the shulchan aruch and nosei keilim or lihavdil the jts handbook on kashrus is what determines kosher.” Which as you correctly start out saying, they will not do. There is zero chance of a successful defamation lawsuit much as if you sue me for saying your Eruv, or Mikvah arent kosher
“To determine damages the courts will determine whether the certifying agencies reputation (business) was damaged by negative remarks.”
There are no damages awarded if the negative remarks were true. And the court will refuse to determine whether they were true for the earlier mentioned reasons.
“Don’t take my word for it, look up the case law”
I already cited case law above supporting what I am telling you. You will not be able to find a case by a kashrus agency successfully winning a lawsuit against someone for saying their kashrus certification is unreliable or non-kosher.
“You can definitely say this persons qualifications do not meet my standards, but you can not say “the food that person certifies is not kosher”.
You can say that Kashruth Agency Z certifies non-kosher food as kosher. Or you can say Kashruth Agency Z’s certification is completely unreliable.
“The more private an individual the better chance they have at a successful defamation suit.”
Regardless whether they are private or not they have little to no chance of being successful in a defamation suit based on someone stating the food they certify as kosher is treif.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.