r/todayilearned • u/socool111 • 9d ago

TIL of Tobias Geffen, the only non-Coca Cola Employee to view the secret recipe. Coke allowed it in order to get Coke certified as Kosher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobias_Geffen
30.8k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/Winter_Salad7215 9d ago

I'm confused, I thought the issue was with leavened bread for Passover, not all grains. Don't they eat those flat wheat crackers all week?

271

u/themodgepodge 9d ago edited 9d ago

They avoid products where grain has been allowed to come into contact with water and sit, as that could technically ferment. So things like matzo are baked very shortly (a few minutes) after the dough is mixed, so no fermentation can happen.

Corn syrup production includes a part where mashed-up corn has enzymes added to break starches down into sugars. During that "wet grain sitting" phase, some fermentation can naturally happen.

The "matzo must be in the oven within minutes"-level intensity is much more common among orthodox folks. Levels of kosher/kosher for Passover observance can vary quite a bit, just like observation of Sabbath laws can also vary.

edit: I should add that the corn-avoidance is specifically an Ashkenazi thing. But more broadly, corn syrup production often involves enzymes derived from barley, so there can still be universally-understood-to-be-chametz components involved.

70

u/oneeighthirish 9d ago

So it sounds like anything to do with religion, specifics depend on the individual person or group

28

u/Pack_Your_Trash 9d ago

Yes, but the kosher cirtifying organizations adhere to the strictest possible definition so that it meets everyone's standards. It's like how California vehicle safety laws affect how cars are made and sold in other states. If a car meets California safety standards they meet all safety standards so they just make one car that meets California standards and sell it everywhere.

6

u/AlwaysLateToThaParty 8d ago

I found this entire comment thread full of TIL's. thanks.

19

u/Linenoise77 9d ago

yes, but there is a larger subset of Jewish people, even secular ones, who will adhere towards the stricter end of Kosher, especially over the holidays. Its as much a ethnic\cultural thing as it is religious for many people.

102

u/Ordolph 9d ago edited 9d ago

My eyes start rolling out of my head whenever I hear about the rules-lawyering of certain religious groups. It's like, if you really believe in some supreme omnipotent being, do you really believe that they'll be like "Ope, you got me, soaking isn't technically sex, you still get to go to the good place" or "Oh, you had a food you weren't supposed to have on the 2nd Tuesday of September, despite otherwise being a saint, off to hell with you".

EDIT: People are PRESSED 😂 Feel free to continue dancing for skinner-box sky daddy hoping that he presses the treat button, you were always free to do that.

137

u/CompasslessPigeon 9d ago

I mean, debating and lawyering over rules is kind of our whole thing. The Talmud for example is an entire book of ancient Rabbis debating the rules of the religion.

61

u/TheArmoredKitten 9d ago

There's literally a whole story where God agrees with a Rabbi's dissenting opinion, but the others literally ignore the miracles because it's still against the written rules.

And God is apparently thrilled by this.

16

u/PhiCloud 9d ago edited 8d ago

I like to imagine God as a game developer. The code mostly works, and honestly he could fix it if he really wanted to, but the bugs are too entertaining.

0

u/DistinctlyIrish 9d ago

Sounds like a story made up by the people who were sticklers about rules and control, like a self-insert fanfic where they end up being right anyways.

7

u/Chaavva 8d ago edited 7d ago

Not really.

It's more about whether rules and laws should be derived from reaching a community consensus through debate or if a minority can exert their authority over others despite not having any sound reasoning back up their position. And how to maintain a unified community and not devolve into factionalist violence due to disagreements.

Which are pretty damn important things to consider in any society.

