The Jewish community has been roiled by the continuing charges against kosher meat giant Agriprocessors. Kosher consumers are angry that practices which are supposed to bring credit to Jewish tradition are instead sullying its image. But Jews have been divided on how to respond.
The Conservative movement has proposed a new kind of certification, called a Hekhsher Tzedek. It would certify that a food company adheres to a specific set of standards — developed by those behind this initiative — in providing wages, working conditions and vacation time to its employees, among other things.
We certainly agree that working conditions and the like are Jewish concerns. This is consistent with the message of the great biblical prophets who underscored our responsibilities to the downtrodden and disadvantaged. Many tiers of responsibility in the workplace are firmly ensconced in Jewish law.
Nevertheless, we reject the Hekhsher Tzedek proposal. It is arbitrary, impractical and, ultimately, threatens to undermine the standing of Jewish law.
Kosher consumers are not upset that Agriprocessors has failed to catapult poor workers into middle-class comfort. They are troubled that the company may have broken the law. We agree with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, the rabbinic supervisors of Agriprocessors, who refused to convict in the court of public opinion, but made it quite clear that if the allegations stand up to scrutiny in court, they will not be able to continue their association with those who violate legal norms. If push comes to shove, kosher consumers — who already pay a premium to observe the law — will put principle before convenience, even if it means curtailing their consumption of meat.
It is the government that is best suited to uncover and prosecute legal impropriety. Rabbis are ill-prepared to ferret out malfeasance. Rabbis lack the power and authority to subpoena witnesses and punish perjury. They can only conduct private investigations, which are very expensive if done properly and very inaccurate if done cheaply.
In seeking to set up standards that go beyond the law, reasonable people will always disagree. This is one reason why the law remains the best touchstone of what society agrees is proper.
Any guidelines that do not organically grow out of Jewish ethical expectations are by nature arbitrary. What number of vacation days is ethical? Why should an industry average of wages or benefits serve as a guide to ethical conduct? Rabbis specialize in making decisions about law, not in creating new systems of rules to enforce ethical principles. Their suggestions about going beyond the letter of the law will be no more compelling than other suggestions.
The organizers of Hekhsher Tzedek do not seem to be aware of this. The subtitle on an official companion paper to the Hekhsher Tzedek policy recommendations reads “al pi din,” or “according to the law.” But the Hekhsher Tzedek proposals are not law — not secular law, and not Jewish law. They also misread rabbinic texts. For example, they cite a number of talmudic and rabbinic sources to suggest that Jewish law requires providing benefits to workers according to what is customary in a given locale, failing to note that this is only true in the absence of an articulated understanding between employer and employee. It seems that those behind Hekhsher Tzedek have interpreted Jewish law in such a way so as to make it a servant to their ethical preconceptions.
And why does Hekhsher Tzedek focus only on the kosher food industry? Ethical considerations should be applied to all industries, not just kosher food. Should good Jews use attorneys who drive large gas-guzzling SUVs? Should they shop at the warehouse store that gets most of its goods from a country that abuses millions of its citizens? Should they purchase music that glorifies drug use or objectifies women?
There is a historically established danger in singling out the kosher industry for special scrutiny and standards. Many — especially those who do not observe the laws of kashrut — feel that the real worth of Jewish dietary laws is in the ethical values they represent, which they contrast with adherence to halachic minutiae. Indeed, the Hekhsher Tzedek initiative’s Web site prominently features a quote informing us: “If we don’t connect [kashrut] to the world and the values we hold, then we fail to take kashrut at its core level.”
This sort of thinking is hardly anything new. For centuries, Jews were urged to abandon Jewish practice by arguments that the ethic behind the law was far more important than, and indeed the only real purpose of, the law itself. Some understand Paul’s argument for Christians abandoning the kosher laws as follows: Don’t worry about what enters your mouth — concern yourself with what comes out.
