The following statement, dated September 4, 2009, was taken from the OU website. In the interest of responsible journalism, I present Rav Luban’s findings in the same forums my original report appeared.
I will add that my report stands on its own merit and I do not intend to respond to the findings of Rav Luban during his visit in Eretz Yisrael.
“Recently, an investigative journalist posted an article that appeared on a number of blogs, which was critical of OU supervision of hotels and restaurants in Israel. Within a few days, the OU arranged for me to visit Israel and determine if the criticism was valid.
“I spent one week in Israel and visited these OU locations multiple times, both with the OU representative responsible for oversight, and on my own, at different times of day and night. The conclusions of my investigations are as follows:
“While the investigator accurately reported what he saw and heard, the report did not capture the entire picture, as there were other pieces of relevant information that the journalist did not reflect in his article, perhaps because of a lack of awareness on his part. One of the strong criticisms of the article was that the OU rubber stamps the existing rabbanut supervision at these locations with no oversight of its own. This is not the case.
“The Jerusalem Plaza is supervised by Rabbi Eliezer Mendelson, who works on behalf of the OU, and has made various enhancements to the supervision in the past year. The article quoted a source who said that Rabbi Mendelson “is not really in charge of kashrut.” This is not true, as Rabbi Mendelson was appointed by the owner to be the Rav of the hotel, and in conjunction with this he serves as the OU representative.
“The report notes that Rabbi Turetzky is the supervisor at Jerusalem Gate Hotel on behalf of the Jerusalem Rabbinate, but that there is no OU presence. It is true that Rabbi Turetzky is in the employment of the Jerusalem Rabbinate, but he is also an employee of the OU. As such, he is at the hotel in a dual capacity.
“The report does not touch on the Ramada, which is under Rabbanut Mehadrin, as well as the OU. The OU has reviewed the hotel and has verified that the mashgichim are of excellent caliber and the kashrut system is well controlled.
“During my visit, I met with Rabbi Shmuel Burnstein, who heads the division of supervision of the Rabbanut Mehadrin hotels. I reviewed the kashrut in all OU hotels and found it to be tightly controlled by a team of very competent mashgichim.
“The OU supervises four dairy restaurants in Yerushalayim. In each of the restaurants only Jews cook in the kitchen, which obviates the concern of bishul akum. There is a very strong system of yotzei vinichnas (spot inspections) with a mashgiach coming regularly throughout the day and night. In each of these restaurants, the OU arranged for mashgichim and the OU insisted that all ingredients meet Mehadrin standards. In addition, Rabbi Turetzky spot-checks to ensure that everything is in order. The OU is comfortable with this situation.
“The OU supervises three meat restaurants where the OU arranged for mashgichim to be present. The OU has a strong presence in these establishments and is not blindly rubber stamping the supervision.
“The article reported on other irregularities as well. For example, the journalist waited in the morning for the mashgiach at Pappagio, a meat restaurant, for 40 minutes, but the mashgiach did not arrive. In the interim, the restaurant was in operation. I confirmed with the mashgiach that he was not present, but what was not reported was that the mashgiach was ill that morning and could not arrive because of a severe back problem. Though the mashgiach arrived late that particular day, this is not standard operating procedure at the restaurant. One cannot prevent such emergencies from occurring.
“The question is how to respond when the mashgiach is late because of an emergency: Should the restaurant open or not? This depends on the individual facility, and the mashgiach felt that he had sufficient control and knowledge of the facility to not warrant shutting down the store until his arrival, particularly since the management anticipated his presence shortly and they did not know when he would arrive. The grill (where most of the cooking occurs) was not in operation before the mashgiach arrived, and only prep work was occurring in the kitchen. In addition, the chefs are Jewish and there was no concern of bishul akum. When the mashgiach did arrive, he was able to confirm that everything was in order.
“The journalist reported that he visited Taiku three times and never saw the mashgiach. The arrangement in Taiku is that a shomer shabbos chef, who does all the cooking, is present at all times. In addition, a mashgiach is present at least eight hours a day during the busiest time of operation. It is common practice to rely on shomer shabbos employees (we refer to them as “working mashgichim”) in certified restaurants.
“The report also claimed that dairy liquor was used in a meat establishment. I asked the journalist for the name of the liquor and he said it was Southern Comfort. To our knowledge, this is not dairy. It is true that in America the OU does not allow Southern Comfort because it lacks supervision, but in Israel it is commonly used. Nonetheless, the point of consistency is valid and we are reviewing this situation.
“I met with the reporter in Israel and he expressed to me that there was a lack of transparency in the standards and procedures in Israel. This, in part, created some of the confusion. This is a valid point which we hope to correct in the future by publicizing the OU standards in food establishments in Israel.
“The reporter also expressed frustration that he was not permitted entry into the kitchens without the presence of our supervisor. This creates the impression that we are seeking to hide information. I explained that this is not the case, and it is common practice to have a supervisor present during a review to ensure that misunderstandings do not occur. We are happy to escort people through the kitchen and explain the basis of our supervision.
“I was glad that I came to Israel to review these establishments. It is always possible to improve and enhance supervision. In general, the kashrut of the OU restaurants and hotels in Israel was good, but I did find some areas where I felt improvement can be made. I hope to implement these changes in the near future.