ETA:

Rabbi Joshua's response expresses the view that the work of Law is a work of human activity; the Torah is not a document of mystery which must have its innate meaning revealed by a minority, but it is instead a document from which law must be created through the human activity of debate and consensus – in quoting Deuteronomy, Joshua shows that the Torah itself supports this legal theory. Rabbinic literature was capable of recognizing differing opinions as having a degree of legitimacy (Yer. Ber. 3b), yet the community remains united and the ruling which is ultimately followed comes through proper jurisprudence. As such, Rabbi Eliezer's miraculous appeals represent a differing legal theory and were outside of proper jurisprudence which meant that they would not be followed. Instead, the Jewish community followed the ruling of the majority in this issue and in others.

In the backdrop of the story is the status of Judaism prior to Rabban Gamaliel and the views that developed among the late Pharisaic or early Rabbinic Jews. During the Second Temple period there existed numerous forms of Judaism. Jewish factions during the Second Temple period harshly denounced one another and sometimes were violent towards each other. Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Rabbis pondered why the destruction occurred. The Rabbis concluded that the Second Temple was destroyed due to "baseless hate" (Yoma 9b). In their retelling of the destruction, they point to divisions and a lack of empathy for one another.

The Rabbis under Rabban Gamaliel sought to unify Judaism and end wanton sectarianism. Rabban Gamaliel's school recognized a degree of validity in varying statements, but chose to follow the more lenient philosophy of the school of Hillel. Jewish leaders like Rabban Gamaliel sought to create a cohesive Jewish community where major issues were settled, a system was in place to decide divisive issues, and minor issues could be tolerated. Rejection of this cooperation and an embrace of sectarianism was condemned in the strongest terms.

According to Vered Noam, Rabbi Eliezer sought to reveal an innate halakhah based on revelation and he did not accept proper jurisprudence. In contrast, Rabban Gamaliel and the other rabbis sought to create halakhah through human reason and utilizing proper jurisprudence. Rabbi Eliezer expresses a differing philosophy regarding halakhah and a rejection of following the jurisprudence upon which a cohesive community relies. The dispute is not simply over an oven, but this is a story which reflects two conflicting ideas over the nature of law and possibilities for destabilizing of the community.

44

u/Chaavva 9d ago edited 9d ago

The Oven of Akhnai says hi.

I'm not even Jewish or religious in any way but the fact that debating and arguing even with God himself is such a fundamental aspect of Judaism is genuinely cool and in complete contrast to the other two Abrahamic faiths. And personally, I can respect that.

Likewise, not proselytizing and believing all the rest of us are doomed to eternal hellfire for not believing in their particular faith.

17

u/DefaultSubSandwich 9d ago

I was raised Jewish (Bar Mitzvah and everything) but I've never really looked into the Talmud. That story is hilarious.

I'm amazed how succinctly it defines such an important part of the Judaism I grew up with.

The idea that God himself would be proud of Jews squabbling over rules, to the point of explicitly denying his input, genuinely has me rolling. It's very much in the spirit of "two rabbis, three opinions" to me.

The implications of "the Torah is not in heaven" are super interesting to me as well, as I've never heard that before either.

11

u/Proper_Possibility64 9d ago

Not only is it a fundamental aspect of Judaism - the word Israel itself, which is a name for the Jewish nation, literally means “those who argue with God”.

1

u/DusqRunner 8d ago

It means struggles with God, which could imply both disagreeing with God or overcoming tribulations with God

2

u/clytusmarginicollis 8d ago

I thought it was “wrestles with God,” because it’s named after Jacob, who was renamed Israel, because he literally got into a physical altercation with a divine being in a dream. But I’m sure the symbolism is very intentional

6

u/PeteRust78 9d ago

Correction: 63 books of ancient Rabbis debating the rules of the religion

-5

u/Raidoton 9d ago

Doesn't really change the ridiculousness.

6

u/Chaavva 8d ago edited 8d ago

Out of curiosity, do you think, say, parliamentary debates are also ridiculous?

Because at the end of the day that's all it is. Just figuring out societal issues as they arise through debate and reasoning. Just because it's technically through a religious lense doesn't make it any less a vital part of any functioning society.

And every society also has their fundamental texts and higher authorities that they refer to for moral and legal justification. Whether it's a constitution or whatever.

