JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Binyamin Yisrael on August 07, 2013, 09:49:39 PM
-
Has the era of the kosher cheeseburger arrived?
By Talia Lavin
August 7, 2013 4:44pm
NEW YORK (JTA) — When the world’s first lab-grown burger was introduced and taste-tested on Monday, the event seemed full of promise for environmentalists, animal lovers and vegetarians.
Another group that had good reason to be excited? Kosher consumers.
The burger was created by harvesting stem cells from a portion of cow shoulder muscle that were multiplied in petri dishes to form tiny strips of muscle fiber. About 20,000 of the strips were needed to create the five-ounce burger, which was financed partially by Google founder Sergey Brin and unveiled by Mark Post of Maastricht University in the Netherlands.
PETA hailed the event as a “first step” toward humanely producing meat products. A University of Amsterdam study shows that lab-grown meat could significantly reduce the environmental impact of beef production.
For kosher-observant Jews, the “cultured” burgers could open the door to radical dietary changes — namely, the birth of the kosher cheeseburger.
That’s because meat produced through this process could be considered parve – neither meat nor dairy — according to Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO of the Orthodox Union’s kosher division. Thus under traditional Jewish law, the burger could be paired with dairy products.
Several key conditions would have to be met to create kosher, parve cultured beef. The tissue samples would have to come from an animal that had been slaughtered according to kosher rules, not from a biopsy from a live animal, Genack said.
The principle underlying this theory is much like the status of gelatin in Jewish law: Though it is derived from an animal, it is not meat (the OU certifies some bovine-derived gelatin as parve).
Genack noted another source for viewing cultured meat as parve: a 19th century Vilna-born scholar known as the Heshek Shlomo wrote that the meat of an animal conjured up in a magical incantation could be considered parve. It may not be too much of a stretch, then, to apply the same logic to modern genetic wizardry.
But kosher chefs aren’t heating up the parve griddles just yet.
The lab-born burger, which cost $325,000 and took two years to make, is still a long way from market viability, kosher or otherwise. If mass produced, it could still cost $30 per pound, researchers said.
“I’ll believe it when I see it,” said Jeff Nathan, the executive chef at Abigael’s on Broadway, a kosher restaurant in Manhattan. “Until it’s in my hands and I can touch it, smell it and taste it, I don’t believe it.”
Even if cultured beef became commonplace, consumers still might not be interested, said Elie Rosenfeld, a spokesman for Empire Kosher, the nation’s largest kosher poultry producer.
“Parve burgers made of tofu and vegetables have been on the market for years,” Rosenfeld said. “But customers are still looking for the real deal, a product that’s wholesome and genuine.”
Nevertheless, Nathan sounded an enthusiastic note about the potential for parve meat.
“I’m all for experimentation and science,” he said. “Let’s see what it tastes like!”
-
Wouldn't it look like a normal burger thus invoking the problem of 'Appearance of Transgression'/Marit Ayin?
http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/shoftim69.htm
Appearance of transgression prohibited
This is why the Halachic authorities often prohibit particular acts since they may appear to others as a transgression of a Torah commandment. There is a dual reason for this. First of all, a person should not put himself into a situation where others would suspect that he is doing something wrong. Secondly, we should always keep in mind that whatever we do others will take example from and may emulate what they think we are doing. In this way, the Torah educates us to be responsible, not only for our own personal acts, but also for our influence on others.
http://ohr.jle.org.uk/ask/ask029.htm
Now on to your question. The Talmud teaches that the prohibition against mixing meat and milk applies only to the meat and milk of a kosher species of animal. Therefore, mother's milk is "pareve" (neither dairy nor meaty).
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to cook meat with mother's milk because it looks like you are cooking with cow's milk ("Marit Ayin -- it "looks" bad). This prohibition is of Rabbinic origin. It was enacted because people might make a mistake and assume that you used cow's milk in your recipe.
Rav Moshe Isserlis states that if you use almond milk together with meat, which is not Biblically forbidden, you must place some almonds nearby so that people will know that it is in fact almond milk. Again the concern is about "Marit Ayin". Following this line of reasoning, many halachic authorities require that when using a non-dairy creamer at a meat meal, one should also display the container of the creamer so that everyone can see that it is in fact non-dairy.
Sources:
The Talmud - Tractate Chullin 113a.
The Shulchan Aruch - Yoreh Deah 57:4.
Rav Moshe Isserlis - Yoreh Deah 57:3.
-
Another case of Marit Ayin...
http://ohr.jle.org.uk/2247
If someone was caught in a downpour on Shabbat or otherwise got his clothes wet, may he hang them up to dry?
One opinion of the Sages is that he may do so as long as the wet garments are not visible to the public. The reason is that people who see these wet clothes hanging may suspect him of having violated the Sabbath by washing his clothes. Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon, however, rule that it is forbidden to do so regardless of where he hangs them. Their position is that once the Sages have issued a decree forbidding something because of marit ayin suspicion of sin the decree is binding even when circumstances render such suspicion highly unlikely but not impossible.
The Sage Rav ruled in accordance with the second position. His ruling was challenged by some commentaries from a gemara in Mesechta Chullin (41a). There we learn that it is forbidden to slaughter an animal or fowl in a manner which causes its blood to fall into a hole because this is the way of the heretics. This ban applies only to the public area and not to a private courtyard.
Although this seems to go against Ravs position that something prohibited in a public area because of marit ayin applies to a private area as well, Tosefot points out that there is a difference. Even if someone would see a slaughter taking place in the private courtyard he would not suspect wrongdoing but would assume that it was being done in that manner in order to keep the area from becoming stained with blood. The position of Rav forms the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 301:45).
Shabbat 65a
-
I wouldn't eat it because it's goyish and disgusts me anyway. Plus Marit Ayin. I wouldn't eat a soy burger with cheese either. I wouldn't eat a real beef one with soy cheese either or a soy burger with soy cheese. I think it's disgusting to eat a cheese sandwich. When I was younger, I didn't like cheese at all. If I eat cheese, it's usually cooked such as on pizza. Sometimes if there is a salad with cheese such as Greek salad, I would eat that also.
On the positive side, at least if I ate pareve meat, I wouldn't have to wait 6 hours to eat ice cream later on or other dairy. Or even at the same meal but not together. It's like you can eat dairy utensil pareve food in the same meal as meat but not with the same plate or fork.
-
The issue of marit ayin was brought up when pareve creamers were given with coffee at catered events. Now everyone knows that pareve creamers exist so it's not an issue anymore.
-
I have not read anything above, but anyway. To me this go's against HaShem. What are they using to grow the muscle fibers? To me this is like crossing a orange with an apple, which is forbidden. I think...
-
I have not read anything above, but anyway. To me this go's against HaShem. What are they using to grow the muscle fibers? To me this is like crossing a orange with an apple, which is forbidden. I think...
Interesting question. But I think they are not mixing anything with the stem cell fibers... I don't know all the details but I think that this question will be addressed by the Rabbis when the issue becomes more clear.
I think the forbidden mixtures are only referring to fibers though (The commandment of Shatnez) and the commands concerning working two dissimilar animals together in the field.
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/704643/jewish/Forbidden-Mixtures.htm
You may not sow your vineyard with a mixture of seeds, for then the [seeds'] growth and even the seed that you planted together with the [fruit] yield of the vineyard will become forbidden.
You may not plow with an ox and a donkey together.
You may not wear shatnez, [which is] wool and linen together.
-- Devarim 22:9-11
Classic Questions
Why may one not plow with an ox and a donkey? (v. 10)
Ramban: Because it would lead to the further prohibition of crossbreeding species (Vayikra 19:19). For the farmer will house the ox and the donkey together, and they will breed with each other.
To what extent may wool and linen not be mixed? (v. 11)
Rashi: If wool and linen are combed together, and spun into thread, and woven together into cloth, then it is Biblically forbidden [to wear a garment that is made from this cloth] (as quoted in Tur, Yoreh De'ah ch. 300).
Rabeinu Tam: Woolen thread and linen thread that were prepared separately will become Biblically prohibited if they are woven together as one cloth (Tosfos ibid.).
Rambam: When wool and linen are bound together in any way whatsoever, the product is prohibited by the Torah (Laws of Forbidden Mixtures 10:2).
-
More on forbidden mixtures @
http://www.torah.org/learning/halacha-overview/chapter34.html
-
Interesting question. But I think they are not mixing anything with the stem cell fibers... I don't know all the details but I think that this question will be addressed by the Rabbis when the issue becomes more clear.
