New York, NY – A Manhattan kosher bistro filed a $10 million defamation lawsuit against its former kashrut inspector.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The suit filed Monday by Le Marais in New York Supreme Court of Kings County charges that Isaac Bitton defamed it on 66 counts As we at VIN reported that he posted on his Web site and blog that the upscale restaurant’s chef, Mark Hennessy, deliberately sneaked non-kosher food into the kitchen and disobeyed other kashrut standards.
Bitton asserted on his site that Hennessy did so because he is a “Jew hater.” The Orthodox Union covered up Hennessy’s indiscretions, according to Bitton, who worked as the restaurant’s mashgiach, or kashrut supervisor, for about two and a half years before quitting his job last week.
“The bottom line of this affair is: cowardice of a hashgachah organization scared to take action against a bully jew hater chef (because he has “dirt” on another OU establishment) even if it means to give this chef an open ticket to fool the mashgichim under their noses,” Bitton wrote on his site, which he set up after quitting his job.
In a statement posted on its Web site, the Orthodox Union said it had checked out Bitton’s claims assiduously but they did not stand up to scrutiny.
Still, the bistro received 20-30 calls since the Web site went online, and suffered a 30 percent slide in business over the weekend, its attorney, Richard Klass said. [JTA]
U/D: 03/28/07
A state judge ordered Isaac Bitton, the former mashgiach, to stop posting to the Internet any statements about Le Marais or its employees.
Bitton’s son said last night that his father will not comply with the order. “We have enough tape recordings and documents to prove the story,” said Yisrael Bitton. [NY Post]
It is an obligation to inform regarding kashrus (also business relations and shidduchim).
Please refer to Chafetz Chaim Shmirat Halashon Chapter 9.
There are times when it is an obligation and a mitzvah to speak bad and if Rabbi Bitton believes in what he said then he had a halachic obligation to inform.
The person hearing the information can choose to ignore it, but the mitzvah is to inform.
I think that if more Jews understood the halachot of Lashon Hara regarding when it is a mitzvah to inform, then we would not have had the Shevach meats disaster and we also would not have the growing divorce rate within the Frum community.
Has Mr. Bitton asked a Rabbi if he is permited to go public? Is it not considered Loshon-Hora??
It amazes me that anyone can believe that an individual, merely by his title or job, can be held to an untouchable status. I believe we need mashgichim in restaurants and food stores to help protect us, but I do not believe that their role is absolute and that they can control the destiny of someone’s business on his word alone.
The reason we hire certification agencies is to make sure we have proper kosher supervision so that we can attract kosher customers. We do not expect the person the certifying agency hires to be malicious – just fair and honest.
When I negotiated the contract for my own kosher business, I placed in the contract with a major kashrus house a codicil that stated that if and when my place and the agency parted ways, and if they agency felt the desire to take out ads advertising that we had parted, than they had to also include the name of the new kashrus agency I was using. Why did I do that? To be sure that when we split, no misleading ads ran that blindly said we were no longer certified…, that could hurt my business.
Sure enough, I ended the contract for another firm – for business and clientele-need reasons – and no ads ever ran. It worked out as it should have.
Why do I raise this – because, while we want supervision; we also know it is a business. When one jumps ship to another agency, there are always politics involved and not just “kashrus” issues. Anyone who thinks that the store in the Five Towns lost its Vaad supervision because of treif food is fooling himself – it was over a disagreement on a neighborhood political issue – nothing more. He had to sell his store at a lower price to see that store now come back with the old certification.
The OK and Le Marais parted ways and the OU came in. Bitton used to be the OK’s guy. Who knows what, if any, politics may be going on here?
The issue here are facts – Bitton, like the men who run the OU, the OK and others, is a person, not a god. Of his allegations – sneaking in shellfish? What kind of sneak leaves the rotting box by the front door, and makes sure a trucking company has a valid receipt that demonstrates the shipping error? OU-D margarine? The chef was wrong for buying it, yes. It was stopped by the daytime mashgiach who saw the package. Does that amount to intentional will to infect the food? If the chef was indeed a Sonay Yisrael. Why has he chosen to work for and with Jews as a kosher chef for such a long time? Just to get jollies by seeing us eat treif that we are unaware of? He could have slipped a stick of margarine in his pocket and dropped it in a pot without the box and store receipt. He could and likely would have used BUTTER too, instead of dairy margarine, which is really not dairy, just likely prepared where dairy was prepared at the factory.
The OU determined that the chef’s errors were errors and not an intentional attempt to poison Jews. Isn’t that the issue? We hire mashgichim to watch, guess what, they watched and they found. The stopped the margarine and informed the OU of the seafood delivery. We should welcome that they caught the errors, because, the chef and the delivery company are human too and do make mistakes.