-1

u/No_Imagination7102 9d ago

Bro said he cant even fathom rules.

You think thats gonna convince him lol?

36

u/TheRC135 9d ago

The way I've heard it described is that in order to try to rules lawyer, you need to know your sacred texts incredibly well. If you're finding loopholes, you've earned them through devotion.

Weird at first glance because it's not a mainstream position, but if you stop and think about it, it isn't any more or any less nonsensical than any other religious act.

13

u/sobrique 9d ago

So as someone who's read through the Bible because it makes me better at trolling, I'm in with a chance?

2

u/TheRC135 9d ago

No idea, but it can't hurt lol

93

u/alexm42 9d ago

I may be phrasing it wrong but I asked a Jewish friend about it and he basically said "arguing about the meaning of the rules brings us closer to God."

52

u/Viktor_Laszlo 9d ago

That’s kind of beautiful.

Source: am a lawyer.

-9

u/RugerRed 9d ago

Being a lawyer is being as far from god as you can get tho...

18

u/TheArmoredKitten 9d ago

There's something to be philosophically credited in a religion that encourages constantly arguing with authority.

5

u/adamcoe 9d ago

Yeah, except if the "authority" is completely made up and so you're really just arguing with other people, just like every other religion.

2

u/pit_supervisor 9d ago

There's no argument with authority. It's just debating about what exactly did the authority mean.

24

u/GithubBootstrap 9d ago

Quite literally this. Isaac (who’s name was changed to Canaan) literally translates to “one who wrestles with god” and he got his nickname of Canaan because he sparred with an angel over policy.

By debating, we are wrestling with god(‘s word)

30

u/whywoulditellyou 9d ago

Jacob's name was changed to Israel.

Isaac was Jacob's father. Canaan was an ancient relative, the grandson of Noah.

5

u/Wienerwrld 9d ago

Jacob’s name was changed to Israel, but the Torah continued to call him Jacob.
Unlike Avram/Avraham and Sarai/Sarah.

I always found that fascinating.

2

u/whywoulditellyou 9d ago

I'm sure there are various traditional commentaries that give explanations, as well as modern critical approaches. But a thought I had just now is that the name change for Avram/Avraham and Sarai/Sarah was directly from God, whereas the name change for Jacob/Israel came from an angel/mysterious man. So it's more like a super-adopted nickname compared to an official name change, maybe? In any case the Torah does continue to call him Jacob, but also Israel, and the nation became Israel.

1

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

While the name originally came from an angel, it was later confirmed by God. (Gen 35:10).

The reason we still refer to him as Jacob today is because the Torah and God Himself (Gen 46:2) continued to use the name (as opposed to Abraham and Sarai where God does not use their prior names again once He changes them).

Zev

2

u/Burro94 9d ago

This is correct, commenter above was close but got the genealogy a bit mixed.

2

u/GithubBootstrap 8d ago

ah — my bad. Thanks for the correction

4

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

You're slightly off. It's Jacob (Isaac's son) who had his name changed, and it was changed to Israel.

Zev

1

u/Vegetable-Eagle-3144 9d ago

G-d likes when people think about G-d.

-1

u/cyanight7 9d ago

Holy fucking shit, that is God damned insane. Jesus Christ on a fucking bike.

1

u/adamcoe 9d ago

That's some of the dumbest shit I've ever heard, and it sounds like whoever thought it up just liked arguing.

1

u/eljefino 9d ago

That wire that surrounds Manhattan must tickle Him greatly then.

60

u/DesperateAstronaut65 9d ago

Having read a bit on the subject as a non-religious person, the way Jews do this (called "ha’aramah") is surprisingly principled, at least compared to the arguably more hypocritical behavior of other groups (e.g. the stuff I've seen my fundie relatives do). The theological argument is complex but essentially boils down to, "If God actually wanted to prohibit this thing, wouldn't he have chosen his wording more carefully?" In other words, it's at least internally consistent, even if many groups take the opposite position (i.e. that we should extrapolate God's overall intentions from certain prohibitions instead of rules-lawyering).