I think the forbidden mixtures are only referring to fibers though (The commandment of Shatnez) and the commands concerning working two dissimilar animals together in the field.
Grapes and wheat are forbiden to grow together. On Rosh Chodesh Adar, they would come inspect the vineyards to make sure no wheat was growing. I think with hybrid produce like certain fruits and vegetables (not grains such as wheat), the prohibition is making it but if a Non-Jew grew it, it would be permitted for a Jew to eat. Or maybe forbidden to make but permitted no matter who grew it.
-
All the things about the life of the animal can be thrown out of the window then.
-
The following is an excerpt from the Soncino translation of the Talmud, tractate Chullin 109b
Yaltha once said to R. Nahman: ‘Observe, for everything that the Divine Law has forbidden us it
has permitted us an equivalent:
The Talmud then provides several examples of this principle which I will skip for now, because we have a mixed audience.
On the same page of the Talmud Yaltha then asks R. Nahman
I wish to eat flesh in milk, [where is its equivalent?]’
Thereupon R. Nahman said to the butchers, ‘Give her roasted Udders’.{16} But have we not learnt,
[THE UDDER] MUST BE CUT OPEN? — That is only when [it is to be cooked] in a pot.{17} But
does it not state [in the Baraitha above]. ‘If [the udder was] cooked’,{18} which implies that only after the act it is permitted but not in the first instance?{19} — Indeed, it is even permitted in the first instance, but only because [the Tanna of the cited Baraitha] desired to state the second clause viz., If the stomach was cooked with its milk it is forbidden, in which case it is not permitted even after the act, he stated in the first clause too ‘if it was cooked’.
Footnotes
(16) Lit., ‘give her udders on the spit’. i.e., roasted (Rashi). According to Aruch: ‘Feed her with well-filled udders’.
(17) R. Nahman apparently accepts the view stated in the second version of Rab supra. that the udder is forbidden if
cooked without having been cut open.
(18) The expression ‘cooked’, בשל, in the Baraitha is to be interpreted as roasted and not cooked in a Pot. Cf. the same
expression in II Chron. XXXV, 13: And they cooked the passover.
(19) How then did R. Nahman permit his wife {Yaltha} to eat the udder roasted, and in the first instance too?
_______________
From the above it would appear that it is okay to look for the kosher equivalents of forbidden milk and meat.
-
I saw in a post above about "Appearance of transgression prohibited"
There is a place in LA called "Mexikosher" and while it is Kosher supervises, they serve "cheeseburgers" which is beef on some parve buns but with parve SOY cheese.
So, this would not be ok to eat? Technically it would be ok but due to the appearance, it should not be eaten?
-
I saw in a post above about "Appearance of transgression prohibited"
There is a place in LA called "Mexikosher" and while it is Kosher supervises, they serve "cheeseburgers" which is beef on some parve buns but with parve SOY cheese.
So, this would not be ok to eat? Technically it would be ok but due to the appearance, it should not be eaten?
I am not an expert but I believe I heard that as long as everyone knows that the 'cheeseburger' at that restaurant is truly kosher, then there is no transgression of Mirat Ayin.
It is my belief that it is the possibility that another Jew will see you eating it and either think you are transgressing, or it may lead others to transgress. If everyone knows that that particular restaurant is Kosher then, as I said I don't believe it is a problem.
-
No issue of Marit Ayin. If their is a possibility of explanation then their is no issue. Thus in this case it is known that their is parve cheese and such soo definitely not Marit Ayin.
-
Please everyone never ever eat soy.
-
Please everyone never ever eat soy.
Why? Are you gluten intolerant? There are things with soy that are not imitation, like soy beans and soy sauce.
-
I just saw a soy "bacon" at the store. It said it was parve. It wasn't at a kosher market either but a regular grocery store in the vegetarian section. Let's say that the gentiles at the store see a Jewish person buying this fake "bacon"...that is when we would say not to buy it, right?
-
Can they make glatt kosher moose in the laboratory?
-
I just saw a soy "bacon" at the store. It said it was parve. It wasn't at a kosher market either but a regular grocery store in the vegetarian section. Let's say that the gentiles at the store see a Jewish person buying this fake "bacon"...that is when we would say not to buy it, right?
What about turkey bacon? I have been only eating deer and turkey bacon...
-
I just saw a soy "bacon" at the store. It said it was parve. It wasn't at a kosher market either but a regular grocery store in the vegetarian section. Let's say that the gentiles at the store see a Jewish person buying this fake "bacon"...that is when we would say not to buy it, right?
I dont think soo. (Meaning I think it wouldn't be a problem) I see Kosher "bacon" sold at a (totally) Glatt Kosher supermarket. Soo I assume both would be no issue. We live in society where these things are known. Marit Ayin doesn't apply to these situations. And one need not say well perhaps this person will think this or another person will think that because with this the situations would be endless and these are not defined as Marit Ayin (as opposed to some being overly obsessed with not appearing to look ban in and possible way which is no way to live being at the mentality of being constantly scrutinized).
-
Can they make glatt kosher moose in the laboratory?
Are you serious? What does that even mean?
-
I dont think soo. (Meaning I think it wouldn't be a problem) I see Kosher "bacon" sold at a (totally) Glatt Kosher supermarket. Soo I assume both would be no issue. We live in society where these things are known. Marit Ayin doesn't apply to these situations. And one need not say well perhaps this person will think this or another person will think that because with this the situations would be endless and these are not defined as Marit Ayin (as opposed to some being overly obsessed with not appearing to look ban in and possible way which is no way to live being at the mentality of being constantly scrutinized).
Thank you.
-
It's the same with kosher bacon and kosher pepperoni. Bacon and pepperoni are not animals. It's the style in which the meat of the animal is prepared. There is no reason why you can't make it from kosher meat. But words like turkey ham are crazy though because ham is a known part of a pig.
I've eaten beef fry but it's not good to fry. It's just all fat and will make the frying pan give off smoke. It's better to be eaten as a cold cut since it's fully cooked anyway (Not like pork bacon.).
I've also eaten imitation shrimp and imitation crab. It's made from kosher fish.
-
Try Japanese bacon
(http://img.metro.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/23/article-1306166666722-0BF8805F00000578-386170_636x368.jpg)
-
LKZ.....now I am just depressed. :'(
-
Imitation crab is VERY popular among Jews. It is frequently used to make sushi.
http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/188991/3509529/0/1211523815/Imitation_crab_stick_minced_style.jpg
-
Imitation crab is VERY popular among Jews. It is frequently used to make sushi.
http://img.diytrade.com/cdimg/188991/3509529/0/1211523815/Imitation_crab_stick_minced_style.jpg
They sell it in the supermarket frozen section. It's also sold in kosher seafood salad at the kosher deli counter. They also sell the sushi you mention made fresh in the store.
-
About this topic, anyway who cares? Why the obsession about eating a "cheese burger" or something else treif that has a kosher imitation.
-
They sell it in the supermarket frozen section. It's also sold in kosher seafood salad at the kosher deli counter. They also sell the sushi you mention made fresh in the store.
Yepp that and spicy tuna is opular sushi. I think its called california roll if im not mistaken. (just checked, yes it is California roll).
-
About this topic, anyway who cares? Why the obsession about eating a "cheese burger" or something else treif that has a kosher imitation.
I think it's goyish also. I just brought it up for the discussion of the Halachic issues involved. Previously someone posted about lab made meat. I asked if it would be kosher so I found an article. The question is whether it would be meat. Kosher meat has to be slaughtered. So the OU rabbi said it's not meat but the source of the stem cell would have to be from a kosher slaughter as with kosher pareve gelatin.
-
It's the same with kosher bacon and kosher pepperoni. Bacon and pepperoni are not animals. It's the style in which the meat of the animal is prepared. There is no reason why you can't make it from kosher meat. But words like turkey ham are crazy though because ham is a known part of a pig.
I've eaten beef fry but it's not good to fry. It's just all fat and will make the frying pan give off smoke. It's better to be eaten as a cold cut since it's fully cooked anyway (Not like pork bacon.).
I've also eaten imitation shrimp and imitation crab. It's made from kosher fish.
Do they make kosher imitation brontosaurus?
-
Another case of Marit Ayin...
Is there a case of artificial meat in the Talmud that the sages ruled as maris ayin?
Hanging up clothes on Shabbat is a specific din which has nothing to do with lab-grown/artificial hamburgers.
-
I wouldn't eat it because it's goyish
It's goyish? What does that mean exactly?
-
I saw in a post above about "Appearance of transgression prohibited"
There is a place in LA called "Mexikosher" and while it is Kosher supervises, they serve "cheeseburgers" which is beef on some parve buns but with parve SOY cheese.
