LA Times For five decades, Doheny Glatt Kosher meat market has been one of
California's preeminent suppliers of food that meets the requirements of
Jewish law, offering staples such as brisket and chicken as well as
bison, prime steak and grass-fed beef.
But on Friday, the esteemed butcher was at the center of
an angry debate that had spread across L.A.'s Jewish community. The
owner of Doheny faces accusations of selling meat that was not properly
certified under kosher rules. Longtime customers doing their shopping
before Shabbat were forced to decide how much they trusted their
butcher.
Earlier this week, a council of rabbis pulled Doheny's kosher
certification and, in a statement Friday, raised the possibility of
"legal action," a recourse to secular courts that would be rare. Other
prominent rabbis have stood by the meat shop.
Charges of fraud on the one
side have been met with accusations of favoritism on the other, with
some of Doheny's defenders suggesting that the shop has been under
attack by disgruntled competitors.
In a letter emailed to congregants Friday, the chief rabbi of one of
the city's largest synagogues, Rabbi Adam Kligfeld of Temple Beth Am,
urged continued patronage of Doheny "because by doing so we can make a
statement that kashrut" — Jewish dietary law — "should be about kashrut
... and not monopolies or power plays or raising suspicions." [...]
The controversy started Sunday when a video taken by a private
investigator surfaced, purporting to show Doheny workers bringing in
boxes of meat late at night without the required supervision of the
independent inspector, known as a mashgiach, tasked with overseeing the
store. The video later aired on KTLA-TV Channel 5.
After viewing the videotape, the Rabbinical Council of California pulled Doheny's kosher certification.
A group of rabbis also met with Michael Engelman, Doheny's owner.
According to the council, Engelman initially denied any wrongdoing but
later "admitted to bringing unauthorized products to the store on two to
three occasions."
thank you for pointing out the comment. you are correct it isn't appropriate to the discussion
ReplyDelete