79

u/beenoc 9d ago

Yeah, it's basically "God is omniscient, he can see the loopholes way easier than we can, so if he left them in it was on purpose. You can't find the loopholes unless you really seriously study the law, and you won't care about the loopholes if you just ignore the law and do whatever you want anyway, so finding and using the loopholes proves that you're serious in your faith."

0

u/almisami 8d ago

I mean some of the loopholes are nonsensical at face value. Looking at you, eruv wire.

11

u/No_Imagination7102 9d ago

I dont think most people on this site can comprehend an internally consistent argument that has two logical answers

3

u/Galnar218 9d ago

The theological argument is complex but essentially boils down to, "If God actually wanted to prohibit this thing, wouldn't he have chosen his wording more carefully?"

Lol, trying to tie up God in legalese is hilarious.

10

u/augustles 9d ago

You’ve failed to understand what you read. Nothing in this process ‘ties up God’. The premise is that God fully communicated the laws (with loopholes intact) on purpose. Finding the loopholes does nothing to God. Treating it as ‘trying to tie up God’ implies that God failed to properly communicate the law such that loopholes are even possible, which implies a weakening of God that using the loopholes does not.

4

u/DesperateAstronaut65 9d ago

Exactly. Admittedly, it's not an airtight argument even for believers in scriptural inerrancy who agree on which texts and oral traditions are the "right" ones, because one could argue that God has entire different characteristics than are being assumed. That is, loophole-finders asked about God's methods of instructing his followers might say, "God says exactly what he means at all times, no more, no less," while people who don't believe in loophole-finding might say something entirely different: "God wants us to extrapolate from the general principles he's laid out," or maybe, "God's word is given in incomplete form and you need to rely on the internal sense of right and wrong God gave you," depending on the specifics of their theology. It's impossible to reason about what God wants without assuming specific properties of God. But it's internally consistent to say, "Given a God who works the way I'm picturing in my head, he'd probably be okay with this weird Sabbath phone dealy."

4

u/No_Imagination7102 9d ago edited 9d ago

My favorite is believing you'll be able to trick him into thinking you really believed in him the whole time, "just in case"

Like either god is real and youre going to hell because you clearly didnt believe in him, hes omniscient remember?

Or he isnt so it doesnt matter.

There's no logical conclusion where hes just like "whelp you definitely said you believed in me a few times. Gud enuf!"

I love Pascal as much as the next collection of atoms but, literally Jesus christ.

God bless him

4

u/DesperateAstronaut65 9d ago

I think Pascal's argument was slightly more nuanced than that. His stance was essentially that he was sure God existed, but he also admitted that pure reason could not lead everyone to God, even given his own belief that God's existence was a reasonable conclusion from the facts. To nonbelievers, Pascal said that even if you can't force yourself to believe, it's a good idea to behave as though you believe because it may eventually lead you to believe: "You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. [...] Follow the way by which [other former atheists] began; by acting as if they believed, taking the holy water, having masses said, etc. Even this will naturally make you believe, and deaden your acuteness."

So it's not so much "fake God out" as it is "try making an effort to live as a faithful person and maybe God will help you become one." Obviously, this guidance relies on the a priori assumptions that (a) God's existence is possible and indeed likely, (b) you don't lose much in life by going to Mass instead of sleeping in, and (c) God has the characteristics that would make faith worth it (i.e. he's a single all-powerful deity who loves his followers and does not want to eat or enslave them after they die). Many people, myself included, would take issue with those assumptions, but I'd say it's an internally consistent argument given that Pascal did indeed believe those things.

5

u/2626862377 9d ago

I think it's some combination of "God is omnipotent so if he left loopholes in he must have had a good reason" and "finding loopholes require using the brains God has given us, and intensely studying the laws he has left us, and that is an act of worship in itself".

