A Rousing Bravo for Tulip Winery: Not Wine Related

[Daniel Rogov]

Because I am more concerned in my writing with the quality of the wines I taste, it is not very often that I come here to sing the praise of the people who have started and now maintain a winery. I do so today in praise of the Yitzhaki family of the Tulip Winery and that because of news that has recently reached me.

For those not familiar with the winery, it sits on Kfar Tikva, a residential community not far from Kiryat Tivon at which people with disabilities and special needs can live, develop and realize their potential. Since its founding, the winery has considered these people as an integral part of their effort, relating to them with honor and respect.

Not long ago, when the Itzhaki family considered "going kosher", they were told by the rabbinical authorities that this would be no problem so long as the community members would no longer work there. Itzhak Yitzhaki replied, with his head held high that "you should live so long until these people will no longer be part of the winery".

For which, indeed a rousing "Bravo". I speak for no-one but myself but for me that is the truest heart of Judaism and/or of being thoroughly moral human beings no matter what one's religious beliefs.

My most recent tasting notes for Tulip wines can be found at viewtopic.php?f=29&t=29218&p=249218&hilit=Tulip#p249218 and viewtopic.php?f=29&t=30399&p=258097&hilit=tulip#p258097

Best
Rogov

[Ian Sutton]

Rogov
Indeed that attitude displays the best side of humanity, that any religion should seek to incorporate (with pride) within it's culture.

regards
Ian

[Harry J]

Bsd. That's it ? That's the whole story ? The Rabbis just don't want them to allow people with disablities working there whereas others have a greater sense of morality ? ? This is a public forum read by peoples of varied denominations and perhaps the way this thread began it doers not give a full picture with all details. Does it perhaps have to do with Jewish rules of wine making ? To me the post sounds like its saying the Rabbis involved just don't want these people involved because of their disabilities and the implication is thus quite startling in regulating" the Rabbis"to a lower standard of morality
H

[Daniel Rogov]

Harry, Hello.....

I am by no means an "expert" on Jewish law but it is my understanding that according to the rabbinical decision people who may have limited cognitive abilities (that is to say, who are considered to be "retarded") are not allowed to work in a kosher winery for fear that they may not understand the rules and perhaps touch or otherwise "harm" the wines in barrels or in tanks.

The fact that such people can be adequately supervised and indeed taught how to deal with such issues seems to escape at least some of our rabbis. It is said by Catholics that the Pope is infallible in questions of religion. He is not said to be infallible in human matters. In no place is it stated that any particular rabbinical authority is infallible in questions of either religion or human matters. In my opinion this is a case where they certainly prove their fallability. Indeed as you imply, this may be a matter of Jewish law. If that is true, these are laws that should be changed. I'll be the first to admit that this is not a "scandal of world-shaking order" It is, however, at least in my opinion a scandal and I think that those rabbis who made this decision should hang their heads in shame for not following that rule.

As to sharing such thoughts with non-Jews (something of which I am from time to time accused), I see no shame at all. Certainly not an anti-Jewish shame on my part, but a shame on the part of some Jews, at least some of whom happen to be rabbis. We Jews may or may not be "the chosen people" but if we were chosen at all it was to set an example for others. And in this may I remind us all of the very heart of Judaism - "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

And let me remind us as well that priests, rabbis, ministers and imams are also quite human and thus sometimes do things that are both immoral and for lack of a better term "out and out dumb."

Best
Rogov

[Doug Z]

well ive got a bellyful of things i could say on this, but as u often point out, this forum is relgated only (mostly) to matters of wine and not of religion politics etc...

however, being as u opened the pandora's box, or the can of worms, i will allow myself some venting.