Proving someone is a Jew Hater is not as simple as OU-D margarine, and I think we ought to remember v’ahavta laraiach uKomocha . I’ve seen Jew haters and they are more crafty than this chef seems to be. They dress like Chasidim and walk into pizza stores with bombs in their talis bags and kill innocents. Do you think if this chef was looking to harm a Jew he’s be more careful?
One more thing. If Bitton is such a kind, honest and torah abiding guy, how can he watch as a place that is a workplace for 75 people, Jews and non Jews, especially when his gripe is not even with the owners, slowly dwindles and may Chas’V’shalom have to fire people who need money for their families to live? Is this G-d’s will? Is this the calling of the Abishta?
Bitton seems like a hapless, but nice guy who is misguided. Is that a hard thing to believe – even if he is the mashgiach?
The reason is simple – people are fallible. A mashgiach is an agent, agents are given guidelines and rules. When the claims are made, they are usually simple and easy to fix. When one is made that is incorrect or false, why are you assuming the mashgiach is flawless?
I think the issue here is that Bitton and the chef never got along personally and that has caused this particular scrutiny. The OU has come in, many times, and reviewed Bitton’s charges and understood them to have no merit. Why is that so hard to comprehend? A mashgiach is human, and humans at times have personal issues which cloud their judgement.
Shmuel Levine said…
An investigation was done. They found Bitton’s charges to be false. What more should the OU say? They wrote a two page memo describing their investigations and the claims.
Isnt this silly to investigate when the Mashgiach is the OUs eyes and ears?
Maybe there is more activity in the evening than in the earlier part of the day or whatever thereby the differences between the 2 mashgichim – but why was there a need to dispute their own guy??
An investigation was done. They found Bitton’s charges to be false. What more should the OU say? They wrote a two page memo describing their investigations and the claims.
The only “more information” that would satisfy some people is just saying Bitton is correct – but he is not.
I’m not 100% sure whether Biton’s allegations are true (though I am leaning in that direction), but that no longer matters.
A) First of all, the very fact that OU is questioning this guy, stinks of corruption. The mashgiach is there for a reason. When we see him at a restaurant, we make a reasonable assumption that he is the watchdog for kashrus. We rely on the hechsher (OU in this case), and they rely on the mashgiach. He’s their eyes and ears. That means the OU has no right to subject him to scrutiny after the fact. If they don’t trust his word, they shouldn’t have had him there in the first place.
B) Even if the OU does decide to question him, they should at least do a thorough investigation into the matter — and publicize the findings — rather than simply dismiss his allegations. Otherwise, what’s the point of having him there?
C) In the face of these serious allegations, Le Marais, rather than trying to assure us, has succeeded in stifling any attempt to get to the truth. That in and of itself should render them untrustworthy in the eyes of any impartial party. The Rabbis should issue a halachic injunction against OU, on the basis of “Lifnei iveir lo titein michshal,” barring them from endorsing Le Marais until the gag order is lifted, and a full and public investigation is done.
I am a cousin of Levana. Another family member told me (I just verified this with a different family member who was there) that the chef was fired for bringing in treif meat and that it almost cost them everything.
Les Marais is part of a chain of treif restaurants called Les Halles.
They have plenty of money and can afford to adhere to the laws of kashrus if they want to.
What they think they are gaining by suing a penniless mashgiach is beyond me. They are getting plenty of negative publicity both for the chain and the OU.
Isn’t the OU a corporation?
this is a quote from the PRESENT mashgiach.
My job as Mashgiach is not to be the Rav HaMachshir, hence my position is to enforce the policies of the Rav HaMachshir and the Kashrus agency. Therefore, whenever I have presumed that there is an issue which has to be addressed I would report it to my superiors at the Kashrus Agency which I was working for at the time. At times my concerns were issues where the RC or Rav HaMachshir did not feel any action has to be taken, and at other times I would take action under the guidelines of the OU or any other Kashrus certification organization that I worked for.
if this is the case were do we have am “aid achad” that says its kosher.?
he is a kosher news reporter..
based on this admission, i suggest that i/u/we can’t shouldn’t eat there.
i am considering a class axction suiy against them.
i cant sue the ou w/o going to beis din first.
this is crazy already.
sounds like the mashgiach lost his mind!
it is located at 46th st broadway
what’s the address so I know to stay away.
Could Whistle blower laws apply here???
I would imagine it would not be too hard to prove that Le Marais filed this suit with OU cooperation.
It seems pretty obvious that this is retaliation for “going public” with a kashrus fraud.
Some whistle blower cases have awarded whistle blowers damages in the millions. Wouldn’t it be poetic if Isaac Bitton were sued for 10 million and instead ended up collecting it, from the OU???
The difference between suing a mashgiach and a whistle blower suit against the OU, is that the court COULD collect 10 million from the OU.
Regarding the appropriateness of filing a 10 million dollar suit against a Mashgiach:
Attorney Richard Klass’s website says it all:
Firm Profile:
The firm has developed a niche practice of litigating tough cases that other attorneys wouldn’t touch.