So, this would not be ok to eat? Technically it would be ok but due to the appearance, it should not be eaten?
Little-known fact (except by experts - and me, I guess, since an expert told me): We can't make up new cases of maris ayin that the Talmudic sages themselves did not stipulate in the Torah Shebaal peh.
There are many kosher restaurants which serve fake cheese with meat or serve fake meat/meat substitute with cheese! That very fact alone leads me to believe that applying maris ayin to this issue is not credible.
There may be other issues involved with lab-grown meat, however.
-
I am not an expert but I believe I heard that as long as everyone knows that the 'cheeseburger' at that restaurant is truly kosher, then there is no transgression of Mirat Ayin.
Then why did you try to apply maris ayin to the lab-grown hamburger? Do you not see that the same logic could be applied if it's applied in this case you just described?
-
I just saw a soy "bacon" at the store. It said it was parve. It wasn't at a kosher market either but a regular grocery store in the vegetarian section. Let's say that the gentiles at the store see a Jewish person buying this fake "bacon"...that is when we would say not to buy it, right?
You have to go by halacha. By a rav. NOT by some general explanations told over to you on a messageboard which barely even touch the surface of the issue. Maybe you can ask these questions to a rav near you? Certainly, a kosher market is under supervision, no? And especially depending on where it is located (ie which community) it may be under extremely strict supervision in some cases. IF SO, then if fake bacon is a problem the kashrut agency wouldn't allow it there. It is simply not possible that something can be allowed to be on a shelf and sold but only if you look around and see no gentiles are watching you. No offense, but how could you even think that's realistic? There is just no way that could be practical - If such a situation was truly the reality, I would bet with 99.99% confidence that the supervision agency would simply not allow it to be on the store's shelf at all. But I'm quite sure that is not the reality of this issue.
-
It's the same with kosher bacon and kosher pepperoni. Bacon and pepperoni are not animals. It's the style in which the meat of the animal is prepared. There is no reason why you can't make it from kosher meat. But words like turkey ham are crazy though because ham is a known part of a pig.
Huh? What do you mean that "words are crazy?"
-
Do they make kosher imitation brontosaurus?
I wonder how that would taste.
-
You have to go by halacha. By a rav. NOT by some general explanations told over to you on a messageboard which barely even touch the surface of the issue. Maybe you can ask these questions to a rav near you? Certainly, a kosher market is under supervision, no? And especially depending on where it is located (ie which community) it may be under extremely strict supervision in some cases. IF SO, then if fake bacon is a problem the kashrut agency wouldn't allow it there. It is simply not possible that something can be allowed to be on a shelf and sold but only if you look around and see no gentiles are watching you. No offense, but how could you even think that's realistic? There is just no way that could be practical - If such a situation was truly the reality, I would bet with 99.99% confidence that the supervision agency would simply not allow it to be on the store's shelf at all. But I'm quite sure that is not the reality of this issue.
IsraeliHeart said this case is not a Kosher market...
The problem would be that the non-Jew would think that the Jew is eating bacon even though there was a hecsher on the imitation bacon. The purpose of Marit Ayin is to avoid the appearance of transgression.
And it should be obvious that all questions should be discussed with a rav.
-
Is there a case of artificial meat in the Talmud that the sages ruled as maris ayin?
Hanging up clothes on Shabbat is a specific din which has nothing to do with lab-grown/artificial hamburgers.
The purpose of the cases in the Talmud are just example cases, they can be applied to other things. Because the reason for that Talmudic passage concerning the drying of clothes on Shabbat is because it could have the appearance of transgression.
-
Then why did you try to apply maris ayin to the lab-grown hamburger? Do you not see that the same logic could be applied if it's applied in this case you just described?
If the people observing the questionable action are not aware of the fact that no transgression is taking place due to 'imitation' whatever then I think there may be a question of Marit Ayin.
Look at how the concept of Marit Ayin is applied to a question about whether drinking 'mothers milk' and eating meat is prohibited:
http://ohr.jle.org.uk/ask/ask029.htm
Does mother's milk have the same laws as cow's milk? May one drink it with meat?
Dear Marvin,
Your question reminds me of an incident that happened in my neighborhood a few years ago. A pious Jew lives in the Geula section of Jerusalem who is known for holistic remedies. One of his well-known treatments for inducing labor is to drink a certain amount of mother's milk.
Well, it so happened that the wife of one of my neighbors was overdue, and doctors suggested that she be induced. Before having the doctors induce her she called up the wife of the pious Jew from Geula and asked her what she should do. Naturally, the wife told her to drink mother's milk.
My neighbor hung up, thought for a moment and then called back -- "Will it affect the remedy if I mix in some chocolate powder?"
They say that if you see the wife of that pious man today, she's still smiling -- "Only an American could ask such a question!"
Now on to your question. The Talmud teaches that the prohibition against mixing meat and milk applies only to the meat and milk of a kosher species of animal. Therefore, mother's milk is "pareve" (neither dairy nor meaty).
Nevertheless, the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is forbidden to cook meat with mother's milk because it looks like you are cooking with cow's milk ("Marit Ayin -- it "looks" bad). This prohibition is of Rabbinic origin. It was enacted because people might make a mistake and assume that you used cow's milk in your recipe.
Rav Moshe Isserlis states that if you use almond milk together with meat, which is not Biblically forbidden, you must place some almonds nearby so that people will know that it is in fact almond milk. Again the concern is about "Marit Ayin". Following this line of reasoning, many halachic authorities require that when using a non-dairy creamer at a meat meal, one should also display the container of the creamer so that everyone can see that it is in fact non-dairy.
Sources:
The Talmud - Tractate Chullin 113a.
The Shulchan Aruch - Yoreh Deah 57:4.
Rav Moshe Isserlis - Yoreh Deah 57:3.
-
Little-known fact (except by experts - and me, I guess, since an expert told me): We can't make up new cases of maris ayin that the Talmudic sages themselves did not stipulate in the Torah Shebaal peh.
There are many kosher restaurants which serve fake cheese with meat or serve fake meat/meat substitute with cheese! That very fact alone leads me to believe that applying maris ayin to this issue is not credible.
There may be other issues involved with lab-grown meat, however.
Again you are missing the point of this whole discussion KWRBT...
The question has to do with a non-kosher market where non-Jews and other Jews who do not know better, would think you are transgressing.
And I also think you are wrong that the Talmud is closed, because various other decisions are learned from the Talmudic cases.
Do you actually think we learn about Ox's Goring neighbors because people are still being Gored by Ox's? No sir...
We learn about the cases in the Talmud in order to apply the concepts which are taught by these example cases. I am surprised you did not learn this.
So don't try to change the question to being in a kosher market. Obviously there would be no case of Marit Ayin in a Kosher establishment where everyone KNOWS ALREADY that the place is kosher. Do you really think we are that dumb as to suggest this?
-
The Talmud is always used as a source of principles which are applied to daily lives. Obviously the question should be posed to a Rabbi who knows the laws better than any of us, but we should be aware that the cases of the Talmud are not the only cases which principles are applied.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/impactjewish.html
LAW VERSUS ETHICS: 'THE WAY OF THE PIOUS'
Friedman (1980) notes that the Talmud often resorts to ethical principles in order to improve upon the law. Following the strict letter of the law is not sufficient. In fact, the Talmud (T. Bava Metzia 30b) claims that Jerusalem was destroyed because judgments were based strictly on the law and did not go beyond the strict line of justice. This principle of Jewish law, that demands that one be ethical and even go beyond the legal requirement, is derived from the verse (Deuteronomy 6:18): "You shall do that which is fair and good in the sight of the Lord." The Talmud (T. Bava Metzia 108a) uses this verse to establish the right of pre-emption, i.e., when one sells a field the adjoining neighbors are given the right of first refusal. In addition, individuals who go beyond the requirements of the law will return found objects even if the object was lost in a place where it is clear that the owner gave up any hope of recovery (e.g., if it fell into the sea), and there is thus no legal obligation to return it (T. Bava Metzia 24b).
Another indication that one must do more than simply obey the letter of the law is that "one may be (legally) compelled not to act in the manner of Sodom." In some situations where one party benefits and the other party loses absolutely nothing, the courts can compel an individual to do the right thing (e.g., T. Bava Bathra 12b). Spiteful selfishness of this type is considered a behavior characteristic of Sodom and is not tolerated by Jewish law.