[rant mode] non jews, or maybe more correctly, non israeli jews, are probably not familiar with the odd, almost unprecendented state of affairs in the history of the jews, we have here in israel.

in the past, as well as currently in most of the diaspora, people elevated to the position of "rabbi" or specifically with authority over the various comings and goings of peope, reach that position by stature, both moral and intellectual. not that there is always consensus, certainly not, (hey even maimonides was almost considered an outcast in his time) but on the whole, the spitritual leadership of the people generaly went to the most deserved of the title.

for the first time in the history of the our people we have a bureaucracy of rabbis. a whole vast network of government payed jobs filled for the most part by low aptitude functionaries appointed to jobs by party hacks who in other circumstances would not have the capacity to be janitors.

this network, built slowly but steadily over the years by continued government funding due to wise political maneuvering has created a monster. in place of communities with spiritual giants, we have functionaries, all getting payed on my tax dollar, with untold benefits (pensions, tenures, retirement funds, ) filled often enough by buffoons with the temerity to take advantage of the public for their own gain. this network starts low in the koshreing departments (the meat kosher department of the rabbinate is well known for its corruption, ie..cute little junkets for 4 weeks to argentina, to see one day of shechita and the next three and half wks shopping in Buenos Aires for all the grandkids and inlaws etc...) moving up to rabbinical and conversion courts and then moving up to the large bureaucracy of the cheif rabbinate with its attendent bureau cheifs, secretaries, aides, assistants, not to mention now also jobs in the ministry of health and interior (the ahskelon hospital broohaha a case in point) all jobs recieved by being part of the never ending food chain.

i think the rabbinical giants of the past would be sick to their stomachs in their graves if confronted with this mess. and as such, u end up with travesties and mockeries of what was once known universally as a great jewish ethic which serves as a light to the world.

now more the ever, we need the rebukes of our prohpets to show us something of our original glory. because spiritually we are now in the sewer. a disgrace. tried to stay brief. [/rant mode]

on another note, do u have a tasting note yet for tuilps 2007 just cab sauv. its missing from your last tulip visit notes (dec 30, 2009)

[Daniel Rogov]

Doug, Hi....

For some reason (the ways of the gods are mysterious) the 2007 Just Cabernet has so far eluded me. I will send out one of my spies to hunt up a bottle this week.

Best
Rogov

[Mike_F]

... and the implication is thus quite startling in regulating" the Rabbis"to a lower standard of morality ...

To be perfectly frank, as a secular Israeli I often wonder if the Israeli rabbinical authorities even understand the meaning of the word morality. As to how this sorry state of affairs came about, Doug's summary above tells one all one needs to know.

Rogov - Thanks very much for this post. Tulip is clearly a winery that deserves consumer support for multiple reasons, in addition to the quality of their wines.

best,

Mike

[Michael J]

I too would like to hear more details. From what you relate, I have to agree that a "Bravo!" is in order, as the choice is basically between economic advantage (going kosher) vs. supporting the community in general and disabled individuals in specific. That much we can agree on.
As to whether or not Rabbis are morally bankrupt and/or corrupt, clearly we will have differing opinions. I don't know the specific halacha about mentally disabled individuals working in wine production; I would assume that unsupervised individuals could pose a problem but that if there is appropriate supervision then there would be none. I'm no expert and this may very well not be the case. If this is the case and one or the other side did not agree to this then shame on them. If it's not the case and in fact there is no halachic workaround for this issue than so be it, and bravo to the winery for choosing the "moral" over the economic. Even so, I don't think this makes Rabbis or by extension halachic Judaism immoral; rather, the decision was made that in this specific circumstance one concern triumphs over another concern. This is not a "scandal"; a scandal would be if specific Rabbis were demanding this beyond what is actually required, or perhaps even if Halacha refused employment to disabled people in general. However, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a Rabbi who is against the employment of disabled individuals in general. If the issue is specifically mentally impaired individuals then I think we can all agree that there are tasks that none of us would feel comfortable putting in their hands. For halachic observant Jews this may well be one of them. Let's keep a little perspective here.
In summary, that the Yitzchaki family made a moral decision not to fire its disabled workers in pursuit of greater profit should be applauded, but it should not be assumed that since in this case greater profit is synonimous with kashrut that proponents of kashrut (and Rabbis in particular) are neccesarily immoral. A kashrut certificate like any other document of this kind simply certifies that the winery upholds a certain standard. Whether or not you agree with that standard is up to you and to be fair no one is coercing Tulip into this decision. Like any other system, kashrut has rules and whether you personally agree with them or not is up to you, but the rules are the rules. To publicly and definitively state that they are immoral seems frankly to be extreme and judgemental and that seems to lend a certain anti-religious (or at least anti-Rabbi) undercurrent to this whole thread. Judging by the content of the posts on this thread, I think it's safe to say that I'm not the only person to pick up on this.

