In the previous post we have discussed the question of eating at a friend’s house when that friend does not keep kosher. We have mentioned two factors one must consider: 1) do I want to eat there? 2) can I trust the good intentions of the host?

Both questions are subjective, and there is a variety of possible responses to such an invitation. Here we are going to deal with a case in which you have decided to accept the invitation, and now want to know whether you can trust the host who guarantees that everything is kosher. That promise also contains two elements: 1) can I fully trust the host to get only kosher ingredients? 2) even if the ingredients are kosher, what about all the laws of kashrut?

Let us consider a scenario in which the host promises us that all the ingredients are kosher, but deliberately buys non-kosher ingredients. He might do that either because of convenience (cheaper, closer to home), because he does not believe that it is forbidden to eat that food, or because he wants to cause the guest to transgress a prohibition. All these possibilities depend on the type of relationships between the host and the guest, and the guest must judge if one of them is highly probable. Traditionally, however, Jewish law would say that we cannot rely on the testimony of someone who routinely transgresses a certain prohibition, and by that logic, even if the host promises that the ingredients are kosher, he cannot be trusted. The rationale of that law is that since that person does not acknowledge the divine source of the law, nothing will deter him from deceiving the believer.

Despite that clear stance of Jewish law, a way was found around it by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, who had to deal with a new reality, of families sharply divided religiously yet living under one roof. He writes^[1]:

בהיותי במאסקווא בשנת תרצ”ד, נשאלתי בדבר שהאבות ניזונים במדינה הזאת בעוונותינו הרבים על שלחן בניהם ובנותיהם, האוכלים נבלות וכל דבר איסור, ורובם הם כופרים בה’ ובתורתו. ושבקי היתרא ואכלי איסורא, ואם כן אין נאמנים על איסורים

When I was in Moscow in 1934, I was asked about the parents in that country, who eat on the table of their sons and daughters. [These sons and daughters] eat treif meat and all other forbidden foods, and most of them do not believe in God and in His Torah. Even though they have kosher meat [easily] available, they choose to eat non-kosher, and are therefore not to be trusted when they declare a certain food kosher.

Rabbi Feinstein witnessed a reality in which the older, still observant generation, could not take care of itself, and relied on the children, who were communist atheists. He hints that if there was a monetary reason to eat non-kosher, the children could have been trusted, but because there is no great difference in price or availability, their behavior demonstrates a total rejection of Jewish law. He continues:

 ואין להאבות החלושים והזקנים עצה איך לאכול בשר כשצריכים לבריאותם וגם לא כל דבר מבושל, דאף שסתם כלים אינם בני יומן, מכל מקום הרי הוא כלכתחלה כיון שקבע מושבו אצלם

The elderly and frail parents have no solution. Not only they cannot eat meat, which is important for their health, they cannot eat any cooked food. Though usually the food is permitted post-facto even if it was cooked in a non-kosher dish… this doesn’t apply when one wants to eat this food regularly.

Rabbi Feinstein says that kosher food cooked in a non-kosher dish does not necessarily become forbidden, but one should not regularly eat in a place where non-kosher dishes are used^[2]. He understands, however, that it is impossible and dangerous to forbid the parents from eating their children’s food. He therefore suggests an innovative solution:

וחדשתי שיש מקום להקל להרבה אנשים, באם האב יודע וקים ליה בגוה דבתו וכלתו שלא יכשילוהו באיסור משום דמכיר טבעה בידיעה ברורה ע”י שניסה אותה הרבה פעמים וראה שאינה מכשילתו מטעם שאינה רוצה לצערו או שטבעה שלא להעביר אחרים על דעתם, יכול לסמוך עליה ולאכול מה שמבשלת בעדו מבשר וכל דבר כשאמרה לו שהוא מבשר כשר ובכלים שהזמינה עבורו. משום שלא נכנס זה בגדר נאמנות אלא בידיעה עצמית שהוא כראיה ממש כיון שיודע בברור שאינה משקרת לו

I have come up with a new concept which will allow a more lenient approach for many people. If the father knows with certainty that his daughter or daughter-in-law will not cause him to eat non-kosher… because she does not want to cause him sorrow, or because by nature she respects other people’s beliefs, he can trust her and eat meat or any other food when she tells him that the meat and the dishes are kosher. This is not considered a testimony but rather a recognition of the truth [by the parent]…

Rabbi Feinstein’s innovation was for some revolutionary, and one of his fiercest critics, Yom Tov Schwartz HaLevi, accused him of causing many people to eat non-kosher meat^[3]. Schwartz, like other critics, failed to understand the great insight of Rabbi Feinstein, that Halakha takes into considerations human emotions and attitudes. Rabbi Feinstein gave the mandate to those who asked the question to decide whether they feel comfortable eating at their children’s home or not.

Conclusion: the guest should decide if he fully trusts the host to buy and serve kosher ingredients, and if the answer is positive, he could accept the invitation and enjoy the meal. We now have to discuss kashrut concerns which apply even when the ingredients are kosher.

[1] שו”ת אגרות משה יורה דעה חלק א סימן נד

[2] The situation is different today since most dishes do not absorb flavor. More on that in future chapters.

[3] מענה לאגרות, הקדמה, דף ד – the author was very disrespectful to Rabbi Feinstein and his book was removed from the shelves at bookstores and libraries.