Friedman (1985) demonstrates that the Talmudic sages believed that there is an ethics hierarchy and that individuals should strive to reach the summit. He notes that the highest level of ethics described in the Talmud is "the way of the pious." Businesspeople leading their lives according to this principle go beyond the letter of the law and are willing to lose money rather than take advantage of another person’s misfortunes. Gifter (2000) uses the following case discussed in the Talmud (T. Bava Metzia 83a) to prove that the purpose of the Torah and Talmud is not solely to provide precise answers to legal questions but to develop the morals and ethics of individuals.
.
.
.
There are gradations of unethical behavior and the objective is to motivate individuals to move up the ethics hierarchy. Not everyone is capable of reaching the level of Rabbi Safra who is described in the Talmud (T. Maakoth 24a) as an individual who abided by the verse (Psalms 15:2) "who speaks truth in the heart." One day, while Rabbi Safra was praying, a man offered to buy some merchandise from him. He made an offer, but Rabbi Safra did not want to respond in the middle of a prayer. The prospective buyer assumed that Rabbi Safra was holding out for more and kept increasing the bid. After Rabbi Safra concluded his prayer, he informed the buyer that he would sell the merchandise at the first price because he had "agreed in his heart" to this price. Legally, one is not required to do as Rabbi Safra; this is the "way of the pious." On the other hand, if two parties have concluded negotiations leading to a sale and are in the process of closing the deal, and a third party jumps in and makes the purchase, the interloper cannot be prosecuted legally but is described by the Talmud (T. Kiddushin 59a) as a "wicked person."
The Talmud (T. Maakoth 24a) enumerates 11 ethical principles (based on Psalm 15) that underlie the 613 precepts of the Torah. These include such virtues as "speaks the truth from his heart," like Rabbi Safra; "deals righteously," like Abba Chilkiyahu, who would not even greet people while working as a day laborer since he did not want to waste time -- even a few moments -- that was not his; and "who has done his fellow human no evil," referring to one who does not infringe on his fellow craftsman’s business. Opening a store next door to a store selling the same merchandise is something a pious person does not do (Wagschal 1991, 25).
-
Maybe you don't have to go to markets which are not completely kosher and buy items which have hecshers on them...
-
Here is a case of a Rabbi being asked if going out to lunch with his non-Jewish co-workers would be a violation of marit ayin... And some other issues concerning this concept 'marit ayin'...
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/outershiur.asp?id=6425
Most of us are familiar with the prohibition of maris ayin, avoiding doing something that may raise suspicion that one violated halacha, or that someone may misinterpret, thus causing him to violate halacha. However, most of us are uncertain when this rule applies and when it does not.
Here are some examples mentioned by the Mishnah and Gemara:
A. One may not hang wet clothes on Shabbos because neighbors might think that he washed them on Shabbos (Mishnah and Gemara Shabbos 146b). This is true even when all the neighbors realize that he is a meticulously observant individual.
B. Officials who entered the Beis HaMikdash treasury did so barefoot and wearing garments that contained no hemmed parts or wide sleeves, and certainly no pockets or cuffs, so that it would be impossible for them to hide any coins (Shekalim 3:2). The Mishnah states that this practice is derived from the pasuk vihiyisem nekiyim meiHashem umiyisroel (Bamidbar 32:22), --- Do things in a way that is as obviously clean in the eyes of people as it is viewed by Hashem. Rav Moshe Feinstein (Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 4:82) contends that this type of maris ayin is prohibited min haTorah!
C. Tzedakah collectors should get other people to convert their currency for them and not convert it themselves, because people might think that they gave themselves a more favorable exchange rate (Gemara Bava Basra 8b; Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Deah 257:2).
A CURIOUS CONTRADICTION
The concept mitzvah of maris ayin is a fascinating curiosity because it contradicts an important Torah mitzvah - to judge people favorably. This mitzvah requires us to judge a Torah Jew favorably when we see him act in a questionable way. (For further information on the mitzvah of judging people favorably, see Shaarei Teshuvah of Rabbeinu Yonah, 3:218.) If everyone always judged others favorably, there would never be a reason for maris ayin.
Yet we see that the Torah is concerned that someone might judge you unfavorably and suspect you for violating a mitzvah.
Indeed, a person’s actions must be above suspicion, while people watching him act in a suspicious way are required to judge him favorably.
THE TREIF RESTAURANT
May I enter a non-kosher restaurant to use the bathroom, to eat a permitted item, or to attend a professional meeting?
A prominent Rav once gleaned insight on this shaylah from early poskim who discussed the kashrus issues of Jewish travelers. In the sixteenth century, there was a dispute between the Rama and the Maharashal (Yam Shel Shelomoh, Chullin 8: 44) whether a Jewish traveler may eat herring and pickles prepared and served in non-kosher inns (quoted in Taz, Yoreh Deah 91:2). The Rama ruled that, under the circumstances, a traveler could eat these items on the inn’s non-kosher plates, whereas the Maharashal prohibited using the inn’s plates. However, neither sage prohibited eating nor entering the inn because of maris ayin; from which this Rav inferred that entering a non-kosher eating establishment does not violate maris ayin.
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that entering a non-kosher eatery is a violation of maris ayin (Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 2:40). Why does he not compare this law to the inn of the earlier poskim?
The answer is that in the sixteenth century, the inn functioned as a place of shelter and lodging, in addition to providing food. Therefore, someone seeing you enter the inn would assume that you were looking for a place to sleep, and that you have no intention to eat non-kosher food there. Thus, the sixteenth-century inn is more comparable to a twentieth-first century hotel that contains non-kosher restaurants. There is certainly no maris ayin prohibition to visit a hotel since a passerby would assume that you are entering the hotel for reasons other than eating non-kosher. However, the primary reason people enter a non-kosher restaurant is to eat treif food. Therefore, Rav Moshe ruled that it is prohibited to enter a treif restaurant because of maris ayin.
.
.
.
I am sorry if this is a digression from the topic. And it is true that if it is available at a kosher market and everyone there knows it is not meat, then there should be no issue. But what if this stuff is on the shelf, with a hecsher, would other Jews and non-Jews judge us incorrectly?
-
Huh? What do you mean that "words are crazy?"
Most of what BY says is crazy! :laugh:
-
Most of what BY says is crazy! :laugh:
I understood what he was trying to say.
I would not have used those words but rather that 'Turkey Ham' seems to be an oxymoron. Like 'Light Dark' or 'Good Monster', or other two words which don't seem to fit together.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
An oxymoron (plural oxymora or oxymorons) (from Greek ὀξύμωρον, "sharp dull") is a figure of speech that combines contradictory terms. Oxymora appear in a variety of contexts, including inadvertent errors such as ground pilot and literary oxymorons crafted to reveal a paradox.
-
Here is more from the wiki site on Oxymorons...
The most common form of oxymoron involves an adjective-noun combination of two words. For example, the following line from Tennyson's Idylls of the King contains two oxymora:
"And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true."
Other examples of oxymora of this kind are:
Dark light
Living dead
Guest host (also: Permanent guest host)
Mad wisdom
Mournful optimist
Violent relaxation
Less often seen are noun-verb combinations of two words, such as the line "The silence whistles" from Nathan Alterman's Summer Night, or in a record album title like Sounds of Silence.
Oxymora are not always a pair of words; they can also be devised in the meaning of sentences or phrases.
The example I thought of 'Dark Light' or rather 'Light Dark' appears there.
-
Source of the following http://www.dafyomi.co.il/sanhedrin/points/sn-ps-059.htm which is a summary of part of the Talmud Sanhedrin page 59b
(j) Question: Does meat fall from Shamayim?!
(k) Answer: Yes! R. Shimon ben Chalafta encountered lions. They roared at him (they wanted to eat him). He said "ha'Kefirim Sho'agim la'Taref" - two pieces of meat came down (from Shamayim). The lions ate one. He took the other to the Beis Medrash, and asked if it was Tahor or Tamei.
1. Rabanan: Tamei things do not descend from Shamayim.
(l) Question (R. Zeira): If an animal resembling a donkey descended from Shamayim, what is the law?
(m) Rabanan: We already said that Tamei things do not descend from Shamayim. (Surely, such an animal would not fall. If it did, it would be Tahor.)
-
IsraeliHeart said this case is not a Kosher market...
Oh, I misread that part.
If the product is kosher I still don't see what the holdup is.
The problem would be that the non-Jew would think that the Jew is eating bacon even though there was a hecsher on the imitation bacon. The purpose of Marit Ayin is to avoid the appearance of transgression.
And it should be obvious that all questions should be discussed with a rav.
Again, if there is a problem of maris ayin to just buy the product I highly, highly, highly! doubt that the kashrut agency would put a hechsher on it.