Hekhsher Tzedek’s narrow focus on kosher food seems to indulge the notion that Jewish law is not sufficient, and indeed not as important as ethics. Judaism, however, has wisely chosen to assert the value of the law in and of itself. The law provides a common basis of conduct for all people, including those who will disagree on what is ethical.
Jews should make sure that the laws of the land reflect ethical concerns, and that the companies they rely on scrupulously obey those laws. But they should resist measures that downplay the value of the kosher laws themselves in pursuit of a higher morality. We see a real danger that Hekhsher Tzedek will unwittingly diminish both.
Rabbi Michael Broyde is a professor of law at Emory University and the founding rabbi of the Young Israel congregation in Atlanta. Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein is the Sydney M. Irmas Adjunct Chair in Jewish Law and Ethics at Loyola Law School and founding editor of the blog Cross-Currents.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
Reconsider Decision on Rabbis and Intermarriage
Ultra-Orthodox Men Ditch All-Black Attire as Fashion Trumps Tradition
Is Steven Hawking’s Decision To Boycott an Israeli Conference Boon to BDS?
Alas, Poor GOP: 3 D.C. Scandals That Weren't
Cigarette Smugglers Tied to Notorious Jewish Murder on Brooklyn Bridge 
Copyright © 2013, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
You've successfully signed up!
I’m shocked to see Orthodox leaders suggest that a production facility is ok by them as long as it only complies in part with Jewish law. So, what, I guess if the owner of the facility is an idolater or a murderer, right? That has nothing to do with dietary laws. Oh, but wait. It does. The Orthodox will not drink wine that is not assuredly produced by non-idolators. Hmmm. Sounds like they are mixing “other” aspects of Jewish law with food. And of course, giving up on Jewish law and letting the secular law operate is massively hypocritical given Orthodox law on otherwise secular subjects, including divorce. No one is forcing you to buy Hekhsher-Tzedek products or observe the rules, nor are they forcing anyone. I applaud the Conservative movement for this idea.
There is text and then there is subtext. The subtext here is that Orthodox authorities are having a hard time swallowing an Halachic implementation that has its genesis in the Conservative movement. Therefore the authors of this article have put forth these strained arguments to suggest that Kashrut is a technical guideline the execution of which is divorced from the balance of the 613. But as the previous comment notes, this is simply not true. The most notable example is with respect to the link between kashrut and sabbath observance. Orthodox supervising agencies would not even consider offering a certification to a restaurant that is not Shomer Shabbat. This linkage is supported by traditional rabbinic authorities---but they are just that, rabbinic opinions that come out of a particular place and time. Our great rabbis from even 100 years ago could never have envisioned a kosher meat operation on the size and scale of Rubashkin. So let's call the Orthodox problem with the Hechsher Tzedek but its real name---"not-invented-here" syndrome. Well--it's actually even worse than that. It's a fundamental disrespect for a legitimate halachicly proper idea that happens to come from Conservative authorities. That's why instead of disagreeing with "an interpretation" of gemorrah, the Rabbi's are accused of "misreading" the text. The Orthodox establishment didn't create this problem. But they would do well to embrace a solution that would not interfere with technical kashrut and would help to remediate the enormous chillul Hashem that has been created. And by the way, the argument that if we require our industries that are subject to kashrut to be ethical, then other industries should have to do the same....that may not be such a bad idea.
Agriprocessors reported treatment of its employees is unethical at the human level, and I as a Jew hold myself and Halacha to a much higher standard than that. If the Orthodox establishment does not have a solution to the problem, then at least they should not make themselves part of the problem by saying that the mistreatment of workers is OK if there is "an articulated understanding between employer and employee". That Jewish society would allow an immoral and unethical agreement to carry weight is shameful. We are supposed to be a light unto the nations, but the reported treatment of employees by Agriprocessors only serves to put the Jewish people in a bad light. The justification by the writers make that bad light shine all the brighter on us all. Thankfully, the Conservative movement has made an effort to rectify this contradiction between basic human morals and Jewish law based on Halacha. They should be applauded for doing so and even if not accepted as Halacha, their guidelines should be followed because it is the Jewish thing to do!