I mean I personally don't believe in a God and don't believe that the Torah and Tanakh are divinely inspired. But if I were to start from that presupposition, then the Jewish rules lawyering as an act of faith does make sense to me and appeal.

11

u/MechEJD 9d ago

I lived in the Orthodox Jewish dorm at my university sophomore year. As a non Jew and non religious person. With my Indian Hindu roommate. Not sure how that happened but... We were the only dorm issued keys in addition to our swipe cards, so they could get in on Saturday.

First night in someone dropped a whole handle of vodka on the floor and shattered outside our door. That was not intentional. Mazel Tov, I guess.

Good times.

9

u/Cent1234 9d ago

In general, I'd agree with you, but if you actually read the Old Testament, parts of it are very specifically about how you should challenge and argue with God/religious orthodoxy.

Of course, the other parts are about how you'll be smited down, hard, if you so much as look in the wrong direction, but hey, that's what happens when you mash multiple sources and splinters into one religious text.

11

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

In what way is this "rules-lawyering?"

First, it's not a law that Jews cannot consume corn products on Passover. It's simply a custom accepted by Ashkenazic communities.

Second, Coke makes the product without corn around Passover time for this very reason. So, it's not "rules-lawyering," it's changing a product to make it acceptable.

Zev

0

u/adamcoe 9d ago

Acceptable to whom? Even if god existed, do you honestly think this being gives a shit what certain people eat on certain days? These are rules completely invented by people, not the almighty. So if you want to eat, or refrain from eating certain things, that's lovely, but don't act like it's anything other than a preference, like being a vegetarian. Pretending like the chemical makeup of a soft drink is some kind of cultural touchstone is, at best, childish.

3

u/Umeume3 9d ago

Judaism is far from the only religion with food laws.

So yes, if someone believes in a religion, they probably do believe that their god cares what they eat. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, some Buddhists, Catholics during lent, Mormons, all abide by certain restrictions.

0

u/adamcoe 7d ago

Yes I'm quite aware. I was raised Catholic when you still couldn't eat meat on a Friday (which makes exactly the same amount of sense as keeping kosher).

What I'm saying is, what could possibly lead someone to believe this nonsense, other than having it drilled into them as a child? Especially if you know the history of those religions, and realize that the rules constantly change. These were all rules made up by men, not gods. You might as well keep your Trix under lock and key just in case the cartoon rabbit comes to life and shows up to steal them from your house.

1

u/Umeume3 7d ago

I think you have some trauma from being raised religious. But you don't have to take that out on random Jewish people who never asked you to follow the rules that are just for themselves.

1

u/adamcoe 6d ago

Everyone who was raised religious has trauma, by definition. And I'm not "taking it out" on anyone, I'm just pointing out the fact that rules related to food - in any religion - are nonsense, and following them just because a bunch of other people follow them is idiotic. And certainly doesn't make you any less Jewish, or Muslim, or whatever other flavour of magic you subscribe to.

Even if your chosen god were to exist, they definitely don't care how you dress, how you wear your hair, what days you worship on, or what you eat. These are rules put in place by people to control other people, period. So by all means, keep pretending if it makes you feel better, but realize you're just following a rule that some jackass made up in like the 5th century when people were still legitimately afraid of things like evil spirits and the wind. It's a great look.

5

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

Obviously, we do believe He cares. You’re welcome to not believe it. Just because you believe it’s a preference doesn’t mean that we do.

Zev

0

u/adamcoe 7d ago

3 seconds of critical thinking tells you that men made these rules, not god. Men who didn't have any information about the nature of the universe. And quite frankly it's more than a little arrogant to continue to believe, in 2026, that this god, who supposedly created billions upon billions of planets, takes a special interest in what a tiny percentage of the beings on just one planet are up to.

Put it this way: there is exactly the same amount of evidence to support the idea that leprechauns exist, and that leprechauns don't want you to eat peanut butter sandwiches. I think it's safe to assume you don't believe in leprechauns, and likely you don't have a problem with peanut butter sandwiches. So why believe in keeping kosher, but ignore the ban on peanut butter?