-
The purpose of the cases in the Talmud are just example cases, they can be applied to other things.
I was told by a posek that that is simply not true. We do not have the authority to make up new cases of maris ayin. Only the specific cases chazal stipulated are cases of maris ayin.
Who should I believe? You, or the posek? I'm going with the posek.
-
Again you are missing the point of this whole discussion KWRBT...
The question has to do with a non-kosher market where non-Jews and other Jews who do not know better, would think you are transgressing.
Do you really believe that gentiles know or care about the difference between a "kosher market" and a "non-kosher market"? ( And btw, what exactly is the halachic difference? Never heard of this). Do gentiles assume that Jews buying products in a non-kosher market are transgressing? NO! Otherwise why are there chassidim shopping in my local shoprite? I am not missing any point, it is you who are making up transgressions and prohibitions, IMO.
And I also think you are wrong that the Talmud is closed,
lol, what? The chasimas hashas happened a long time ago. Haven't you noticed that no one has added anything to the talmud in about 1000+ years? That is also how it's possible to do a Daf Yomi and Siyum Hashas on a predictable time schedule. Because the talmud is today a set text. I have no idea what you are saying.
because various other decisions are learned from the Talmudic cases.
What are you referring to?
Do you actually think we learn about Ox's Goring neighbors because people are still being Gored by Ox's? No sir...
In the talmudic times, they were being gored by oxes. And we learn it because it was happening at that time, even though it's not happening today. Similarly in times even before the talmudic times, tuma and tahara was a relevant subject because a Beit Hamikdash stood, and these laws were mostly about keeping the Temple pure. Today people don't practice those aspects but that doesn't mean we forget these dinim or throw them out because some day they may become relevant again. If you make a personal decision to study these topics only because you can see some parallel to something that DOES exist today, that has no bearing on what the actual "purpose" of these laws were or why they are in the Talmudic corpus.
We learn about the cases in the Talmud in order to apply the concepts which are taught by these example cases. I am surprised you did not learn this.
So that we can make up new prohibitions on the spot based on faulty logic? Nope, I didn't learn that because it isn't taught by real rabbis.
So don't try to change the question to being in a kosher market.
Obviously there would be no case of Marit Ayin in a Kosher establishment where everyone KNOWS ALREADY that the place is kosher. Do you really think we are that dumb as to suggest this?
Wasn't trying to change the question, I misread her statement about fake bacon where she said "wasn't a kosher market" - I read it accidentally as "was a kosher market" - Oops.
Where did you get the idea that there is a distinction in halacha regarding food when it's at a "kosher market" vs. a stam market? I have never heard of such a thing. If a product has a hechsher, it is kosher. Period.
When did I use the word "dumb?"
I still don't see maris ayin as a valid application for lab-grown meat and you haven't proven that, yet you INSIST on it. Why? Maybe there is some other issue involved with lab-grown meat, but if fake cheese with real meat and fake meat with real cheese are not problems of maris ayin, then the logic is pretty simple that neither would lab-grown meat be an issue of maris ayin. You even admitted this logic was correct, didn't you?
As to the fake bacon issue, if the product has a hechsher and/or has kosher ingredients, I think you are advising her incorrectly and she should ask a rabbi (a knowledgeable one who knows shas and routinely paskens shailas, not just any rabbi!) rather than asking you. Even if I'm pretty sure of the answer already, but let her ask someone who knows for sure, rather than asking us and giving her wrong guidance.
-
Maybe you don't have to go to markets which are not completely kosher and buy items which have hecshers on them...
Of course I do. On a regular basis.
But there are chassidim who have their own village with their own shops who ALSO shop in the same gentile stores as me. We buy the kosher products and do not buy the non-kosher products. That's how life works. That is how Jewish life always worked before there was such a thing as a kashrut agency or even a "kosher supermarket" or strictly Jewish market. In most cases in Jewish history such things were unheard of and impossible. In many areas today, they still don't exist.
-
Here is a case of a Rabbi being asked if going out to lunch with his non-Jewish co-workers would be a violation of marit ayin... And some other issues concerning this concept 'marit ayin'...
A restaurant is not the same thing as a market or grocery store. Please don't conflate the issues.
-
Muman- Here is a case of a Rabbi being asked if going out to lunch with his non-Jewish co-workers would be a violation of marit ayin... And some other issues concerning this concept 'marit ayin'...
KWRBT
A restaurant is not the same thing as a market or grocery store. Please don't conflate the issues.
Me- Actually one can if and when one knows how to eat only the Kosher foods and not the non-kosher.
-
muman613
Maybe you don't have to go to markets which are not completely kosher and buy items which have hecshers on them...
KWRBT-
Of course I do. On a regular basis.
But there are chassidim who have their own village with their own shops who ALSO shop in the same gentile stores as me. We buy the kosher products and do not buy the non-kosher products. That's how life works. That is how Jewish life always worked before there was such a thing as a kashrut agency or even a "kosher supermarket" or strictly Jewish market. In most cases in Jewish history such things were unheard of and impossible. In many areas today, they still don't exist.
Me- Muman are you serious? Dont you live in San Francisco and I would assume that the bvast majority of the markets are owned by non-Jews and the the very small minority by Jews (or all kosher foods in them only).
-
Muman- Here is a case of a Rabbi being asked if going out to lunch with his non-Jewish co-workers would be a violation of marit ayin... And some other issues concerning this concept 'marit ayin'...
KWRBT
A restaurant is not the same thing as a market or grocery store. Please don't conflate the issues.
Me- Actually one can if and when one knows how to eat only the Kosher foods and not the non-kosher.
I agree w you Tag, in fact my rav told me that is permitted. My point was merely that a restaurant and a grocery store are different issues.
-
LKZ.....now I am just depressed. :'(
It's OK, I grow my own food, and I'll share ;)
-
I agree w you Tag, in fact my rav told me that is permitted. My point was merely that a restaurant and a grocery store are different issues.
Okay although I dont know what would be permitted except a can of soda or tuna sandwich (at subway). Meat not allowed, salad not allowed as well because of insect issues. What else is their? Perhaps a piece of bread? Chips (potato chips, closed with Hasgafa on it).
Continuation (after break)
Come to think of it you are correct, their are other issues in Muman's example.
-
Okay although I dont know what would be permitted except a can of soda or tuna sandwich (at subway). Meat not allowed, salad not allowed as well because of insect issues. What else is their? Perhaps a piece of bread? Chips (potato chips, closed with Hasgafa on it).
Continuation (after break)
Come to think of it you are correct, their are other issues in Muman's example.
Salad seems less problematic than the tuna sandwich. Their tuna sandwiches are prepared with the same utensils that prepared non-kosher meat.
-
Salad seems less problematic than the tuna sandwich. Their tuna sandwiches are prepared with the same utensils that prepared non-kosher meat.
No salads or any greem leefy vegetables need to be properly checked and washed.
Subway tuna is in a separate container, and they do take a different knife for tuna ( I usually see it colored yellow as opposed to them preparing the meats in red knife handle). Also the knife is cold soo even less of an issue. Just don't get any cheese or bread made with cheese (other issues involved). And no lettuce or green leafy vegetables. The rest are fine (not sure about dressings need to check individually about ingredients but who eats dressing with tune anyway).
-
Let me explain some issue which seem to be misrepresented about what I am saying:
1) I am not stating that what I write is Halacha, I simply stated that there may be an issue with Marit Ayin concerning this.
2) I still believe there is an issue concerning Marit Ayin and this issue should be discussed with a competent rav.
3) Marit Ayin is simply doing something which others will see and come to the conclusion we are transgressing a commandment of the Torah. It doesn't matter whether or not it actually is a transgression, it matters what the observer thinks and feels.
4) Rabbi Moshe Fienstein answered a question about a Jew eating in a Non-Jewish establishment and he found that doing so would cause issue with Marit Ayin. As a result it should be obvious that Marit Ayin is possible in cases not listed in the Talmud.
5) The Talmud provides example cases and through the process of Exegesis we can derive how to apply the principles learned in the pasuk to other cases. I brought the example of Ox Goring because most people realize this is the source of all the Jewish laws concerning property damage and restitution (even in cases where no Ox's or Goring occured)..
I am willing to discuss each of these if anyone is interested. I hope to address these in more detail after the Shabbat.
