by Rabbi Daniel P. Aldrich This article will focus on the svora (logic) used by the rabbi that brought him to his conclusions — which we believe to be erroneous – and our response to his arguments. To ensure that we were on the derech yashara (proper path), we consulted with more than five rabbanim and several mashgichim based both in Japan and the United States. Further, we conducted empirical research here in Japan through visits and calls to several such restaurants (we used a Japanese friend to ensure that answers were not biased by our presence). As someone joked to me, this column might be called “how to avoid eating not kosher in Japan.” I should also add that we do not write this column to embarrass anyone, G-d forbid. Hence we have not named the rabbi who issued this psak nor have we singled out his institution for criticism. Further, we would not have gone to these lengths to respond in a case where, b’chadrei hadarim — behind closed doors — this rabbi made a personal decision to eat food “out” in Japan. Rather, only because this rabbi publicized his psak din through both shiurim and written articles, and because he also took 30 or so young students with him, do we feel the need to explain the errors in his reasoning. We cannot stand by and say nothing, because, as the principle says, shtika k’hoda — remaining silent in the face of an error is equivalent to acquiescence. We begin with this rabbi’s description of his decision and justification for eating out. In his shiurim and written articles (from which we take all of the words in quotes), this rabbi said that he “faced an interesting dilemma” during his trip, stating that “As there was no Chabad house [his destination city of Kyoto, Japan], if we wanted to eat anything besides the food that we personally brought from Tokyo (or from the U.S.),we would have to go to a “‘100% vegetarian’ Buddhist restaurant.” The alternative that he names to eating out is consuming “the food that we personally brought with [us] from Tokyo (or from the U.S.).” The rabbi believed that at such a “Vegetarian, Buddhist” restaurant “no fish of any type was served.” He argues that “according to the Buddhist doctrine, one may not eat any admixture of animal product” and this fact allowed him to “rel[y] upon the principle of uman lo mara hezqatei.” He defines the concept of uman lo mara hezkasei as “a practitioner will not willfully destroy his reputation by being dishonest.” This rabbi also recognized the inherent problem of bishul akum (cooking by a non Jew) present in eating out even at a “vegetarian, Buddhist” restaurant and “request[ed] to the proprietors of the restaurant that I turn on the oven in which our hoped for rice dish would be prepared.” In the end, the rabbi, and the talmidim traveling with him, ate out at the restaurant; he informs readers and listeners that the dishes were “quite tasty.” We see several major problems with eating out at a “vegetarian, Buddhist” restaurant. Despite the rabbi’s personal beliefs, the Buddhist definition of ta’am (taste) is not as exacting as the halachic definition. There is no such concept of ta’am, bitul b’rov (nullification by majority), bitul b’shishim (nullification by 60), or any of the core halachic concepts which drive rabbinic Judaism’s understanding of mixtures. The rabbi imagines that, should a Buddhist, vegetarian restaurant serve meat, chicken, or even fish, that would damage their professional reputation. This is not the case. The fact is that the vast majority of Japanese citizens — even those few who define themselves primarily as “practicing Buddhists” — simply do not care. We asked both Japanese people and the restaurants themselves about this issue; should a “mistake” happen, they would apologize, if word got out. One of our informants told us that in fact they had begun serving meat at one strictly vegetarian Buddhist restaurant because many of their customers asked for it!! Hence the consequences of a restaurant violating “Buddhist doctrine” in regards to vegetarianism are non existent and we can not use the concept of a professional reputation as a crutch for relying upon the claims of the owners. Next, even if a Buddhist, vegetarian restaurant did not serve meat, chicken, or even “fish,” the rabbi is very much mistaken in believing that these products are the only problematic ones for Jews. At three different Buddhist, vegetarian restaurants that we have contacted, the owners cooked and served foods that are completely forbidden to us. Specifically, these Buddhist,vegetarian restaurants cooked in their keilim (vessels) and served to their customers seahorses and sea cucumbers. For readers who are not familiar with sea cucumbers, they are large, slug like creatures which dwell on ocean bottoms and scavenge food. It goes without saying that all of the keilim in which these assur creatures were cooked would absorb ta’am and go on to assur the food and keilim if there were not 60 against them. Furthermore, the rabbi misuses the principle of uman lo mara cheskasei. If it is true that food providers and restaurant owners truly fear for their reputation, why do we require supervision even in kosher dairy and fish restaurants, where the halachic issue of basar shemisalem min ha’ayin (meat that is out of sight) is not a problem? According to his logic, we could simply reply on the public or the market to scare them into compliance with kosher laws. Clearly, this is not the case. Only in a case where there is strong government oversight and enforcement can we use this as a basis for ruling on a food item, as is the case with the heter for chalav stam (milk not supervised by Jews) in the United States (where the USDA is very strict in oversight of dairy production) and in non artisanal bread in France (where the government regulates the production of bread). There is no