[Daniel Rogov]

Michael, Hi....

My thanks to you for presenting a thoroughly rational examination of the situation. First let me say that I doubt very much that any of us would accuse Judaisim itself of being immoral. There is simply no basis for that accusation. As to the rabbinical authorities, again I doubt that anyone is accusing all rabbis or even a large number of rabbis of being immoral.

I think what may be under attack (and I do use that word advisedly) are three major things -

(a) the bureaucratization and to some extent the commercialization of various rabbinical bodies under which a vast army of clerks has been given an enormous amount of power that they may well not deserve. Perhaps something akin to Tammany Hall in its days when one is appointed to a position not because of his/her abilities and wisdom but because of their family, political or other "connections". And, as Emile Durkheim reminded us so well, once a bureaucracy is formed its stated goal is forgotten and the new goal becomes the preservation of the bureaucracy itself.

(b) the intertwining between religion and state that exists within Israel, a situation that has prevented any government since the declaration of the state from obtaining a clear majority and forcing the larger parties to pander to the needs of the observant.

(c) the obvious corruption that has come into being within at least some parts of the various rabbinical branches within Israel.

Indeed there are many rabbis and scholars of Judaism for whom I have enormous respect. There are others though (e.g. "The X-Ray Rabbi) for whom I feel that only scorn should be in place both for the power they have over the lives of people and for the literal river of cash that flows into their pockets.

We are in agreement about the laws of kashrut. Kosher is kosher and non-kosher is non-kosher. I think though that we might agree as well that within all fields of law (civil, criminal, theological) that as the world changes so must the law in some cases. According to halacha (Jewish law) for example, it was quite acceptable to stone female adulterers to death. As that and dozens of other rules (e.g. especially those concerning smiting our enemies and their children) have changed, so might kashrut keep up with the modern world. I also agree to and accept that at least some matters of kashrut are of faith and not necessarily related to reality. That too is fine but it does seem to me that the major goal of any religious or other body set up to serve the needs of the public must be for the moral good.

With regard to the specific situation, indeed supervision can and would have been provided. Think for example of visitors to kosher wineries who must be informed on entering of some of the rules (e.g. not touching any of the barrels, stainless steel tanks or much of the equipment). As those can be overseen easily so can those with more limited cognitive abilities be supervised in their work. I remember years ago an adolescent Downs Syndrome girl being talked to and treated as if she was a four year old child. She became justifiably angry and responded that "I may be retarded but that does not make me stupid".

I may be wrong but I have always thought that common sense based on a moral consensus was a major part of Judaism. If that is the case, where are the wise and moral men and women who will adjudicate issues like these with concern for the rights of others and not for reasons of personal glorification or power.

Best
Rogov

[Michael J]

Rogov,

Certainly the three points listed are of merit. The discussion and debate surrounding those points are valid and important for the proper functioning of these institutions. That being the case, this forum does not seem to be the appropriate venue for that debate nor these members the proper arbitrators. There are a great many issues with our small fair country and if we debated them all the wine would be quite forgotten.

As for the issues of kashrut, I think a little respect should be accorded halacha and the Rabbis who consider it. While your criticisms may have merit, they too are not a debate for this forum i think. As for the case at present (which after all is the subject of this thread) none of your objections seem to apply. Without knowing the specifics of halacha for this case myself I cannot say which it is, but the options are either:

(a) Halacha does allow it and these Rabbis do not, in which case I agree that this is indeed a scandal.