“If you would like to discuss this matter with me directly, please call me at 212-613-8214 and I will be happy to speak to you.”
Rabbi Yaakov Luban
Executive Rabbinic Coordinator
Orthodox Union Kashrut Division
(Yechiel Spira – Jerusalem Kosher News)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Kashrut supervision is multi-millionaire business, and everybody wants to get their hands in it. Unfortunately,there are some people will go to any extreme to get a piece of this pie, by defaming others or by taking so many extras “chumrot” to show that they are more stricter than others. And that is what drives up the prices for all the basic food items. By the way, the new chicken put out by the OU is far better than others out there, is cleaner and tastier.
I have a concern that if there was any real problems with the Kashrus the establishments may have been tipped off that the Big Boys from America were coming and thus cleaned up their act a bit. What would be good to do to confirm Rabbi Luban’s finding is to make another unannounced trip in a couple of months and pop in.
A “Jewish cook” doesn’t mean that there is no concern for bishul akum. If the “Jewish cook” is no
shomer Torah and Mitzvos, he has the status of an
akum for this purpose.
Furthermore, is the OU maintains that its standards
require a mashgiach temidi, then 8 hours a day, or
frequent yoztei v’nichnas is not adequate.
When a mashgiach is an employee of the Rabbanut, or selected as the rabbi for a hotel, saying that
he works “in conjunction with this” he represents the OU, is tantamount to agreeing with the original article’s assertion that the OU relies on the Rabbanut, or worse, the employee of the
place being supervised!! This defense by the OU is rife with doublespeak.
This defense by the OU is rife with doublespeak.
This letter was not written by some amorphous organization. It was written by a person, Rabbi Yaakov Luban. He had the integrity to not hide behind some anonymous pseudonym.
I have known Rabbi Luban for over 25 years. He is a major Talmid Chachom. So minimally any commenters here should bear that in mind lest they be in violation of being M’Vaze Talimidei Chachamim.
Besides that, he is one of the most honest, Erlich people I know. His integrity is beyond reproach.
He has been in the Kashrut field for longer than most of you have been alive. Before criticizing anything he says about Kashrut make sure you know Yoreh De’ah by heart, backwards and forwards.
Menachem Lipkin
While Rabbi Luban is a talmid chacham and a man of integrity, he is employed by the OU and was sent by them to “put out the fire.” That includes reporting to us in a biased manner. Had he presented a bad report from Israel, the OU would have to close up shop. I predict major changes will go on behind the scenes.
Mr. Spira and Yeshiva World News should be congratulated for a job well done. He reported to the public and got action, something very few accomplish and it was done so quickly.
YWN viewers should take note that the standards Rabbi Luban reported being used by the OU do not reflect a true Mehadrin status, which the OU claims their hashgacha represeents. To allow a mashgiach to decide whether he can go in 40 minutes late and let the place run without him is something I hope is not in place in this country.
Kosher Man
#4, if you want to misinterpret something, especially with malice, please don’t make yourself appear foolish by publishing it.
“Jewish cook” (a phrase which is not actually in the article, despite your quotes) is referring to a shomer torah u’mitzvos. It is dishonest to pretend that the OU would be dishonest about avoiding bishul akum by using a frei Jew who has the same bishul issues as a Gentile. Rabbi Luban didn’t specify this because it was so obvious, except to those who are ignorant or on a witch hunt.
Your second point about needing a mashgiach temidi is also simply wrong. The OU does not deny needing a mashgiach temidi, they are saying that this particular situation qualifies as mashgiach temidi. A mashgiach who is “missing” for brief periods of time unexpectedly and irregularly can still be in the geder of temidi, not yotzei venichnas.
Your third point shows a lack of comprehension of Rabbi Luban’s words, and of what is allowed of a mashgiach. It is common practice by allmost all hechsherim to use mashgichim who also serve other roles at the business, even being employed by the business under supervision. This case (Rav of the hotel is also paid by the kashruth agency to supervise for the hasgocho) is actually one of the better setups for multiple-purpose employment of mashgichim.
I am always amazed that somebody reads an article then reads a Response and feels that he is now the expert on the subject.
I hope for your sake you work for the ou and therefore you want them to look good because your facts are so off that is is sad.
the OU is not paying the Rabanut Mashgichim except in one hotel and the only reason they are paying there is because he does other work for the the ou in Israel .now how do I know this you ask because I unlike you called up the hotels spoke to the mashkichim at the hotels and they told me that they are not paid by the ou and even more are not binded in any way from what the OU says (then again maybe they are also lying because everythnig the ou says must be true)
the ou does not say that a mashgiah temidi is needed in all places. each place depending on the situation will be told how many hours are needed to have a mashkiach. I have spoken to the OU and that what they told me is thier policy. I have also been to some of the establishmnts and there is no mashkiach there for hours and when I asked why the owners or managers themselves told me that is the hours that they paid for .
Last but not least a little halacha there is no Bishul Akum problem even with a non Frum Jew any jew according to the Rama can light the fire and then Ashkenazim can eat with no problems.
By wine it is different then if a person is Mechalel Shabbas so then there is a problem with Yayin Nesech
Instaed of ranking out someone that did a whole investigation just to try to make the level of Kashrut better for the rest of us say thank you that maybe with more people like that all Kashrut organazations will be more careful and then maybe we will not have more treif chicken monsey stories