![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morning minyan
There was a fascinating (to me) discussion at breakfast. There is a light breakfast after services every morning -- usually just bagels and bread, cream cheese, and drinks, unless someone sponsors a fancier breakfast. The process of getting the bread/bagels has been a pain for various reasons, and today someone (a regular, not a visitor) proposed a change: getting bagels from a new bakery that is better in quality, cheaper, more conveniently located -- and not under rabbinic supervision. This last point had not even occurred to the person bringing up the subject as something important; when others pointed it out he went on an anti-kashrut rant. ("What could be treif about a bagel?" "Well, this place sells sandwiches, right? So maybe they sliced your bagel with the same knife they just used to slice the ham?" "You're being too picky." And so on.)
Other people pressed that line of argument with him, but I brought up a more fundamental issue. This is a Conservative congregation. That means they, as a congregation, are bound to a certain interpretation of halacha. It doesn't matter if every member of the minyan eats treif at home; the congregational meal must be in accordance with that halacha, both for appearance and to support the needs of any visitor who actually keeps kosher. (I think, but am not sure, that failing to keep a kosher shul kitchen is one of the issues (along with performing an intermarriage, and I'm not sure what else) that can get a Conservative rabbi censured.) So if that halacha says a bakery must be under supervision, you have to follow that. Bottom line: you have to ask the rabbi and follow his ruling.
The person I was arguing with seemed to be of the belief that "kashrut is silly, so we don't need to worry about it". He failed to see the difference between decisions about personal practice and decisions about communal practice. At one point he brought up other Conservative deviations from the Orthodox interpretation of halacha, like allowing women to lead services, but I pointed out that this isn't the same thing at all: the Conservative movement has a process, which they followed, to determine that women can lead services. They didn't just get up one day and say "we don't like that restriction, so we're not doing it". That same process produces an understanding of kashrut, which must be followed in the shul.
The rabbi was not present, by the way. (I would of course have deferred to him if he were.) I didn't mean to be "speaker for the rabbi", and I said a few times that he needs to consult the rabbi about the kashrut rules for the shul. But when exactly did I, a Reform Jew, become a spokesman for Conservative Judaism in a Conservative shul? *boggle*
(I should clarify that I am not trying to malign or question this community as a whole. I assume that most people present agreed with me but just weren't putting it into words.)
no subject
:-)
I think that it's quite reasonable for a shul to have a kashrut policy about the stuff that's at the shul. Especially for a Conservative Shul. Of course, you get into problems like "do we accept un-hekshered cheese in the shul" (since there is an opinion in the C movement that it's OK).
While Reform congregations don't have the exact same issues, I'd expect that many places would be less than thrilled if someone who was having a kiddush for the community had shrimp and ham as part of the spread at the Shul. Or am I wrong about that?
no subject
I'll take it farther: I think it's required for a shul to adhere to its movement's understanding of halacha within the context of the shul. This isn't just about kashrut; for example, if the shul's rabbi (who is decisor for that community) doesn't accept electricity on Shabbat, you can't use the microphone at Shabbat services there. If your rule is "no kaddish without a minyan", you aren't free to say "well, 9 is good enough". Anything you do in the shul needs to adhere to that shul's understanding of halacha, even if none of the members adhere to it privately. The entire point of Conservative Judaism, as I understand it, is to say that there is a system (there are standards), though they disagree with the Orthodox about some of the process.
I'd expect that many places would be less than thrilled if someone who was having a kiddush for the community had shrimp and ham as part of the spread at the Shul
Yup. The question of what kashrut standards to require of our Reform shul's kitchen is a perennial topic. But we certainly don't allow pork and shellfish, and I think that's pretty common within Reform.
I think I've done our kitchen rant before, so I'll try to be brief: even though Reform does not dictate halacha for all, leaving it to individuals, I still think it is appropriate, out of respect for observant members, to at least make an effort for congregational meals: no treif ingredients, separate dishes, no mixing of meat and milk, etc. What a private party using the shul does is less of an issue, so long as they don't treif the kitchen in the process, but at the very least, I should be able to attend a congregational Shabbat dinner without being presented with overt meat/dairy combinations.
The counter-argument for this is: how far do we have to go? That's a valid question that requires study and discussion. People will sometimes conclude, though, that no matter how far you go there will be someone for whom it's not enough (true), and therefore there is no point in doing anything (false). In any community there are people who are stricter than the norm, and they know that they might not be able to eat at a community function, and they deal with it. But it's not hard to meet a basic level that would meet the needs of 99% of my congregation, so I think we should try. I think we really would get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the work here.