(b) Halacha does not allow it, in which case despite your own objections, this was a decision reached by moral consensus as you suggest is important. You may personally believe otherwise and believe this decision to be correct, however a quorum decided otherwise and their decision should be respected even if it is not your own. As for halacha in general and kashrut in specific staying with the times, also an important point yet in this specific case not seemingly applicable. Nothing seems to me to be particularly modern in this issue and no update seems to be neccesary. The decision was made (by consensus) that supervision is not sufficient, whether or not you or I agree. Personally I agree that supervision should be enough, but neither you nor I are in the position to make that decision. Similarly there are a great many decisions our political leaders make that I do not agree with, yet I do not presume to know better than they what the correct course of action is.

And so I say "Bravo!" to Tulip and the Yitzchaki family for siding with their community and those who need their help rather than pursuing greater profit, but do not disparage the Rabbis involved or Halacha unless new information is provided.

[Doug Z]

again i must be brief. (running to work)

rogov himself opened the can of worms so i think its a valid thread for discussion.

if he chooses to nip it in the bud and stop it, so be it.

as for the contention that there r only 2 possibilities, either halacha allows it or not, well, i think thats a simplification which in itself goes against the dynamic spirit of halacha. yes there r some points of halacha which are clear and not subject to argumentation, no one could argue a pig is kosher.

on the other hand, and this is by far the majority, most of halacha is a product of deduction and process, "pilpulim" if u wish, by which over the years human thought has tried to take basic essence and deconstruct it for everyday use....

and in spite of their not being always consensus, the system has worked because generally there was real authority behind it.

its just not the case anymore. sorry but i just dont see it.

as for the halacha itself, i am certainly no authority on this although (as im sure all who read here are certainly aware) even kosher shechita of meat, a specific action requiring some degree of correct procedure, is ok if done by mentally handicapped person (rambam shecitah 2:12 also see magid mishna on site for the ref to the mishna in chulin) although im not sure that the subject of wine supervision is found anywhere...will be happy to be directed to it by any who find such a citation...

here is the maimonides...

לפיכך חרש או שוטה או קטן או שכור שנתבלבלה דעתו ומי שאחזתו רוח רעה ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותם שהשחיטה כתיקנה הרי זו כשרה

hey even a drunk or crazy can do it...yes! i have hope for a future career change, from surgeon to shochet, and believe me, its not so different. and beside, i wouldnt mind myself an all expenses payed trip to buenos aires.

[Daniel Rogov]

Doug, Hi.....

I realize that it was I that opened the potential "bag of worms" here but if anyone re-reads my initial thread they will note that I made no comment whatsoever about the logic or morality of various rabbinical authorities. My intention was merely to praise the winery for their decision. True, when Harry asked, I did jump in head first to the issues.

I will not lock this thread but do ask any who want to post to it to do so in a civil and cultured manner, both the most and least observant among us not necessarily agreeing with the point of view of the other but in respecting that point of view. Being heated is fine, but remaining civil is one of the requirements on Rogov's Place. Only if the thread get out of hand will I consider locking it. In the meanwhile, making an exception to my own rule remains acceptable and that largely because it actually is quite in line with wine-related issues.

Best
Rogov

[Michael J]