Got Ethics?
What if kashrus supervision in the US were like the Jewish communities in Europe?
In larger communities, the community hires and pays Vaad HaKashrus Rabbis salaries. In smaller communities where there are only a few kosher restaurants the supervising Rabbi is usually the community Rabbis who supervises the Kashrus of the local restaurant as part of his job serving the community.
Kosher restaurants in Europe usually receive kashrus supervision for free because they are providing a service to the Jewish community. They only need to reimburse the Vaad the amount of the Mashgiach’s salary, when necessary.The Vaad hires, trains and supervises the Mashgich.
When all of the profit motive is taken OUT of Kashrus Supervision and THEN you have truly kosher restaurants.
You will also no longer have nonsense such as OU certified raw potatoes in a bag.
THAT was a shanda!!! Stealing money from well meaning sincere Gentiles for a hechsher for potatoes!!
Regarding packaged foods, in Europe, the Rabbis visit the factories that are of interest to the Jewish community and then if they are satisfied, they will add the product to a list that is sent out once a year to every Jewish home. Since the OU generally only visits each factory it certifies once, if at all, it would not be unreasonable for a community Rabbi to be paid to do so. That is what the OU usually does anyway. The community Rabbi is paid for his time and the OU is paid exponentially for selling their trademark.
If there were no profits to be made from kashrus supervision there would also be no politics, no nonsense, no lawsuits and no scandals. Food would either be kosher or not according to the standards of the community.
Only in America do we have Rabbinics for hire. Everywhere else that I know of, the Rabbis who administer kashrus are on salary and therefore do not have any financial incentive to permit what is forbidden or to forbid what is permitted.
The mashgiach gets paid by the Kashrus organization and the Kashrus organization gets paid by the restaurant. But if the kashrus organization wont trust their mashgichim, then THEY are the ones who are nogea badovo, as they are being paid by the restaurant, so can never be trusted.
There are hundreds of stories any/every mashgiach can tell, of where kashrus HAS been compromised – usually for the sake of a few bucks. This is not the first time, and unfortunately wont be the last.
This is surely a dark era for Kashrus.
I would suggest an independent investigation, but who would be objective? As did the Monsey incident last year, perhaps we need a higher independent Kashrus Vaad who keeps the Kashrus authorities in check – perhaps knowledgeable Mashgichim & Rabbonim who work for various organizations.
SO, the Gentile client DOES control the Kashrus supervision of his restaurant!!
This is what happens when you have “Rabbinical” rulings for hire.
Of course I would think that the whole kashrus supervision business would violate the concept that a judge who is paid is not a judge.
This is like being a Mafia Judge, you give the wrong verdict and POW!!they SHOOT you in Umberto’s.
I guess this is why I have heard Rabbis who are L’shem Shamayim call the kashrus business the “Kosher Nostra”.
annon 10:06 asked:
“The official party line at the time was that the OK removed the hashgocho because of a financial issue. It seems like we now know better. The question though is why did the OK not make its case public? Were they afraid of a lawsuit.”
I can answer that one:
Yes, the OK would refrain from publicizing the reason why they removed rabbinic Supervision because of the fear of lawsuits.
I personally heard this from Rabbi Levy z”l many years ago at a public lecture he gave in Boro Park concerning the Kashrus problems we face today (actually, probably at least 10 yrs. ago, but it seems to have only gotten worse).
That’s right!!!
K’halacha we are permitted to carry money out of a burning house on Shabbos because it represents a significant loss for which one is permitted to violate Shabbos.
Now, because of this lawsuit, any Mashgiach knows he can be sued for millions everytime he says something isn’t kosher.
Because defending oneself from a lawsuit represents a significant monetary loss for ANYONE, ANY Mashgiach would be within halacha to permit ANY chef to serve treifos
if speaking up would cause a significant financial loss for the Mashgiach because he can be sued for doing his job.
If the OU does not defend Rabbi Bitton, then the whole concept of Kashrus Supervision for hire is dead.
Personally, until Rabbi Bitton wins this lawsuit, I am not eating in any restaurant where I would not eat from the owner’s house because the whole concept of kashrus supervision is being tried in this lawsuit.
what kind of morons are at work here? what mashgiach has 10M to fork over?
make it a two trillion dollar lawsuit!!!!!!
I would venture to say that if Le Marais wins ANY judgment against Bitton, it is the absolute end of paid Kashrus Supervision.
How can ANYONE trust a Mashgiach to attest to the kashrus of a restaurant if he knows he will be sued for saying anything was wrong???
This lawsuit just proves what we knew all along, that the Gentile restaurant owner who pays the OU CONTROLS its Rabbis!!!
Bitton should contact the OU’s liability insurer directly. He is being sued by a client of the OU for reporting on incidents that happened while he was an employee of the OU when it was his JOB to report on their kashrus.
