In the twentieth century, large scale manufacturing brought a more scientific approach to food production. Foods scientists believed that they could create products in their labs that were superior to what was offered by nature (superior in value, in durability and sometimes even in taste). This was the original impetus for creating non-dairy versions of common dairy foods. Along the way, manufacturers saw that these foods also benefited people with dairy allergies and lactose intolerance and observetnt Jews. Three classic examples of these products appear below.
Crisco began marketing its non-dairy shortening to observant Jews in the 1930s. This cookbook was crated by Proctor and Gamble.
Coffee Rich was introduced in 1961 by the Rich Corporation, following its successful introduction of non-dairy whipped topping.
In 1981, David Mintz, an observant Jew, created Tofutti, a non-dairy ice cream that became popular among observant Jews and in the general marketplace.
All of these products received enthusiastic endorsement from large kosher certifying agencies. The O-U certifies Coffee Rich and Crisco. The Kaf-K certifies Tofutti. Why did these certifying agencies feel comfortable endorsing products that could make it appear that observant Jews were consuming meat and dairy at the same meal? It turns out that the 20th century American food industry did not invent non-dairy milk substitutes.
(א) באיזו בשר נוהג דין בשר בחלב והיאך נקרא בשול. ובו י"א סעיפים:
כתוב בתורה לא תבשל גדי בחלב אמו ג' פעמים אחד לאיסור בישול ואחד לאיסור אכילה ואחד לאיסור הנאה
(ג) אינו נוהג אלא בבשר בהמה טהורה בחלב בהמה טהורה אבל בשר טהורה בחלב טמאה או בשר טמאה בחלב טהורה מותרי' בבישול ובהנאה ובשר חיה ועוף אפילו בחלב טהורה מותר בבישול ובהנאה ואף באכילה אינו אסור אלא מדרבנן אבל דגים וחגבים אין בהם איסור אפילו מדרבנן: הגה ונהגו לעשות חלב משקדים ומניחים בה בשר עוף הואיל ואינו רק מדרבנן אבל בשר בהמה יש להניח אצל החלב שקדים משום מראית העין כמו שנתבאר לעיל סי' ס"ו לענין דם (ד"ע):
(1) It is written in the Torah: "you will not cook a kid in the milk of its mother" three times (Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; Deuteronomy 14:21); once for the prohibition of cooking, once for the prohibition of eating, and once for the prohibition of receiving benefit [from the cooked meat and milk products].
(3) The law only applies with meat from a pure [kosher] animal and milk from a pure animal, but meat of a pure animal in milk that is impure, or meat from an impure animal in pure milk, is permitted to cook and benefit from. Meat of a wild animal and of fowl, even in milk which is pure, is permitted to cook and benefit from; and even eating is only prohibited rabbinically. Fish and grasshoppers are not prohibited [with milk] even rabbinically. RAMA: We make milk from almonds and place bird meat in it, since [milk and bird meat] is only rabbinically [forbidden]. But with meat from a domesticated animal, place almonds next to the milk, so that people don't misunderstand. 1This is as we said above, in chapter 66.
1 It turns out that almond milk was known and used in the Christiain and Moslem world in the Middle Ages.
What concerns does the REMA express about the use of almond milk? How are these concerns addressed? How might contemporary rabbis have applied the REMA's teaching?
There is a name for the concern that the REMA expresses--מַרְאִית עַיִן Marit Ayin
One of several Talmudic discussions of this principle appears in tractate Avodah Zarah.
ישב לו קוץ בפני עבודת כוכבים לא ישחה ויטלנה מפני שנראה כמשתחוה לעבודת כוכבים ואם אינו נראה מותר נתפזרו לו מעותיו בפני עבודת כוכבים לא ישחה ויטלם מפני שנראה כמשתחוה לעבודת כוכבים ואם אינו נראה מותר
וישתה מפני הסכנה מאי אינו נראה אילימא דלא מתחזי והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל מקום שאסרו חכמים מפני מראית העין אפילו בחדרי חדרים אסור אלא אימא אם אינו נראה כמשתחוה לעבודת כוכבים מותר
The baraita continues: If a thorn became imbedded in one’s foot while he was standing before an object of idol worship, he may not bend down and remove the thorn, because he appears to be bowing down to the object of idol worship; but if he is not seen, it is permitted. If one’s coins were scattered while he is before an object of idol worship, he may not bend down and pick them up, because he appears to be bowing down to the object of idol worship; but if he is not seen, it is permitted.