Perhaps I haven't been clear enough in my opinion. What I am saying is that this is not a new issue but one that has been considered and effectively voted on in the past. A decision was reached by consensus, a decision neither I personally or anyone else on this thread seems to know for sure, as to whether or not this instance is allowed. Halacha is dynamic and I never claimed otherwise; however even if it is dynamic that does not mean that anyone else's opinion here is certainly correct and thus halacha must bend to their all-knowing will. The decision itself is not without logic, assuming it was decided that by laws of kashrut only competent people can handle the equipment. I assume one side argued that they could be supervised (as is the case in the Rambam example you brought) and the other that even with supervision it was too risky and something could too easily slip by without anyone noticing. Both sides have their logic, and if the decision was made in favor of caution no one here can argue that it was an immoral decision or even irrational for that matter.
It could very well be that halacha in this matter is similar to the Rambam case that you give, in which case I agree that going beyond the requirements of kashrut and in so doing putting people who need the job out of work is the wrong thing to do. However, I think that there is a major fundamental difference between the case given by the Rambam and the one under consideration making it not exactly applicable. In addition, while the Rambam is a very much respected Jewish scholar and theologian, he could very well be in the minority with that opinion and it could very well be that halacha does not go by him. I also point out that Rambam lived many centuries ago and in accordance with the dynamic nature of halacha mentioned before modern thinkers may not agree with him.
Where this thread has gone awry to me is when we shifted from praising Tulip to castigating the Rabanut/kashrut as immoral. If it is indeed the case that kashrut dictates that mentally impaired individuals cannot work in their present positions then it is not immoral for Rabbis who adhere to halacha to state this as a requirement for kashrut certification, nor is this position of halacha itself immoral.
We may debate amongst ourselves what the halacha should be and we amongst ourselves may even come to a consensus on the matter. Personally, I do not neccesarily agree with the position taken nor do I claim that it is "correct". However, I do defend the rights of Rabbis and thinkers to make an informed decision on the matter and uphold it even if we deisagree with it. To castigate it as immoral is extreme.

As for the other non-wine related rabanut issues, my opinions are thus:
1. Bureaucratization is an issue endemic to all governments and our government in particular. I agree that it is a problem within the Rabbanut as well that need be addressed though I know not how. Nor do I believe that disbanding the Rabbanut is a solution.
2. As for the point about the nature of religion and politics in Israel, I must respectfully disagree with Rogov's assessment. I see no issue with individuals voting according to their religious beliefs, or rather, individuals voting according to their morals which are grounded in religion. To disallow this seems to me to be a violation of an individuals rights. As far as I see it, western democracies rest on two pillars: governing officials elected by (and thus responsible to) the people and the preservation of human rights for all citizens. As long as the platforms of these religion based parties do not call for the violation of anyone's human rights, I see no reason to disqualify them simply because they draw their opinions from a religious source. There is a body that decides whether or not these parties violate the rules (as certain parties have and have thus been outlawed) and the current religious parties pass the test. The annoyance felt that these parties basically get what they want because of the difficulty in forming a coalition is an issue of the political process and not the religious one. The system in Israel is set up in such away that special interest groups prosper in that they can effectively sell their votes on big picture issues to the larger ruling parties in exchange for conveniences on the domestic front. While the religious parties are most visible in this capacity, there are other examples of special interest parties selling out, the most recent example being the Pensioners Party. Our ire should be reserved for the political system as a whole, which I agree is problematic, and not to the particular groups that play the game well.
3. There certainly is corruption within the Rabbnut that must be addressed. At the same time, the Rabbnut itself is a neccesary organization, and thus it must be somehow cleansed of its corruption and not disbanded entirely. I cannot say that I have any great solutions to this conundrum, but I believe that one is out there.

[jgpersky]

I am probably one of the few people who currently works in wine, is Orthodox, and has had a life-long career working with people with special needs. So, just a quick response.
1) Bravo goes to Tulip and their work, whatever your religious beliefs. What they do is great.
2) Let's not take away their honor with our comments. That was not the point of honoring them.
3) The hallachic issues at play are complex. I am sorry that they cannot be kosher YET. But, I do not believe that after further analyis, there will not be a kashrut organization that will find a way to resolve this dilemma. So, instead of jumping to your favorite positions, lets help them and support them to succeeed if they so choose to proceed with wanting to make kosher wine. And, lets wish them all success whatever they decide.

[Daniel Rogov]

Michael, Hello Again...


We are not that far apart in what we are saying. Two points however…

You say that:

If it is indeed the case that kashrut dictates that mentally impaired individuals cannot work in their present positions then it is not immoral for Rabbis who adhere to halacha to state this as a requirement for kashrut certification, nor is this position of halacha itself immoral.

Leaving religion aside for the moment and referring to all affairs human and moral, I propose that it is immoral to see an injustice and do nothing more than to stand by and observe without acting. In defense of whatever action that must be taken I refer to Messrs. Jefferson and Franklin and quote part of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence of the United States.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness".