Even if he was insubordinate as an employee that should not affect his liability coverage for reporting incidents that happened while in the OU’s employ doing his job.
If Le Marais signed the standard contract for hashgacha then they are in breach of contract with the OU.
Not only would Rabbi Bitton be entitled to defense by the OU’s liability insurer but the OU should be suing Le Marais for breach of contract.
It is my opinion that Le Marais’s lawsuit has hurt the OU’s credibility FAR more than the Mashgiah’s blog ever could have. The lawsuit made the news all over and only a small fraction of the frum world even uses the internet let alone has time to read obscure blogs.
The OU MUST defend themselves against Le Marais’s breach of contract otherwise it appears to the kosher public that the Gentile client (ie Le Marais) controls the hashgacha process and the Rabbis at the OU.
If the OU does not defend themselves against this breach of contract it will invalidate ANY hashgacha contract that any kashrus agency would ever write in the future.
It is my opinion that the OU has suffered irreparable damage of their reputation in the eyes of the kosher consumer and that they MUST sue Le Marais for the breach of contract or their credibility as a hashgacha who can enforce kashrus will be damaged forever.
Afterall, if all the Gentile restaurant owner has to say is “let me use the dairy margarine in the meat dish or I will sue you for 10 million dollars” what good is a Mashgiach?
Can someone please clarify — would a mashgiach be paid by the restaurant / caterer, or by the kasruth organization?
(If by the restaurant, doesn’t that create a conflict of interest?)
Thanks for your help clarifying!
So why isn’t the OU defending their Mashgiach from being sued as a result of a contract violation from THEIR client???? Doesn’t the OU have liability insurance for this? It shouldn’t cost them a penny to defend him.
What I think is that the OU is suing a frum yid to silence him and that they THINK that they are using Le Marais as a front so that the whole world does not find out JUST HOW SHEKHER THEY ARE!!!
Orthomom, another frum blogger was being harassed with a SLAPP suit and she used an attorney who in my opinion was FABULOUS. I would happily contribute to Rabbi Bitton’s defense fund.
I would be happy to write a recommendation for pro bono representation with a Midtown firm I have a connection to, but they do not specialize in SLAPP suits or civil rights cases. It is my opinion that attorneys are like doctors, you should go to the specialist when you can.
Please, does anyone have an email address?
Sounds like some of you need to offer their services to Rabbi Bitton before it’s too late.
1) The OK took off their Hashgocho because of several accumulated issues. The last of which was that the chef (at that time – NOT the same chef that is now in question)assaulted a mashgiach. The OK notified the OU of all the infractions but the OU decided to give the hechsher anyway.
2) The assessment whether to demand the firing of the chef belongs to the administration at the OU after hearing from their Mashgiach (and the resturant’s management). On the other hand, about beleiving what the mashgiach says he saw (OU D margarine used in meat meals and utencils, fruits/vegetables not properly checked etc.): The Mashgiach is a frum Yid, the management/chef are not. According to Shulchan Oruch, the Yid has n’emonus, the others do not! It could be that the management at the OU felt that even after beleiving the Mashgiach about the chef’s infractions, the chef should be given another chance (maybe under more stringent rules). On the other hand, it seems like the resturant’s management has a history of non-compliance.
The official party line at the time was that the OK removed the hashgocho because of a financial issue. It seems like we now know better. The question though is why did the OK not make its case public? Were they afraid of a lawsuit.
Also, according to the contract any facility signs with the OU when receiving their hashgocho, they may publicly announce violations without fear of reprisal. At the time the allegations were made, Bitton was employed by the OU and therefor legally protected.
Does anyone know if a legal defense fund has been established? If so, I’d love to donate.
To Ogevald could you please comment on something that was posted elsewhere that Le Marais used to be under the Hashgacha of the O.K. and that they pulled based on certain actions of this chef in question?
I’m sure as a spokesperson for the O.U. you know the answer to this question, as I’m confident that when Le Marais approached the O.U. for a hechsher, the O.U. no doubtedly asked why aren’t they still with the O.K.
Therefore if you answer that I should ask the O.K. this question, we’ll know that the allegations are true.
In the Matter of Gordon v. Marrone
N.Y. Supreme Court, 1992 (590 N.Y.S.2d 649)
Reargument of the award of attorneys fees and expenses. The court held that, under the SLAPP statute, the award of attorneys fees and expenses for frivolous conduct, based on the prosecution of a colorable claim for an improper purpose, does not violate the Petition Clause of the First Amendment. “SLAPP suits function by forcing the target into the judicial arena where the SLAPP filer foists upon the target the expenses of a defense. The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted, and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success…. Short of a gun to the head, a greater threat to First Amendment expression can scarcely be imagined.”)
A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) is a form of litigation filed by a large organization or in some cases an individual plaintiff, to intimidate and silence a less powerful critic by so severely burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism.