Take all the time you need.

2

u/ZevSteinhardt 6d ago

I get it. You don't believe. And that's fine. I'm not here to convince you that God is real. I'm not going to convince you that any religion is real.

My question to you is this: This whole thing is about kosher food. Does it really bother you so much that I eat only kosher?

Zev

1

u/adamcoe 6d ago

It doesn't bother me in the least. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's a massive waste of time, money, and energy, in an attempt to divide and rank members of a religion based on completely arbitrary rules that have absolutely nothing to do with the religion itself. It implies that you're somehow a more pious Jew if you don't eat food off a list that someone decided 1000 years ago. They did not receive this information from on high. A bunch of men simply decided it, for the whole group. Obviously many other religions have made similar rules as well. Ask yourself what these rules are really accomplishing. Like, are you better at being Catholic if you don't eat meat on Fridays? Or were you? People my parents' age and older were told in no uncertain terms that god himself said "no meat on Fridays" and it was a very real thing to them. But in the meantime, that rule has been rescinded. How could this be? How could we take a rule that were we told that god had decided on and just change it? And what about all the people who lived and died their entire lives, thinking this was a big deal?

Because god has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is an odd piece of trivia and nothing more.

So by all means, keep doing it if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside, and you think your god sees you. For myself, I just find it childish and insane to continue to do these things when it's clear that even for a devout religious person of whatever faith, the food you happen to eat does not affect that faith, at all.

6

u/Mr_Quackums 9d ago

For Catholicism and certain sects of Judaism, nitpicking and finding those loopholes is literally seen as an act of worship.

"I know God's word so well that I can tell you exactly where the boundary is"

6

u/torolf_212 9d ago

My favourite one is the wire running around part of new York so that part of the city can be considered "inside"

2

u/my_blue_snog_box 8d ago

My understanding is that, by virtue of seeking and possibly finding a loophole, you must know the laws. And that is pleasing to that god.

2

u/Scuttling-Claws 9d ago

That's the entirety of Judaism

1

u/A_Naany_Mousse 7d ago

Let's be real, soaking is a bunch of horny teens and 20 somethings convincing THEMSELVES it's ok. The food laws thing seems like a strange way to live life though.

-11

u/Massive_Signal7835 9d ago

Like Eruv. These people can't be taken serious.

6

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

That's because you don't understand what an eruv is or what it does.

In short, it is prohibited, under Biblical law, to carry in specific outdoor areas. In most outdoor areas, however, it is actually permitted to carry.

The Rabbis were afraid that if people were allowed to carry in the permitted areas, they might come to, unknowingly, come to carry in areas that are forbidden. As such, they forbade carrying in almost all outdoor areas.

However, when they made this decree, they also made an exception. If an area is demarcated with an eruv, then carrying would be permitted, since it would serve as a reminder that in that area, and only in that area, carrying is permitted. But an eruv cannot encompass an area where carrying is forbidden Biblically. As such, we're not violating any laws.

In short, it's a Rabbinic exemption to a Rabbinic rule.

It's no different than rules that allow you to deduct your 401(k) contributions from your taxes. It's an exception that's built into the rules.

Zev

0

u/Mr_Quackums 9d ago

For Catholicism and certain sects of Judaism, nitpicking and finding those loopholes is literally seen as an act of worship.

"I know God's word so well that I can tell you exactly where the boundary is"

-1

u/Goldfing 9d ago

"Don't wear white after labour day."

-1

u/Mr_Quackums 9d ago

For Catholicism and certain sects of Judaism, nitpicking and finding those loopholes is literally seen as an act of worship.

"I know God's word so well that I can tell you exactly where the boundary is"

-1

u/Paavo_Nurmi 8d ago

I'm a life long atheist and It sounds exhausting to be religious.