As I interpret the above, these principles of action apply to individuals as well as to religious and civil authorities. In this of course, I am not calling for the overthrow of either Halacha or the Rabbinate. Nor am I calling for revolution. I am calling for various rabbinical authorities with the wisdom and moral backbone to make changes in halacha today as they have been made in the past. In that, to recognize that all men (and I use that term to describe all of humankind) have certain rights that must be guarded with great diligence.

Relating to the specific case in question – from the winery's point of view, that may well imply very strict supervision and that even at an additional cost to them. From the rabbinical point of view it might mean for example that if a person (mentally limited or simply out of ignorance) were to merely brush against a stainless steel vat or barrel the wine would remain kosher.

(b) You also wrote:

I see no issue with individuals voting according to their religious beliefs, or rather, individuals voting according to their morals which are grounded in religion"

We agree in full and not only in voting but in running for office. As a Jew, a Catholic or a Morman can vote in the United States, so can those people run for, be elected to and hold office, and that from being a clerk at the town garbage department, to serving as a member of the Congress, the Supreme Court or as President. They do, however, run either as independents or as members of a political party. Note please that I find huge social-moral differences between a political party and a religious party. Can we imagine anything other polite or not-so-polite laughter in the USA at the existence of "the Progressive Jewish Party" or the "23rd Catholic Diocese Party"? Not to misunderstand, if someone from the Habad or the Reform synagogue on Ocean Parkway or the Chicago Diocese were to run as an individual, I would have only praise for their initiative.

Part of the problem in Israel of the religious parties is that each of the members of that party in the Knesset (or those appointed as ministers) takes his/her "orders" directly from the head of that particular religious group, sect or even sub-sect. That to me is religious tyranny and not a process related to democracy. Indeed there will always be special interest groups within any elected system. And indeed there will always be political "bargaining". Those special interest groups may impact on us in many ways but should never be allowed to impact on the freedom or dignity of the broad majority. And so it is, too often, with the religious parties within Israel.

To return to a somewhat lighter note, in the play Oklahoma one of the truly great songs has it that "they've gone about as far as they can go". I wonder if we two have also gone about as far as we can go, not in this case with regard to Kansas City but with regard to the issue at hand. Perhaps best to continue over a cup of coffee?

Best
Rogov

[Daniel Rogov]

JG, Hi....

Your points well made and well taken.

Best
Rogov

[Andrew Breskin]

I think this forum has too high of a ratio of political/religious/anti-religious posts in proportion to tasting notes posted and other relevant wine conversations. I don't see the purpose of the original post, and don't see how the ensuing debate furthers the cause of wine or maintains this forum as the best/only place that the kosher consumer can share information and have questions answered.

Maybe make a separate "sticking it to the man" forum, or a social hall for these kinds of posts. And Rogov, with all due respect, this is the kind of thread started by the moderator??

[Daniel Rogov]

For the record, I am repeating my original post. Please note that there was no criticism implied in that post of any rabbinical authority whatever. What was there was a commentary on people who were behaving in a commendable manner.

On that note I think the time has indeed come to lock this thread. Should anyone care to communicate with me on these issues privately, I shall indeed respond privately as well.

Best
Rogov

Because I am more concerned in my writing with the quality of the wines I taste, it is not very often that I come here to sing the praise of the people who have started and now maintain a winery. I do so today in praise of the Yitzhaki family of the Tulip Winery and that because of news that has recently reached me.

For those not familiar with the winery, it sits on Kfar Tikva, a residential community not far from Kiryat Tivon at which people with disabilities and special needs can live, develop and realize their potential. Since its founding, the winery has considered these people as an integral part of their effort, relating to them with honor and respect.

Not long ago, when the Itzhaki family considered "going kosher", they were told by the rabbinical authorities that this would be no problem so long as the community members would no longer work there. Itzhak Yitzhaki replied, with his head held high that "you should live so long until these people will no longer be part of the winery".

For which, indeed a rousing "Bravo". I speak for no-one but myself but for me that is the truest heart of Judaism and/or of being thoroughly moral human beings no matter what one's religious beliefs.