At least 24 other states and one territory have also enacted some form of legal protections against SLAPPs. These are Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Guam, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
I am sure that Rabbi Bitton’s attorney saw this 3/10/07
Dakota County District Court Judge Timothy Blakely has decided a local PR guy by the name of Blois Olson is a public figure and as such, is required to meet to a higher standard of proof that he was defamed. Therefore, the libel lawsuit brought by Olson against conservative blogger Michael Brodkorb has been dismissed. Blogger Brodkorb had written that Blois Olson had some unkind things to say about a fellow Democrat after that Democrat allegedly declined to hire Olson’s PR firm.
It does sound like a silly, frivolous case. Aren’t most of them? But the key here is that Judge Blakely extended to Brodkorb the same protections afforded The New York Times. I’m pretty sure many conservative (and liberal) bloggers will never rise to the stature of The New York Times, but that citizen journalists got yet another legal precedent in support of their protection is a good thing.
How can the OU stand firmly behind their supervision of Le Marais when the supervision of any establishment is only as good as the Mashgiach who is there at the time???
How many hours each week did any of the Rabbis who signed this letter spend in the restaurant
Rabbi Luban?
Rabbi Genack?
Rabbi Weinreb?
If the OU cannot trust the Mashgiach that they have hired and trained then how can we?
Are we to believe that Rabbis Luban, Genack and Weinreb are supervising the restaurant for us from their offices?
How do we know which OU Mashgiach
can be trusted to be reliable??
As per the OU:
“Mr. Bitton developed amazing conspiratorial theories involving crime organizations to explain why people denied his allegations, and attributed dark and evil motives to sincere and honest individuals within the OU.
Mr. Bitton was dogmatic in his interpretations of situations and did not acknowledge the legitimacy of other opinions.”
How can we ever again trust the OU to ensure the kashrus of a restaurant if they admittedly put a person in charge of its kashrus whom they claim was suffering from such bad judgement??
This is really a tragedy for all Yirei Shamayim Jews everywhere.
Clarification on Kosher Status of New York’s Le Marais Restaurant
March 22, 2007
A few months ago, a mashgiach at Le Marais restaurant, Mr. Isaac Bitton, alleged that on several occasions, one of the chefs at Le Marais intentionally compromised the kashrus at Le Marais, and that he had been fired from his previous employment for that very reason as well. Mr. Bitton insisted and demanded that the chef be fired.
Over a period of months the OU carefully researched and investigated every accusation, and we spoke to all parties whom Mr. Bitton claimed had information. Obviously, the presence of an individual who is hostile to our kosher program would seriously compromise our ability to provide reliable supervision. At the same time, fairness dictates that if allegations are made against a Jew or non-Jew, the accusations must be independently verified before one is dismissed from his position.
The OU found no evidence of intent to compromise kashrus by this chef. People quoted by Mr. Bitton resolutely denied statements attributed to them. For example, Mr. Bitton claimed the chef was fired from Levana for kashrus infractions, and the management would verify that this was the case. We spoke to the management of Levana and they emphatically stated that this was not true. Mr. Bitton then said a sister of the management would confirm his allegation. She too said she had no knowledge of this matter. Mr. Bitton then claimed that he secretly tape recorded a conversation with the sister and she admitted and confirmed that the chef was fired for Kashrus reasons. The OU staff listened to the tape and at no point did she confirm the above. Initially, she denied that the chef was fired for Kashrus violations. After Mr. Bitton relentlessly pressed the issue, she said he should pursue the matter further with the appropriate parties, if he so desired. Mr. Bitton maintained that not denying the allegation was tantamount to confirming it. We considered it a misrepresentation to characterize this as a confirmation.
Other individuals who worked closely with the chef, such as the second Mashgiach at Le Marais, gave no support to the allegations. With the exception of Mr. Bitton, everyone found the chef to be cooperative.
Mr. Bitton developed amazing conspiratorial theories involving crime organizations to explain why people denied his allegations, and attributed dark and evil motives to sincere and honest individuals within the OU.
Mr. Bitton was dogmatic in his interpretations of situations and did not acknowledge the legitimacy of other opinions. We explained to Mr. Bitton that he was entitled to his opinion, but we do not have to agree. He insisted that his viewpoint is fact and not an opinion.
For example, in one instance the chef purchased dairy margarine for the restaurant (though it was caught before it was used). There is no evidence that the chef did not make an honest error. Indeed, the OU receives numerous calls from people who accidentally used OUD margarine in a meat dish. Mr. Bitton insisted the chef bought the product with malicious intent. In another case, a delivery of non-kosher fish (which was also not used) was dropped off at the restaurant over Shabbos while the store was closed. Mr. Bitton insisted that the chef made the order, though there was no evidence linking the chef to the order, and the fish company advised the OU that the delivery was made in error to the wrong customer. Once again, Mr. Bitton maintained that his interpretation was a fact and not an opinion.