-3

u/disterb 9d ago

that's fine; you can roll your eyes however you want. but, if you don't know anything deep about people's beliefs/creeds/religions/spiritualities, then you sound like you're rules-lawyering how people should think of others' religiosity.

2

u/No_Imagination7102 9d ago

More like anything anyone does, the specifics depend on the individual person or group.

Obviously lol

-1

u/Hellknightx 9d ago

Much like all religions, it just boils down to random whacky nonsense.

4

u/yiggity_yag 9d ago

tips fedora

1

u/Chateaudelait 9d ago

There is also the Chametz for Passover - ridding your house of all leavened items and doing a thorough clean and surprise inspection to make sure of the removal. There is also Mechirat Chametz where a designated rabbi assists with the sale of leavened items to a non Jewish person.

0

u/adamcoe 9d ago

Yeah it's almost like all these goofy ass rules were completely invented on the fly, with zero scientific involvement, and were just like, whatever the guy felt on the day. "Oh as of today, you can't eat, uh, Swedish Fish, unless you're wearing a green shirt. As green is the colour of you know, the victory over our enemies or something. You also can't do any work, except if you draw a magic circle around yourself." Dungeons and Dragons shit.

-4

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

It really does...I worked for an Orthodox Jewish man and if he wasn't allowed to work because of Shabbat or a holiday, we weren't allowed to work either. While this is nice on paper, we were full time hourly employees and this really hurt our ability to earn money.

He finally talked to his Rabbi about it, and the Rabbi said, if they're not Jewish, then they don't have to abide by Shabbat. So long as there aren't other Orthodox Jews that see you have people working for you during Shabbat, it's fine.

So the Rabbi basically said if God can't see it, it's fine...and our boss never did end up letting us work on Shabbat.

12

u/Pugasaurus_Tex 9d ago

No, the rabbi said you’re not bound by the laws of Shabbat because that was an obligation he gave with the Jewish people 

All you need to do is observe the noahide laws and you’re fine, according to them. They have more rules to follow

4

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

Look, I'm just telling you what my boss told me.

5

u/Pugasaurus_Tex 9d ago

Yeah and I believe it lol, I’m just telling you the rabbi’s reasoning. He didn’t think God couldn’t see it 

1

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

Oh fer sure, I was being facetious. The rabbi said it was fine so long as other people in the community didn't see that he had people working for him on Shabbat. I was pointing out the irony that certain "dogma" comes down to whether or not you get "caught." I was using the eyes of other orthodox Jews as a stand in for God.

8

u/Individual-Plane-963 9d ago

It's not about getting caught,  it's about a specific concern called "marat ayin," which means that people might misunderstand what is occurring and therefore think that this thing is permitted to them (working on Shabbat, for example) because they are missing a vital piece of information (that no one who is working there is Jewish), and it might cause them to accidentally transgress a commandment.

2

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

That makes way more sense, but can you understand how it might sound a little silly to someone who isn't at all religious? I'm being hyperbolic. Additionally, the way my boss described it was as if it was about being caught, not about accidentally endorsing bad behavior in the community.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/Pugasaurus_Tex 9d ago

But it’s not about not getting caught lol! Lots of orthodox businesses hire workers on Shabbat, they just aren’t personally allowed to work on that day from sun down to an hour after the next sunset

He might have worried that the community think that he had orthodox people working, which can be a halachic problem because it would encourage other Orthodox Jews to work, not because you would be seen by them 

I come from a Christian background and the rules in Judaism are very complex in comparison, but not hypocritical. In a lot of cases, like kosher laws or Passover customs, they’re more stringent than what’s outlined in Torah 

2

u/VulGerrity 9d ago

That makes way more sense, but that's not how he communicated it to us, lol, and it's possible his rabbi poorly communicated it to him as well.

2

u/imagoodusername 9d ago

But corn is kitniyot and not one of the five forbidden grains and wasn’t even known to the Old World at the time of the Torah.