For the time being, those interested in Exegesis can refer to these links:
http://www.chabad.org/search/keyword_cdo/kid/16661/jewish/Thirteen-Principles-of-Torah-Exegesis.htm
http://ohr.jle.org.uk/judaism/survey/survey4.htm
-
So KWRBT,
Why does Rabbi Moshe Feinstein rule that entering a non-kosher eatery is forbidden if (as your rav said) the only cases of marit ayin are the cases in the Talmud? Do you consider Rav Feinstein a competent posek? He is considered one of the Gedolim of our last generation. How could he rule that it was indeed a case of marit ayin then?
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/outershiur.asp?id=6425
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that entering a non-kosher eatery is a violation of maris ayin (Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 2:40). Why does he not compare this law to the inn of the earlier poskim?
The answer is that in the sixteenth century, the inn functioned as a place of shelter and lodging, in addition to providing food. Therefore, someone seeing you enter the inn would assume that you were looking for a place to sleep, and that you have no intention to eat non-kosher food there. Thus, the sixteenth-century inn is more comparable to a twentieth-first century hotel that contains non-kosher restaurants. There is certainly no maris ayin prohibition to visit a hotel since a passerby would assume that you are entering the hotel for reasons other than eating non-kosher. However, the primary reason people enter a non-kosher restaurant is to eat treif food. Therefore, Rav Moshe ruled that it is prohibited to enter a treif restaurant because of maris ayin.
-
The purpose of poseks is to apply the cases in the Talmud according to the process of exegesis to modern issues.
-
Wouldn't it look like a normal burger thus invoking the problem of 'Appearance of Transgression'/Marit Ayin?
http://www.shemayisrael.com/parsha/kahn/archives/shoftim69.htm
http://ohr.jle.org.uk/ask/ask029.htm
Exactly...If there is a halakhic provision that forbids mixing poultry with dairy just because it can confuse and tempt someone from breaking the rule of kashrut, then how does this change the situation?
And shouldn't kosher bacon flavored foods or shrimp flavored foods be considered unkosher for that same reason??
-
Exactly...If there is a halakhic provision that forbids mixing poultry with dairy just because it can confuse and tempt someone from breaking the rule of kashrut, then how does this change the situation?
And shouldn't kosher bacon flavored foods or shrimp flavored foods be considered unkosher for that same reason??
Mixing poultry and dairy is a different issue, I dont think it is only about confusing it with meat (as in cow, lamb etc.) It is/was also decreed as such.
I think it was addressed earlier in the thread (probably by EDU) the Talmudh brings examples where something forbidden be it actions or foods has exact same Kosher equivalence. That equivalence is certainly not banned soo why should these things be? If our Hachamim never made such bans their is no reason and no authority for us to do soo just because it "feels right" or such things.
-
Mixing poultry and dairy is a different issue, I dont think it is only about confusing it with meat (as in cow, lamb etc.) It is/was also decreed as such.
I think it was addressed earlier in the thread (probably by EDU) the Talmudh brings examples where something forbidden be it actions or foods has exact same Kosher equivalence. That equivalence is certainly not banned soo why should these things be? If our Hachamim never made such bans their is no reason and no authority for us to do soo just because it "feels right" or such things.
Again I think you are missing the point of this question. Nobody, at least not myself, is suggesting that the food itself is not kosher and it is 100% OK for a Jew to eat. The question I am bringing has to do SPECIFICALLY with the question of Marit Ayin, the appearance of a transgression.
You can be 100% sure that your Parve-Burget is kosher but another person may observe your action and conclude you are transgressing. This is the complete point of the question of Marit ayin...
But this discussion has gone on too long.. I still have the question of whether this would constitute a case of marit ayin, even if the food is completely kosher. There are circumstances where it is not possible to alert everyone that this is not a 'stock' meat burger but rather a lab-grown burger... As I said, if in a kosher market or restaurant, then there is no question of marit ayin...
-
Muman go to the Gemarah and Psokim and see the examples of Marit Ayin. If they dont match we cant just make new stuff up at will. If that would be the case you shouldn't and wouldn't be able to do much because perhaps just in case that other person is watching and they might think you did something wrong. The examples of this would be endless.
-
Muman go to the Gemarah and Psokim and see the examples of Marit Ayin. If they dont match we cant just make new stuff up at will. If that would be the case you shouldn't and wouldn't be able to do much because perhaps just in case that other person is watching and they might think you did something wrong. The examples of this would be endless.
Well I don't agree that the only cases of Marit Ayin are in the Talmud. What do you think of Rabbi Moshe Feinsteins decision that eating in a non-Jewish restaurant is a violation of Marit Ayin? Did Moshe Feinstein just make something up? I don't think so.
Marit Ayin is a concept having to do with the question of whether observers of our actions would judge our action as a transgression regardless of whether it was or not.
See Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 2:40
-
Apparently there is a disagreement between poskim on this question. You and KWRBT seem to adopt R. Ovadiah Yosefs view that we cannot add Marit Ayin cases, but there are others who disagree...
The following excerpt explains some of what I am saying above, but I recommend reading the whole article..
http://blog.webyeshiva.org/questions-and-answers/r-ovadya-yosef-on-22-cheshvan-and-avoiding-misimpressions
R. Ovadya Yosef on 22 Cheshvan and Avoiding Misimpressions
Two responsa R. Ovadya Yosef wrote on the 22nd of Cheshvan—more than twenty years apart—introduce us to the question of marit ayin, of when we are required to worry that those who witness our actions will get the wrong impression. In the first, Volume 6, Yoreh Deah 8 of Yabia Omer, written in 5730 (the fall of 1969 in the secular calendar), he was asked about hotels that serve parve milk following a meat meal. The questioner, who was the head of a regional kashrut division, wondered why this would not spark marit ayin concerns.
The Original Case of Marit Ayin and Its Solution
R. Ovadya begins with the Talmudic discussion (Keritut 21b), where Rav prohibits partaking of fish blood (which the Torah does not include in blood prohibitions) that has been collected in a container, even though there is no Torah prohibition. Since a baraita allows it completely, the Talmud distinguishes between where there were scales left in the blood, showing that it was not of the impermissible type, and where not, the case Rav prohibited because it looks too much like using animal blood.
In his Darkei Moshe, Rema noted that Maharshal prohibited cooking chicken and other such meat in almond milk unless the dish was served with almonds on the table, to be clear that the milk is not real. Rema disagreed, because the prohibition against cooking chicken and other fowl in milk is rabbinic, and Rema did not believe rabbinic prohibitions required efforts to avoid marit ayin, others getting a misimpression from your actions. And, R. Ovadya notes, that is how Rema rules in Yoreh Deah 87;4 as well, that dishes where animal meat has been cooked in almond milk require a visible sign to make clear that this is not real milk, but dishes where the prohibition of meat and milk is rabbinic do not.
While Bach agreed with Maharshal that we should worry about marit ayin even in cases of rabbinic prohibitions), he limited that to public actions. Ordinarily, these prohibitions apply as much in private as in public; in this instance, though, Bach concedes that if you were eating a dish of non-animal meat cooked with non-dairy milk in private, you would not be obligated to put evidence that it’s not real milk in view, to insure that no one get the wrong impression.
Can We Add Marit Ayin Concerns of our Own, Post-Talmudically?
R. Ovadya also cites a claim by Peri Chadash—which he does not seem to accept in practice, as we will see in the next responsum—that we do not add to those marit ayin prohibitions found in the Talmud. Peri Chadash says that even Rashba’s claim (responsum 3;257) that human milk still raises marit ayin concerns is problematic, since there is no clear way to decide which marit ayin issues we add to on our own. Peri Chadash pointed out, for one example, that we do not require treating animals such as deer in the same ways we are required to treat cows, although once cooked they, too, look the same. He argues, therefore, that we only observe those marit ayin rules the Talmud itself instituted.
Coming to a ruling for the case of serving parve milk after a meat meal, certainly Peri Chadash would have no problem, since he objects to promulgating new marit ayin rules. Rema and his camp did not worry about marit ayin for rabbinic prohibitions. R. Ovadya then argues that in this case even Maharshal and Bach would rule permissively, because the milk is only being served after the meal.
That means that the action people might witness is not intrinsically prohibited; even if it were real milk, the act would only be a problem if we knew other information, that the people drinking it had recently eaten meat. Unless the act itself, misread, would be rabbinically prohibited, R. Ovadya argues, even Maharshal and Bach would see no marit ayin concerns.
In practical terms, R. Ovadya’s ruling shows us that we generally only worry about marit ayin in cases of Biblical prohibitions, and even there, if we can attach a readily visible disclaimer, it would be allowed. We can eat meat cooked in almond or other parve milks; we only need to be sure to put something on the table that makes clear this is not ordinary milk. In addition, R. Ovadya asserts that we only worry when the action we are doing is itself apparently prohibited—suggesting that the classic marit ayin example, going into McDonald’s to use the phone or restroom would not, in fact, be a problem. On the other hand, bringing your own hamburger to eat with non-Jewish friends in McDonald’s would be, unless you put something on the table to make clear that you weren’t eating McDonald’s non-kosher food.