Mr. Bitton threatened to make a public expose of this “cover-up”. The OU took a principled position and did not acquiesce to threats and intimidation.
In protest of our decision to not have the chef fired, Mr. Bitton voluntarily resigned from his position at the restaurant. Since then, Mr. Bitton and others have circulated e-mail allegations about this matter. Many of the statements are patently false, such as the accusation that the chef physically assaulted Mr. Bitton and intentionally placed insects in the food. In a private conversation with an OU staff member, Mr. Bitton admitted that this was not true. Another allegation is that the OU chose to defend the chef for financial considerations. This accusation is absurd. Had the OU insisted that the chef be dismissed, it would have had no financial impact on the OU, as Le Marais would readily have complied. Indeed, the easiest course for the OU would have been to ask the restaurant to dismiss this chef, and the whole matter would have been put to rest. The OU did not take this course of action because we felt that the kashrus of the restaurant was properly served and to dismiss a chef without just cause was unethical and immoral.
The OU stands firmly behind its supervision of Le Marais and the kashrus there is maintained in full accordance with OU standards.
Stephen J. Savitsky
President
Orthodox Union
Dr. Simcha Katz
Chair, Kashrut Commission
Orthodox Union
Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb
Executive Vice President
Orthodox Union
Rabbi Menachem Genack
Rabbinic Administrator and CEO
OU Kosher
Rabbi Yaakov D. Luban
Executive Rabbinic Coordinator
OU Kosher
A mashgiach once told me he eats a milicheg breakfast, fleishig lunch, and a treif supper.
What sheer idiocy is appearing here. Especially that dooface explaining why it is a criminal act to sue Bitton. He must’ve picked up his legal knowledge in a bathroom in harlem. As per US Code 1A, Section 7, Paragraph 6.
a mashgiach for the OU once told me he doesn’t even wash ‘negel vasser’ in the morning….
Rabbi Bitton,
Please, you must listen to the court order. I am assuming that the order is temporary? Usually it is for 30 days.
If you violate the order, they will put you in jail for contempt.
Meanwhile there is no gag order on the rest of us.
Its time for the Jewish public to realize the truth.
If you want a kosher meal you should eat at home or from someone you trust. Even if there were one mashgiach for every Gentile in the kitchen it would still be difficult to properly supervise. Imagine what it is like for one person to supervise a whole kitchen staff each doing many things at once!!!
In the supervised kitchens of nationally recognized kashrus agencies I have seen:
Cooking on Shabbos for Motzai Shabbos weddings.
Gentile cooks bringing in treif meat to cook it for their side catering businesses.
Dairy ingredients out to be put in meat dishes.
Hames breading put on chicken after it was delivered on Shabbos to a hotel Pesach program. The chicken was delivered, received and then breaded and cooked on Shabbos by the Gentile staff who unlocked the kitchen while the Mashgiach rested. It was served on Motzai Shabbos Pesach to 1500 people because the Rav HaMachshir said that there was a “safek” that the breading actually used was hames because the Mashgiach was not in the kitchen at the time. The bag the Mashgiach found in the kitchen was hames. The Mashgiach wanted to walk off the job at that point but was told he would be fined 30k and sued if he did so.
This was not the first or last time I have seen meat or fish delivered on Shabbos to be cooked on Shabbos by Gentiles who had an unauthorized key to the kitchen.
I have seen buggy Romaine being chopped up and served without washing or checking. Again, when the Rav Hamachshir was told, the answer was that it was “safek buggy” and that the worker can be trusted to check the lettuce because she has been working in kosher kitchens for 20 years.
I have seen caterers trucking in food on Shabbos.
All of these things happened under national hashgachas with Mashgiach Temidi. Am I saying that the Mashgiach is not doing his job?
NO!!! I am saying that the Mashgiach CANNOT do his job. The supervising agencies cite “Botul”, or “significant loss” or “you have to let the staff work” no matter what the Mashgiach says.
One Mashgiach cannot supervise 24 people. Or even 3 or 4!! all doing different things at once.
If the Rabbi of the Shul where the affair is taking place sees something and calls the agency, they tell him to mind his own business or even threaten him.
If the Rabbi of the shul calls other Rabbis to warn them of what is going on in his shuls leased kitchen (ie cooking on Shabbos, meat and fish deliveries on Shabbos, lack of supervision etc). The Rabbi will get a letter from the Kashrus agency threatening to sue the Rabbi for slander.
