Orthodox rabbis criticized over Postville

I am an Orthodox Jew, I don't buy Agriprocessors products, and I think that the visit by the group of rabbis to Postville was a travesty. Having said that, I must disagree with some of the things you wrote.

I assume you know enough American Jewish history to know that the heritage of the Forward is Socialist, pro union, non religious at best and anti religious at worst. As you know, some of the heaviest criticism has come from a union which seeks to organize the workers. I'm sure you realize that if they had a contract, they would be among the biggest cheerleaders for Agriprocessors.

If you have been following some of the blogosphere comments on the article written by Rabbi Herzfeld, you may realize that he's not exactly well accepted in much of the Orthodox community.

Here is a link to a comment by a Jewish vegetarian which makes the point better than I can: http://jcarrot.org/a-half-hearted-defense-of-agriprocessors/

I feel that kashrut should stand for business ethics as much as proper slaughtering procedure. While I think the Orthodox Union should give serious thought to withdrawing its certification of Agriprocessors, that's not going to happen through external pressure. It will only happen from internal pressure.

I live in a city where I can easily obtain non Agriprocessors chicken and beef. Fortunately we are able to afford the price difference. A family with six kids (not atypical in the Orthodox community) is going to buy the chicken for Friday night that's ten or twenty cents a pound cheaper, never mind working conditions or whether that chicken is cheaper because Agriprocessors cuts corners. That makes them no better or worse than any other American who buys products made in China or elsewhere without thinking about the conditions to which the people who produce the goods are subjected.

In addition, there are places where there is no other kosher meat or chicken. While I would forgo chicken soup on Friday night if the only kosher chicken available would be from Agriprocessors, I do not have the right to impose my views on others.

"I feel that kashrut should stand for business ethics as much as proper slaughtering procedure."

So, if you were to inadvertently cook a piece of Agriprocessor meat in your kitchen would you have to kasher it? If kashrut stands "for business ethics as much as proper slaughtering" it would seem to be the case. If not, then your objection is not based on kashrut. That's not to say that unacceptable business practices are not deserving of criticism and opprobrium; they most certainly are. But none of this is a kashrut issue and it does violence to the nature of kashrut to assert that they are.

Perhaps the most intelligent take on the crisis comes from the keyboard of Gil Student, a prolific blogger who writes from within mainstream orthodoxy. Student, though appalled by the allegations and skeptical of the rabbinic response, points out that rabbinic authorities are actually ill-equipped to investigate these sort of accusations on their own, as Rabbi Herzfeld proposes. There is a proper role for local, state, and federal regulatory and law-enforcement authorities to play in investigations of alleged labor, safety, and health abuses, a role that no panel of rabbis, however well intentioned, can realistically replicate.

But Student also poses a series of provocative and thoughtful questions: “What is being done to determine at what point of criminal violations a factory or store loses its kosher supervision? How many violations of federal code will breech a limit? What obligation does a rabbinic supervisor have to report such violations to the secular authorities and will his becoming a reporter undermine his primary task of supervising kosher preparations?”

Those are well-worth contemplating. Does a sworn affidavit constitute sufficient grounds for suspending certification (and thus, bankrupting the business) without a conviction after a trial in a court of law? Would several such affidavits do the trick? Where, exactly, ought one set the legal threshold, balancing the rights of the accused (however egregious the accusation) against the rights of the aggrieved, and the obligations of the certifying authority?

And, assuming that a given allegation is borne out after trial, what happens then? Is the business entitled to attempt reforms? Is one conviction too many? Five? Does the nature of the violation play a role?

Finally, there’s the knotty question of overlapping obligations. Many local law enforcement authorities decline to enforce immigration laws because they know that the distrust and suspicion that such enforcement might engender would hinder their ability to enforce the local laws that are their primary responsibility. If a situation in which a rabbi certifies meat as kosher, turning a blind eye to the fact that those who have processed it are in this country illegally (and hence almost certainly exploited) is unpalatable, so too is a situation in which that same rabbi reports his suspicions about the workers to federal authorities. That’s a vexing problem hardly unique to the kosher meatpacking industry.

It’s easy to condemn Rubashkin’s and to call for a boycott, but even if that were the proper response to disturbing yet unproven allegations, it’s not likely to be terribly effective. As the Globe reports, the labor shortage at the Postville plant has sharply reduced production, and Rubashkin’s can’t come close to meeting current demand for its products. That’s not a situation conducive to an effective boycott. Nor, for that matter, is the Hechsher Tzedeck going to make any difference in the kosher meatpacking industry. The NJPS statistics the Globe cites are flawed, but even if Conservative and Reform Jews do make up a third of the market for kosher meat (and it’s a long way from a third of households to a third of the market, given that kosher eateries and caterers have to meet the highest common denominator) the most they can accomplish is carving out a niche market (something like the position Whole Foods occupies among grocery stores.) Frankly, I doubt the economics make much sense, but even if they do, the remaining two-thirds of the marketplace would continue to rely on the traditional certifying authorities. If it has any real impact, it’s likely to have the ironic effect of reducing pressure within the mainstream kosher marketplace to adhere to standards of social justice, by removing from that marketplace the consumers who care most ardently.

If what’s alleged about Postville is true, it’s a disgrace, and needs to be remedied. But it’s not a simple story, and it poses challenging questions. It’d be nice if some of the coverage acknowledged that fact.

Thank you "Cynic" for a well-thought desertation. CR and DK wrote informative and instructive reviews also. As a conservative, non-kosher Jew, I won't comment, but I do appreciate the scholarly approach that all three Commenters exhibited. Thanks for the good read and lessons learned.