A Subtle Rebuke
The second responsum I noted appears in volume 8 Orach Chayim 17, and has a couple of points of interest before the substance itself. Dated 22 Cheshvan 5752 (1991), it addresses a rabbi in Morocco on the occasion of his publishing a book of responsa. Curiously, in volume 7 of Yabia Omer, R. Ovadya had also published a responsum to the same rabbi on the same occasion. That responsum bears the same date as this one, meaning R. Ovadya chose to separate the two by a volume despite their having been (apparently) written at the same time. In addition, this second responsum opens with significantly longer and more flowery honorifics than the previous one.
He doesn’t explain why, but I note that in each case R. Ovadya was pointing out that this rabbi had taken a position opposite the one that R. Ovadya himself had in earlier volumes of Yabia Omer. He doesn’t point out the irony, but it seems odd that this man turned to R. Ovadya for an approbation but did not bother reading and/or responding to R. Ovadya’s position on those issues! Perhaps R. Ovadya separated them—and added the flowery language—to soften the blow of disagreeing with him, and subtly upbraiding him for not reading his work.
.
.
So it seems there is some disagreement on what cases are applicable to marit ayin.
I learned that you both have a strong point in this discussion.
-
Chabad.org just posted a new article on this very topic... It does not come to a Halachic conclusion but demonstrates some of the Talmudic sources which would permit such 'meat' to be considered Kosher.
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2293219/jewish/Is-the-Lab-Created-Burger-Kosher.htm
Is the Lab-Created Burger Kosher?
The halachic status of lab-created meat
By Yehuda Shurpin
Question:
Scientists have recently demonstrated that they can now take stem cells from a cow and build them into hamburgers that look, feel and (almost) taste like the real thing. What does Jewish law have to say? Is this considered real meat? Is it kosher?
Response:
This is a fascinating question that needs to be studied carefully by expert rabbis when the issue becomes more practical and Petri-dish burgers become an affordable option. But here are some preliminary thoughts on the subject to give you some perspective.
Meat from Heaven
What makes this question so intriguing is that this is an example of how those seemingly fantastic Aggadic tales in the Talmud are nowadays becoming a starting point for new halachik questions.
There is actually a discussion in the Talmud about whether meat that does not come from an animal is considered kosher, although the origin of the meat in this case was even more miraculous:
A story of Rabbi Shimeon ben Chalafta, who was walking on the road, when lions met him and roared at him. Thereupon he quoted from Psalms: “The young lions roar for prey and to beg their food from G‑d,”1 and two lumps of flesh descended [from heaven]. They ate one and left the other. This he brought to the study hall and propounded: Is this fit [for food] or not? The scholar answered: “Nothing unfit descends from heaven.” Rabbi Zera asked Rabbi Abbahu: “What if something in the shape of a donkey were to descend?” He replied: “You ‘howling yorod,2’ did they not answer him that no unfit thing descends from heaven?”3
Miraculous meat appears again in the Talmud, although this time it was man-made:
Rabbi Chanina and Rabbi Oshaia would spend every Sabbath eve studying the “Book of Creation”4 by means of which they created a calf and ate it.5
In discussing this story, later commentators debate whether such an animal would require shechitah (kosher slaughter) in order to be eaten.
Rabbi Yeshayah Halevi Horowitz, known as the Shelah, writes that it is not considered a real animal and does not need shechitah.6
Others write that while a technical interpretation of Biblical law may not require such an animal to be slaughtered, the rabbinical prohibition of “marit ayin” (not engaging in acts that look misleadingly similar to forbidden activity) would necessitate slaughter--lest an onlooker think that ordinary meat is being consumed without shechitah.7
Test-Tube Beef
So far we have discussed “miracle meat” that came from heaven or was created by spiritual means. Some commentators defined this meat as miraculous because it did not come from a naturally-born animal. But do we consider any meat that does not come from a naturally-born animal to be “miracle meat”? Or does it need to come through an actual miracle? How about test-tube meat, which does come from actual animal cells? In this case the dictum that “no unfit thing descends from heaven” obviously would not apply. Here are some of the issues that will need to be explored:
● The Cells The scientist extracted the cells of a real animal and used them to grow the tissues in a Petri dish. If, and that is not a small if, the mere cells are considered substantial enough to be called meat, this may present a problem. In addition to the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal,8 there is an additional injunction not to eat any meat that was severed from a live animal.9
This is an issue for non-Jews as well as Jews, since Noahide law dictates that non-Jews may not eat even a minute amount of meat that was separated from a living animal.10
For Jews, if the cells are considered real meat, then presumably they would need to be extracted from a kosher animal that was slaughtered according to Jewish law.
Another consideration is that there is a halachik concept, “the product of non-kosher is itself not kosher, and the product of that which is kosher is itself kosher.”11 While at first glance this would seem to imply that the cells need to come from a kosher source, it is not clear whether the above rule would apply to microscopic cells that were extracted from an animal.
● The Product In Jewish law, a food that contains only a minuscule amount of a non-kosher ingredient can still be considered kosher if the non-kosher ingredient is nullified (usually) by at least a factor of 60 to 1. At first glance it would appear that we can apply this rule to our scenario, since the original cells are greatly outnumbers by the “meat” produced. However, halachah states that the above rule does not apply to a “davar hama’amid,” an ingredient that establishes the form of the item. The essential ingredient can never be nullified, no matter how small it is.12 It would seem that the same rule applies to the cells that are essential to growing the meat. If they don’t come from a kosher source, they can never be nullified, and whatever is created with them is also not kosher.
As noted earlier, these are just preliminary thoughts on the subject. Any halachik ruling would have to come from rabbis who are expert in these matters.
FOOTNOTES
1. Psalms 104:21
2. Rashi explains that this is a species of bird that always seems to be wailing and mourning. Some commentators explain that he meant to admonish his student Rabbi Zera for his excessive asceticism. Rabbi Abbhu felt that the many fasts that Rabbi Zera undertook had taken a toll on his clarity of mind, this being an example of it, see Chavos Ya’ir 152.
3. Talmud Sanhedrin 59b
4. A Kabbalistic work ascribed to Abraham our forefather.
5. Talmud Sanhedrin 65b
6. Shalaha Parshas Vayeishev. He cites this piece of Talmud in relation to the episode of the selling of Joseph by his brothers, which, some explain, was a punishment to Joseph. Thinking that he had seen the brothers eat the limb from a living animal, he went and tattled to his father. However, the Shelah explains that in fact the animal they ate was similar to the one described in the Talmud here, and therefore it did not required slaughter and was also not an issue of Eiver Min Hachai.
7. See Pischei Teshuvah on Yoreh Deih 62:1
8. Deuteronomy 12:23
9. Exodus 22:13
10. Maimonidies laws of kings 9:10. For more on the seven Noahide laws, see The Seven Noahide Laws
11. Talmud Bechoros 5b
12. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deiah 87:11
Shabbat Shalom...
-
Muman613 If there is a kosher certificate on the package of this synthetic meat that states it is parve or if there is a kosher certificate for the restaurant which says the restaraunt is complying with Jewish Law, why do you think there is a possible issue of “marit ayin”?
-
Muman613 If there is a kosher certificate on the package of this synthetic meat that states it is parve or if there is a kosher certificate for the restaurant which says the restaraunt is complying with Jewish Law, why do you think there is a possible issue of “marit ayin”?
You could get used to it and want it over a hamburger when you can't have the kosher cheese.
-
I'm imagining a sandwich with artificial beef, soy cheese, and turkey bacon for a kosher bacon cheeseburger. ;D
-
You could get used to it and want it over a hamburger when you can't have the kosher cheese.
Huh? That has nothing to do with marit ayin.
-
So KWRBT,
Why does Rabbi Moshe Feinstein rule that entering a non-kosher eatery is forbidden if (as your rav said) the only cases of marit ayin are the cases in the Talmud? Do you consider Rav Feinstein a competent posek? He is considered one of the Gedolim of our last generation. How could he rule that it was indeed a case of marit ayin then?
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/outershiur.asp?id=6425
However, Rav Moshe Feinstein rules that entering a non-kosher eatery is a violation of maris ayin (Shu’t Igros Moshe, Orach Chayim 2:40). Why does he not compare this law to the inn of the earlier poskim?
