Mountain Minyan המנין בהרים

Yitzchok Adlerstein and Michael Broyde blast the Conservative movements upcoming Heksher-Tzedek certification in an opinion piece in The Forward. Their argument is typical of the intellectually exhausted pseudo-legalisms that seem to be coming out of some corners of Orthodoxy these days.

First, they argue that the Heksher-Tzedek certification is faulty because it goes beyond secular law.

It is the government that is best suited to uncover and prosecute legal impropriety. Rabbis are ill-prepared to ferret out malfeasance. Rabbis lack the power and authority to subpoena witnesses and punish perjury. They can only conduct private investigations, which are very expensive if done properly and very inaccurate if done cheaply.

This argument is ridiculous on its face. No one is forcing anyone to comply with Heksher-Tzedek. If the company doesn’t want to give rabbis access to the information they need, then they don’t have to be part of the program. I also find it somewhat sad to find Jewish authorities relying on secular law as a measure of ethical correctness. It is that distinction which lands them in the worst of their argument:

Any guidelines that do not organically grow out of Jewish ethical expectations are by nature arbitrary. What number of vacation days is ethical? Why should an industry average of wages or benefits serve as a guide to ethical conduct? Rabbis specialize in making decisions about law, not in creating new systems of rules to enforce ethical principles. Their suggestions about going beyond the letter of the law will be no more compelling than other suggestions

This is almost comically false. Rabbinical repsonsa have made decisions of this kind for centuries. The number of vacation days that is ethical seems no more or less specialized to me than the appropriate method for stringing in areas to make them “private” for purposes of shabbat. This argument is essentially the same old Republican argument that these Rabbis are “legislating from the bench.” In other words, they should be judges, not legislators. But that’s simply assuming the truth of their conclusion that the Conservative movement is wrong about the law, as they put it:

They also misread rabbinic texts. For example, they cite a number of talmudic and rabbinic sources to suggest that Jewish law requires providing benefits to workers according to what is customary in a given locale, failing to note that this is only true in the absence of an articulated understanding between employer and employee. It seems that those behind Hekhsher Tzedek have interpreted Jewish law in such a way so as to make it a servant to their ethical preconceptions.

Of course, they don’t probe the validity of that “understanding.” Does that “understanding” permit work on shabbat? Does that understanding permit non-kosher slaughtering, or the use of treyf? Nope. Of course not.

Again—no one has to obtain this certification. Most people will probably continue to rely on the standard marks. For those of us who find more meaning in “organic” or “free range” than in an OU symbol, Hekhsher-Tzedek is a step in the right direction.

And of course, no good sophistry is complete without a straw man reductio ad absurdum:

And why does Hekhsher Tzedek focus only on the kosher food industry? Ethical considerations should be applied to all industries, not just kosher food. Should good Jews use attorneys who drive large gas-guzzling SUVs? Should they shop at the warehouse store that gets most of its goods from a country that abuses millions of its citizens? Should they purchase music that glorifies drug use or objectifies women?

The answer to those questions is No, No, and No. And I don’t think there are many Conservative Rabbis that would answer those questions differently. Of course, these examples are entirely irrelevant because they are not related to food production.

I’m shocked to see Orthodox leaders suggest that a production facility is ok by them as long as it only complies in part with Jewish law. So, what, I guess if the owner of the facility is an idolater or a murderer, right? That has nothing to do with dietary laws.

Oh, but wait. It does. The Orthodox will not drink wine that is not assuredly produced by non-idolators. Hmmm. Sounds like they are mixing “other” aspects of Jewish law with food. And of course, giving up on Jewish law and letting the secular law operate is massively hypocritical given Orthodox law on otherwise secular subjects, including divorce.