Does this sound familiar???
as a mashgiach for several organizations including being one for the ou,i know of the many pitifuls that happen day in ,day out,a chef likes to show to his boss that hes bringing in a profit and in doing so has the interest of the establishment , and cares less about the kashrus,there are times he is short of an ingridient and the usually busy mashgiach who runs out in cases of emergency to purchase whats in shortage,is too busy to go out so the chef who is frantic that his customers shouldnt complain sends out someone else to purchase whats needed and that someone doesnt know what the word kashrus means nd is only told to look for a label on the package and in instances gets oud or some other product like an OR which means registered and doesnt know the difference.
in some instances the chef is told this product is not allowed but,will still get the product because he knows his food that he cooks has the unique flavor only with this specific ingridient ,for example truffle oil or the tips of asparagus which have to be chopped off etc… etc…
and the mashgiach does his job by telling the chef not to use it and the chef gets angry ,just recently i was working as mashgiach at a catering establishment and the chef and his helpers were cracking eggs and i was overlooking it and i spied an egg that had a blood drop and he poured it in the huge bucket which had about 30 eggs so i told him to stop but he said i work here for 20 years already and i know hasgacha better then the mashgiach and he refused to remove the batch which i in turn called the hasgacha and told them about it and they just turned a blind eye qouting its butel bshishim,
instances like them turning on the oven and when i tell the chef its not allowed he turns red and starts huffing and puffing do u know who i am do u know how many years im chef here ,and if i want to shut the oven he gets mad and starts yelling it isnt beffiting for a rabbi o mix in the affairs of the kitchen goes to the boss livid and in rage the hasgacha gets a call from the boss and the masgiach is told to keep low and not antogize the chef,now rabossei can we keep quiet about these things,personally i dont trust anything that bears a symbol of kashrus i happen to know of many places that produce spices ingridients and other products that are under these hasgachas but dont even get the honor of being visited as long as the checks roll in all is well ,i cant stand up for i know this is what will happen they will shut you up and bury you till you keep quiet they have no qualms of putting a yid in prison even though he is in the right,all they want is there money this is a multi billion dollar business dont forget,i was personally involved in a restaurant that had many problems and the owners hated me but couldnt do anything since they needed the hasgacha, at times when i needed the backup of the hasgacha they backed the propetier of the rstaurant rather then back the masgiach because they know each other 20 years already,and more and more that i havent even opened my mouth to touch the topic and this is all but tip of the giant iceberg which if it were to be opened and all the things happening under the table were to come out it would be the greatest scandal in jewish history,you think finkel pulled the wool over our eyes hes only a cog in the great machine that keeps giving us traifos vavailos,oy luni where we fell, these so called hasgachas and not only the OU bt many many many others which continue to say everythings kosher,lining thier pockets with our hard earned money and serving us treifos,if you would only open your eyes and start questinoning you would see all these problems ,if u dont believe me go ahead dont take me on my word go prove it for yourselves that every word i say here is true.
bottom line if you can eat at the owner shabbos table of any kosher establishment then you can shop or dine and using their service should not be a question.
its interesting to note why didnt the OU sue this mashgiach?
why are they sending the resturant to sue the mashgiach doesnt something smell here?
For example Gilda Crackers under the OU, they made crackers with lard on one line and crackers with butter on the next line and crackers that were kosher and pareve under the OU on another line all in the same plant.
I once was supervising an affair and had a question about Gilda Butter Crackers, one of the ingredients was Natural Butter Flavor, that could be dairy, right? When I called the OU they gave me the number of the plant manager who gave me the number of the Flavor supplier who told me the flavor was pareve.
The next day, one of the Rabbis from the OU called ME up to ask ME if the crackers were dairy or pareve.
So I asked the supervising Rabbi how often he visits the plant and he told me he had NEVER visited the plant. When the account was initially signed on Rabbi Berel Simpser had visited the plant, but no one had been there since. By that time it had been about 8 years or so.
Commercial bread never needed a hechsher nor did milk, yogurt, soft cheeses and sour cream in the US. Chalav Yisrael today is supervised by a security camera and not mashgiach.
Most canned and frozen fruits and vegetables that the OU certifies don’t need hashgacha either.The same is true for candy and jelly.
The OU usually relies upon a letter from the company certifying that the ingredients on the package are what is in the product and believe me, the FDA is much more of a threat to them than the OU.(You didn’t really think there was a Rabbi standing in the plant all day, did you? If you still do, call the plant and ask to speak to him, they’ll give you the OU’s office in NY).
In England for example where kashrus is not a business, the Rabbinate prints a list for free every year of acceptable kosher products (ie candies, cookies, jellies).
What we REALLY need hashgacha for is MEAT, HARD CHEESES and CATERING.
Thanks to the OU, for meat we have Rubashkin and for catering we have Le Marais.
I remember Observant life in America BEFORE the OU. We knew the shochet, knew the baker, knew the cheesemaker and ate from each other’s homes instead of Gentiles in restaurants.
For all you anti OU people, if you have beef with the OU, I would suggest you mill your own wheat, milk your own cow, etc., because the OU is involved in just about every product whether you like it or not. Even if you think you will eat your heimish hechsher products, they ALL rely on the OU anyway so cut the OU bashing!