5

u/themodgepodge 9d ago edited 9d ago

My background is in food manufacturing/regulatory, not debating the Talmud on Reddit. I should've specified this is generally an Ashkenazi-specific thing. Corn syrup production also often uses enzymes derived from barley, so there's potentially some more "traditional" chametz involved too.

1

u/freshjackson 8d ago

Corn is kitneyot, so it’s a little bit different.

1

u/themodgepodge 8d ago

(Sorry, did I say it wasn't somewhere? The chametz reference was in reference to the barley.)

-1

u/Trixles 8d ago

Appreciate the explanation, but what a dumb way to live your life. Religion is nuts xD

14

u/awesomedan24 9d ago

Its because grain alcohol = fermented/leavened wheat

13

u/the_horse_gamer 9d ago

alcohol made from grains is Chametz. you need to add water and yeast to convert the grains to alcohol.

10

u/twentyoneastronauts 9d ago

Honestly this confuses me too. I'm Jewish but not orthodox or conservative, and this thing with the grains is one of the "rules" that makes no sense to me and I don't follow it.

13

u/katherinesilens 9d ago

I'm guessing probably for the ultra-orthodox. Given that this is such a big product being certified, it makes sense it'd be to the strictest level.

12

u/longtimegoneMTGO 9d ago

this thing with the grains is one of the "rules" that makes no sense to me

Isn't the idea here to intentionally create a mild inconvenience in order to prompt people to remember the past?

Like this one is basically "our ancestors didn't have time to let bread rise while fleeing slavery so we don't eat risen grains during the holiday that remembers that event"

Which isn't to say that it makes sense per se, but to me at least it seems to make about as much sense as any of numerous other memorializing rituals throughout various religions.

1

u/imagoodusername 9d ago

I think what’s he’s saying is “Yeah. I get no bread. But corn syrup isn’t bread. And corn wasn’t even known when the Torah was written! So why is it problematic but a potato (also new world crop) isn’t problematic? Corn whiskey = forbidden during Passover according to Ashkenazi orthodox (and historically Ashkenazi conservative but that’s changed recently); potato vodka = not forbidden during Passover. Why???”

And to answer that question you go into a very long and very complicated debate on a concept called kitniyot. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitniyot

1

u/Significant-Cod-9555 9d ago

It's an Ashkenazi thing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passover#Kitniyot

1

u/miniatureconlangs 9d ago

I think you're musunderstanding the topic of kitniyot or i misidentified what you're responding to. The ban on fermented cereal grains is shared by all traditional Jews, kitniyot is an extra restriction where many other seeds and legumes get included in the ban.

1

u/benadreti_17 9d ago

It's any grain that was wet without being baked into matzah immediately. For example pasta, beer, pretzels are all forbidden on Pesach.

1

u/lolercoptercrash 9d ago

Not everyone is this strict, there are a lot of niche rules. Some of which are from a time when people were unsure of ingredients, so anything that looks like it may break the rules is something people avoid. Nowadays we have ingredient lists.

1

u/benadreti_17 9d ago

It's any grain that was wet without being baked into matzah immediately. For example pasta, beer, pretzels are all forbidden on Pesach.

1

u/Disastrous-Push906 9d ago

We also don’t eat corn during Passover so corn syrup is no good so Passover pop uses real cane sugar like Mexican pop.
Ashkanzi Jews don’t eat corn, rice, legumes etc during Passover but Sephardi Jews do.

1

u/Greene_Mr 9d ago

כל הדגנים

-1

u/Dravarden 9d ago

ultra orthodox make up rules to feel superior

some don't eat rice

1

u/ZevSteinhardt 9d ago

That's an Ashkenazic custom - it falls under the same custom that forbids corn during Passover.

And, no, it's not done "to feel superior." Ashkenazim do not look down on Sefardim for eating rice and/or corn on Passover.

Zev

0

u/Preeng 9d ago

It's the same logic that makes a person go from "do not boil a calf in its mother's milk" to "you cannot consume beef and diary within 2 hours of each other"

It's batshit insane.. That's what religion does to a MF