The Gemara asks: What does the baraita mean when it states: If he is not seen? If we say it means that he is not seen by others, doesn’t Rav Yehuda say that Rav says: Wherever the Sages prohibited an action due to the appearance of prohibition, it is prohibited even in the innermost chambers where no one will see it, as the Sages did not distinguish between different circumstances in such cases. Accordingly, the fact that he is not seen by anyone should make no difference with regard to whether or not the action is prohibited. Rather, say: If he is not seen as one who bows down to an object of idol worship, i.e., he turns his side or back to the idol, then it is permitted.
What is the logic behind the prohibition of Marit Ayin? Why do Rabbi Yehudah and the sages disagree? How might their disagreement effect the question of whether we should be allowed to eat foods or combinations of foods that appear to be un-kosher even if they are, in fact, kosher?
The Shulchan Aruch, however, places some real limits on Ma'arit Ayin.
(א) דברים האסורים משום כלאי בגדים. ובו ב' סעיפים:
אין אסור משום כלאים אלא צמר רחלים ואילים עם פשתן אבל צמר גמלים וצמר ארנבים ונוצה של עזים וכל שאר מינים מותרים בפשתן וכן קנבוס וצמר גפן וכל שאר מינים מותרים אפי' בצמר רחלים ואילים וחכמים אסרו מפני מראית העין משי עם צמר לפי שדומה לפשתים וכן כלך והוא מין שגדל בכרכי הים על האבנים שבים ודומה לצמר אסרוהו מפני מראית העין עם הפשתן והאידנא משי מצוי בינינו והכל מכירים בו לפיכך אין בו משום מראית העין ומותר עם הצמר ועם הפשתן:
The rabbis forbade certain types of materials that looked like linen because of the concern of it being marit Ayin for Shatnez. ...However nowadays people recognize silk so it should no longer be an isuue of marit Ayin ...
This position has been extended to many food related issues. (from the Ohr Samaech Newsletter)
So it comes as a bit of a surprise that the O U will not be certifying Impossible Pork.
The largest and most influential certifier of kosher products in the world has declined to endorse Impossible Pork, even though nothing about its ingredients or preparation conflicts with Jewish dietary laws.
“The Impossible Pork, we didn’t give an ‘OU’ to it, not because it wasn’t kosher per se,” said Rabbi Menachem Genack, the CEO of the Orthodox Union’s kosher division. “It may indeed be completely in terms of its ingredients: If it’s completely plant-derived, it’s kosher. Just in terms of sensitivities to the consumer … it didn’t get it.”
For Jews who keep kosher, the Impossible Burger has allowed some food experiences that would otherwise be off-limits because of the prohibition in dietary law on mixing milk and meat. For the last five years, Jews and kosher restaurants have been able to serve up cheese-topped chili, greasy cheeseburgers, and that quintessential American diner pairing: a hamburger with a milkshake.
“The Impossible Burger itself is a huge, huge success and people really, really like it,” Genack said. “It’s a really excellent, excellent product in every respect.”
With the new product, Impossible Foods wanted to give that same experience to Jews and Muslims who do not eat pork, along with others who are seeking to avoid animal products or reduce their environmental impact.
But Genack said he and others at the OU recalled what happened when they once certified “bacon” that wasn’t made of pig.
“We still get deluged with calls from consumers who either don’t get it or they’re uncomfortable with it,” he said.
The OU has held back certification for reasons other than food preparation before. In 2013, for example, it required a Manhattan restaurant to change its name from Jezebel, the name of a biblical figure associated with immorality, to retain its certification.
But the organization certifies other products that might seem to conflict with Jewish dietary law, explaining on its website that “a fish sauce may display a picture of a non‐kosher fish, the OU may appear on artificial crab or pork, or there may be a recipe for a non‐kosher food item on the label.” It even certifies other products that aim to replicate the pork experience, such as Trader Joe’s “spicy porkless plant-based snack rinds.”
But ultimately agency officials decided that a product called “pork” just wouldn’t fly, Genack said.
“We of course discussed it with the company and they understood,” he said.
JTA
There are of course, precedents for not certifying products whose ingredients are kosher for non-kashrut reasons. For example, a local deli that is open on Shabbat explains how it can claim to be ksoher even though none of the major certifying agencies will grant it supervision.
About ten years ago, the Conservative Movement announced the created of the Magen Tzedek certification. While not a replacement for traditional certification, Magen Tzedek was an attempt to tie ethical and moral practices to kosher certification.
+