When I was a child, my teacher, the late Rabbi I. Harold Sharfman, an Orthodox Rabbi who also ran a kosher certification service (KOAOA) taught us that we had certain obligations to our animals and obligations to our employees and servants, that shechita (kosher slaughter) was designed to minimize unnecessary pain and trauma to animals, etc. We are fortunate to live in a country where an acceptable level in many of these areas is mandated by law and sometimes enforced effectively, and where shechita is not hampered. But just as Jewish law has its own standards in other areas, such as marriage and determining the appropriate amounts of one's annual tithing, so also should it have independent standards in these areas, and certification of compliance is appropriate. Sadly, the Agriprocessors situation has brought disrepute to the entire kosher industry. It is necessary for the rabbinate to take steps to rectify this.
Rabbis Broyde and Adlerstein deserve much kudos for standing up to the PC liberal demands of Hechsher Tzedek which is a deviationist attempt to substitute its notions of what is PC and liberal for the Shulchan Aruch. Agriprocessors is hardly perfect, but Hechser Tzedek has shown no willingness to tackle any issue other than Agriprocessors. One wonders why.
I heard Rabbi Broyde speak once at Kemp Mill Synagogue and know he has an excellent reputation. So I am sad to read this article. Perhaps Heksher Tzedek is not the best approach, but given the failure of our Orthodox institutions to deal seriously with the problem, crticizing Heksher Tzedek on minutia of their arguments is besides the point. As the Forward has noted previously, the Orthodox leadership has known of Rubashkins corruption and mis-treatment of workers for years, so hiding behind due process and U.S. law to allow an immoral operation is a major Hillul Hashem (desecration of God's name). Stopping this Hillul Hashem should be the top priority for Rabbis such as Broyde and Adlerstein.
I think the poster Michael is right. The reason such eminent rabbis are opposed to Hekhsher Tzedek is that same as expressed in the opinion above that deemed the Conservative initiative a "a deviationist attempt to substitute its notions of what is PC and liberal for the Shulchan Aruch." Orthodox Judaism has hardened within recent memory into a rigid and fundamentalist ideology that, in order to preserve itself, must disparage and denigrate any ideologies that dare to disagree. Because Conservative Judaism professes a different understanding of Torah and halakhah from the Orthodox party line, it must be held in disdain and its efforts and initiatives must be condemned and criticized as much as feasibly practical. It is truly sad, and is an example of why there will probably never be unity among the Jewish people. The hypocrisy of Orthodox opposition to the very idea of a Hekhsher Tzedek should be obvious: since when has Orthodox halakhah been opposed to raising the standard for legal acceptability, for adding another layer of legal rules on top of what has been inherited from previous generations? It's all about "fences around the Torah," or in this case fences around fences around fences around the Torah. Look at how glatt went from being a minhag to a necessity in the kosher meat market in an exceptionally short time. Is it really so burdensome to add yet another layer of accountability? Let's not kid ourselves. The sense of entitled superiority that undergirds what passes for Orthodox thinking these days is the culprit here. That, and the resistance to Conservative rabbis muscling in on their turf in the kashrut certification business. The hekhsher business is quite lucrative and heaven forbid anyone else -- anyone not Orthodox -- should get to share in the wealth!
I cannot guess the authors' motivation, and I'm sure that the Heksher Tzedek proposal, like almost all others, could be improved by debate and discussion among our scholars of all stripes. But, to rely on the American Christian majority to resolve our moral problem is clear evidence of the impotence of Orthodoxy and of the stultifying impact of the Shulchan Aruk on the progress of Jewish culture.
What a joke that a Conservative organization should think they can give a supervision for a product the majority of their congregants don't even bother to buy on a halachic level!