The answer is that in the sixteenth century, the inn functioned as a place of shelter and lodging, in addition to providing food. Therefore, someone seeing you enter the inn would assume that you were looking for a place to sleep, and that you have no intention to eat non-kosher food there. Thus, the sixteenth-century inn is more comparable to a twentieth-first century hotel that contains non-kosher restaurants. There is certainly no maris ayin prohibition to visit a hotel since a passerby would assume that you are entering the hotel for reasons other than eating non-kosher. However, the primary reason people enter a non-kosher restaurant is to eat treif food. Therefore, Rav Moshe ruled that it is prohibited to enter a treif restaurant because of maris ayin.
Hmm, I wasn't aware of this. But I go by my rav's psak, not Rabbi Feinstein's.
That's saying enough already, but I feel compelled to add that this is just one of those modern era psakim that don't make sense to me. When were kashrut agencies invented? 1920's? 1940's? 1950's? My understanding is that there was a time that there weren't "kosher restaurants" and people routinely went out and ate the food that was kosher but did not order the food that was not kosher. Now we are saying that what all those people and rabbis did as a matter of course was actually not permitted? Or is it just saying, now that the situation is like x,y,z now it's no longer permitted. It doesn't sound convincing to me.
But you are correct there is a machloketh on this issue.
However, let me stress the fact that a restaurant and a grocery store, are not the same thing.
-
KWRBT about your last point- I would have to slightly disagree about the restaurants. Unfortunately the level of trust has gone down dramatically and their is a NEED for proper supervision when it comes to foods involving meat. The situation is that a few generations ago people were a lot more trustworthy and in small towns and such people knew each other well and it was known from whom the person bought the foods etc. (besides the fact that "eating out" was rare). Today many (Kosher) restaurants are owned by different people- Religious Jews, non-religious Jews and non-Jews as well. In some cases the owners don't even know the rules well soo therfore a proper mashgiah is needed to make sure people are not eating non-Kosher. Also in this mix their are individuals who could care less if what you are eating is kosher or not. Its all a business. In some cases even with Masgihim they were caught literally serving non-kosher to the guests and when caught tried to either bribe the masgiah or made serious threats (I have a friend who is a Mashgiah and this literally happened to him, he was threatened, and thrown into the freezer and said to shut his mouth). Suffice it to say their Kashrut status has been taken away (and this happened even after that incident soo I would assume they did something fishy again), but nevertheless these things exist and with Mashgiah it isn't 100% but never-the-less someone to at least fear a little in order to not scamm people.
If their would not be a mashgiah you and I would probably not be allowed to eat by anyone except someone whom you know well and to be a trustworthy, G-D fearing individual.
-
KWRBT about your last point- I would have to slightly disagree about the restaurants. Unfortunately the level of trust has gone down dramatically and their is a NEED for proper supervision when it comes to foods involving meat. The situation is that a few generations ago people were a lot more trustworthy and in small towns and such people knew each other well and it was known from whom the person bought the foods etc. (besides the fact that "eating out" was rare). Today many (Kosher) restaurants are owned by different people- Religious Jews, non-religious Jews and non-Jews as well. In some cases the owners don't even know the rules well soo therfore a proper mashgiah is needed to make sure people are not eating non-Kosher. Also in this mix their are individuals who could care less if what you are eating is kosher or not. Its all a business. In some cases even with Masgihim they were caught literally serving non-kosher to the guests and when caught tried to either bribe the masgiah or made serious threats (I have a friend who is a Mashgiah and this literally happened to him, he was threatened, and thrown into the freezer and said to shut his mouth). Suffice it to say their Kashrut status has been taken away (and this happened even after that incident soo I would assume they did something fishy again), but nevertheless these things exist and with Mashgiah it isn't 100% but never-the-less someone to at least fear a little in order to not scamm people.
If their would not be a mashgiah you and I would probably not be allowed to eat by anyone except someone whom you know well and to be a trustworthy, G-D fearing individual.
Tag, I was talking about Jews eating in non kosher restaurants. and only ordering kosher food (not meat!)
-
Tag, I was talking about Jews eating in non kosher restaurants. and only ordering kosher food (not meat!)
Ok kool. Agreed.
-
A gedi is a goat, not a lamb. Lamb is keves.
We don't need Jew hating-Christians or Jew-hating "Bible critics" on a Jewish forum. The Bible specifically lists the prohibition of meat and milk next to the prohibition of idolatry like you say.
Abraham did not mix meat and milk. First he served butter with matzah. Then afterwards Sarah prepared the meat.
-
Honestly this is a really dumb thread but I too am very concerned about a new member who is lecturing Jews about their religion with the goal of changing it.
-
Now, "Christian Defender", Hashem said He loved Avraham because he kept His Torah. What is your issue exactly?
-
בס''ד
"Christian Defender" is banned. His clear objective is to missionize. He wants to "prove" that Torah Judaism is wrong.
-
בס''ד
"Christian Defender" is banned. His clear objective is to missionize. He wants to "prove" that Torah Judaism is wrong.
Probably the wisest choice. He clearly was some kind of troll.
-
בס''ד
"Christian Defender" is banned. His clear objective is to missionize. He wants to "prove" that Torah Judaism is wrong.
Not only that, but he is a self-hating Jew of the worse type.
Here is his introduction:
Hi,i am a Jewish convert to Evangelical Christianity ("Messianic Judaism").I support the Zionist ideology of a Jewish homeland due to Psalms 82 and Romans 9-11.
A Jew who entices other Jews to convert to Xtianity is worse than Gentiles who do so and are violating a specific mitzvah read this time of year. I forget which parasha but it might have been the past parasha (Shoftim) or the coming one or the one after that.
He also says he lives in Israel. On the other hand, Chaim is not allowed to set foot in Israel.
-
Uh, It was this last weeks portion... And week before that's portion (Re'eh)..
Re'eh:
13:
7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known."
8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;
9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him.
Shoftim:
17:
2. If there will be found among you, within one of your cities which the Lord, your God is giving you, a man or woman who does evil in the eyes of the Lord, your God, to transgress His covenant,
3. and who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;
4. and it will be told to you, and you will hear it, and investigate thoroughly, and behold, the matter coincides; this abomination has been perpetrated in Israel.
-
Uh, It was this weeks portion... And last weeks portion..
Re'eh:
13:
7. If your brother, the son of your mother, tempts you in secret or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your embrace, or your friend, who is as your own soul saying, "Let us go and worship other gods, which neither you, nor your forefathers have known."
8. Of the gods of the peoples around you, [whether] near to you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth;
9. You shall not desire him, and you shall not hearken to him; neither shall you pity him, have mercy upon him, nor shield him.
Shoftim:
17:
2. If there will be found among you, within one of your cities which the Lord, your God is giving you, a man or woman who does evil in the eyes of the Lord, your God, to transgress His covenant,
3. and who will go and worship other gods and prostrate himself before them, or to the sun, the moon, or any of the host of the heavens, which I have not commanded;
4. and it will be told to you, and you will hear it, and investigate thoroughly, and behold, the matter coincides; this abomination has been perpetrated in Israel.
Too bad you couldn't respond to his deleted comment on this thread about meat and milk. He was saying that the Torah means chelev (forbidden fats) and not chalav (milk).
-
Too bad you couldn't respond to his deleted comment on this thread about meat and milk. He was saying that the Torah means chelev (forbidden fats) and not chalav (milk).
Oh interesting... I am glad I missed the entire thing. It is quite disappointing to hear stories like this.
-
Not only that, but he is a self-hating Jew of the worse type.
Here is his introduction:
A Jew who entices other Jews to convert to Xtianity is worse than Gentiles who do so and are violating a specific mitzvah read this time of year. I forget which parasha but it might have been the past parasha (Shoftim) or the coming one or the one after that.
He also says he lives in Israel. On the other hand, Chaim is not allowed to set foot in Israel.
The vast majority of the time when they say that they aren't Jewish, but they make it up. I dont remember this person but on the net their are many people who claim to be Jewish but then converted to xtianity. They make it up in order to lie to people. It is easy to expose them.
-
Not only that, but he is a self-hating Jew of the worse type.
Here is his introduction:
A Jew who entices other Jews to convert to Xtianity is worse than Gentiles who do so and are violating a specific mitzvah read this time of year. I forget which parasha but it might have been the past parasha (Shoftim) or the coming one or the one after that.
He also says he lives in Israel. On the other hand, Chaim is not allowed to set foot in Israel.
If we can believe anything he said. He might just have been another incarnation of Homo, Jr. or Ralph.