TO 1:06
“screaming of fire in a crowded theater under the guize of free speech!!”
“Screaming of fire” is NOT protected under the First Amendment Right of Free Speech because it is incitement.
“Screaming of fire in a crowded theater” IS a crime in the US.
To 1:06
“BTW, did Bitton claim to have a DIN TORAH against the OU? “
The Gentile ownership of Le Marais is suing Rabbi Bitton.
Why is it relevant whether or not Rabbi Bitton has a Din Torah against the OU.
“Did he qupte which Rav advised him that “Torah law” required his lashon harah and motzei shem rah?”
Chofetz Chaim Shemirat Halashon Chapter 9 details the circumstances when one is REQUIRED to inform.
Kashrus is one of the situations in which the one who knows has a halachic obligation to inform
Rabbi Bitton had a halachic obligaton to inform/warn the public of a serious kashrus violation if he was aware of one.
It is not Lashon Hara to report a kashrus violation because the speech is l’shem mitzvah. Even if Rabbi Bitton were mistaken, his intentions are clearly l’shem mitzvah so it cannot be Lashon Hara. One of the requirements of Lashon Hara is that the speaker’s intent be one of malice.
Speech can only be lashon hara if it is true. The Gentile ownership of Le Marais is suing Rabbi Bitton for slander which is a lie.
Also the Laws of Lashon Hara apply only to speech about other Jews. For Rabbi Bitton to say something negative about the chef cannot be lashon hara.
It is sad to watch a Yiras Shamayim Jew being persecuted by other Jews because he is practicing Judaism.
Bittons claims are bull. Bitton deserves to be sued.
To 1:06
“Oh wait, you can’t falsely accuse someone of something under “free speech”, and if you do you have to pay.”
A civil suit for slander has to meet several criteria.
1. The Plaintiff has to prove malicious intent. Considering that Rabbi Bitton’s job was to protect the kashrus of the Jewish public, how would you PROVE that the motives behind Rabbi Bitton’s accusations regarding the kashrus of Le Marais are PURELY malicious in intent?
2. The second thing that the plaintiffs must prove is that the accusations are false beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The owners of LeMarais cannot PROVE beyond any doubt that the kashrus accusations made by Rabbi Bitton were false.
TO the contrary since Rabbi Bitton was hired to be an agent of OU SPECIFICALLY to judge the kosher status of the restaurant during his shift his negative judgments of Le Marais or its employees represent “absolute privilege”.
Rabbi Bitton was the only person there at the time of each specific incident who would be qualified to give expert testimony regarding the kashrus status of the restaurant at the time that incidents happened so there is no way to bring in opposing expert testimony to support the OU’s assertion that the restaurant was kosher at the time. The whole concept of a Mashgiach is that we trust his testimony absolutely regarding the kashrus of the place. This why the principle of “absolute privilege” applies in this case.
Rabbi Bitton has only written about incidents that happened during the time of his employment by the OU, during the time when he was employed as the agent of the OU, specifically charged with the job of determining the kashrus status of the restaurant.
It is my opinion that if Le Marais feels as though they have been harmed by an agent of the company that they hired to administer a kashrus program that Le Marais should seek damages from the company and not the employee as the employee was only doing the job for which he was hired at the time, which was to judge the kashrus status of the restaurant at the time of his watch. It was the OU who hired, trained and installed Rabbi Bitton in the position of sole judge of the kashrus status of the restaurant during his shift.
3.Specific damages have to be proven. The owners of Le Marais cannot PROVE that they have suffered 10 million in damages and that it is a direct result of Rabbi Bitton’s blog?
Personally I have always noted that kosher consumers eat out much less often before Pesach as the expenses of making the holiday are significant for everyone. An audit of receipts for the past 10 years since the restaurant has been open would show seasonal fluctuations in receipts. There are many reasons one could attribute to Le Marais’s alleged drop in receipts, perhaps an article in the NY Times about the dangers of red meat. Proving beyond any doubt that a specific news article (such as a blog)is solely responsible for a drop in receipts is nearly impossible.
This is a frivolous lawsuit filed simply to harass and intimidate Rabbi Bitton. Surely the attorney who filed this suit knows how absurd it would be to try to collect 10 million dollars from a Mashgiah. How would you propose to do that, sell his organs???
The OU seems to be very concerned about defending a Gentile chef from allegations that might cost him his job, even at the expense of the kosher consumer. Why aren’t they defending their employee against a frivolous lawsuit that he surely does not have the means to defend himself against???
As a long time mashgiach for various Kashrus agencies, I am particularly interested in how this will play out.
Will the OU cover this ( former )mashgiachs legal expenses or not ?
If they dont, then mashgichim everywhere will have been served notice as to the reprecussions of their words. And thus effectively undermine the very raison d’etre for them being mashgichim.
And if they do support his legal expenses then it somewhat contradicts their claims against the mashgiach.