One of my favourite moments of the week so far was the barefoot boogie-style dance last night. And though there are some communities who gasp that various activities could “lead to mixed dancing” - as if that were the most horrible thing - I thoroughly enjoyed our various genders dancing together.
And one of the best sights? All the tzitzis swirling as we danced about, hanging off the bodies of men and women alike. ::fans self::
Filed under
I’m in love with a wonderful JMan, but how do I explain how we met?
I know that all you fans out there are wondering what happened to my JDate foray. And it’s not just because those of you who actually know me were reading along and asking me about it when you saw me, although that was fun, too. But the comment responses on my posts about it were surprisingly touching and empathetic. I got strangers volunteering to pray for my bashert, and friends who gave me sweet advice under their blog name that they hadn’t given me in person. This whole finding someone to be with strikes a chord with many of us, it seems.
At first during the whole JDate time, I was sort of embarrassed, which is I think one of the reasons I turned it into a posting feature. It was for the sake of art, I could claim. And I’ve always been one to preemptively embarrass myself to avoid being embarrassed by others.
Well, the embarrassment wears off after a while when you actually, somehow, find someone to be with on JDate.
I know, it’s totally improbable. Hineini said, “I feel like I can’t complete on Jdate because I’m too religious, not girly enough, and too left-wing.” Tamar said, “I’ve been pretty observant my whole life, but I still hate telling people I’m religious because everyone has some specific idea of what that means and it’s invariably wrong and/or offensive, but if I don’t tell someone I’m dating that I’m religious and then I turn out to be on the third date, that’s also kind of obnoxious. I hear you loud and clear.” Sarah Naomi said, “I was there where you are a while ago, even used Jdate, which to me is a waste of time and $.” I know! I probably still feel that way.
Except that eight months ago I sent a message to someone on JDate because he said he was a grad student and had lived in Israel and used correct punctuation, capitalization, and no numbers in the middle of words, and voila! We were having our first date at a North African restaurant in Cambridge and discussing Foucault, Chomsky, and semi-colons. The perfect date! I dropped the R-bomb while we were on the T going to karaoke (”So we talked about the fact that I’m a grad student in Middle Eastern Studies, but what do you do?” “Oh, uh, um, I’m studying to be a rabbi.” Pause. “Cool!”), sang “Me and Bobby McGee,” he walked me to my car before getting on his hipster fixey to ride home, and that was that.
But how do you tell people that you met on JDate? More »
Filed under
Week Five, Day two
Gevurah of Hod
According to the latest news, yes, there’s more, if you can stand it. The Des Moines Register reports that there was sexual abuse and an expectation of sexual favors, according to the workers,
If a worker wanted, say, a promotion or a shift change, “they’d be brought into a room with three or four men and it was like, ‘Which one do you want? Which one are you going to serve?’†said McCauley in an interview today with Des Moines Register editors and reporters.
To be fair, it should have been obvious that somethignlike this would be revealed - with all the other garbage going on behindthe scenes, this particular form of abusing the powerless should have been an obvious add-on feature.
RadioIowa mentions that America’s Voice, a group pushing for immigration reform, is asking Congress to investigate the owners of the Postville plant.
Mark Lauritsen, international vice president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) says reading the information on the Postville raid shows “shameful” action by the plant’s owners. Lauritsen says what’s ultimately shameful is that nearly 400 “hardworking men and women” are in detention, while the people who exploited them are free to roam the streets and start the cycle over again.
Lauriston says Agriproccessors has gotten away with the labor violations for too long. Lauritsen says: “There is not one other meatpacker operator in this country that has the same sustained long record of law violations as Agriprocessors, not one. They’re acting like a renegade in an already tough industry. It’s not good for the industry, it’s not good for the workers who work in it.” Sharry and Lauritson say the national strategy of ‘attrition through enforcement’ remains an ineffective solution to the immigration issue.
I hope they’re successful, but after all this time, who knows - it’s not like there haven’t already been tons of investigation worthy crimes over the past several years, with a pattern of disregard for the law. Again, our only quesiotn should be, where the hell is the Jewish community, and why didn’t we insist on OU’s hashgachah (supervision) being pulled with much greater force. Our lack of courage and refusal to go without meat is a chillul hashem - an embarrassment to God’s name.
Filed under
Hod of Chesed
We’re all (by now) familiar with the story of the Orange on the seder plate. Not only the famous midrash (note I am not calling it fact) of Susannah Heschel and the man who claimed women should not be Jewish leaders, but also the misty origins of said story in the a woman telling lesbians that female homosexuality is a minor sin, like putting bread on the seder plate. Nevermind why the relentless deconstruction of this midrash is an example of why modern midrash sucks (I’ll talk about that some other time).
Instead, take a look at a post by Mel of Stirrup Queens and Sperm Count Jesters. Normally her blog is about infertility and its side issues from the perspective of an observant Jew. In this post, she writes about Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man and how putting an apple on the seder plate, for her, revived the original facts of the orange midrash…
representing reproductive rights for all people because truthfully, just as the changed story of Heschel’s speech has a man shouting about women belonging on the bimah as much as an orange belongs on the seder plate, empty symbolic gestures do not have a space at my table. It is apples and oranges; I am taking back the fruit. If I believe in reproductive rights for myself–and believe me, I want my reproductive rights well-covered–I need to believe in reproductive rights for all who act out of love or my shouting for myself becomes merely symbolic, self-serving, meaningless.
Mother Jones, in August 2006, ran a survey of fertility clinic directors. Only 59% believed everyone has a right to a child. 48% said they would likely turn away a gay couple seeking a surrogate. 20% would turn away a single woman. 17% would turn away a lesbian couple. If you want reproductive rights for yourself–and I’m fairly certain that no fertility clinic director would wish to be told that they cannot or must have a child–we should be concerned about others. Because I’m not just talking about those experiencing infertility who need to utilize assisted conception when I speak about reproductive rights–every single person on this earth should be in control of whether or not they reproduce or parent. Put an apple on the seder plate for that.
Filed under
Recent postings on the uterus problem (see here) have been right to question the tshuvah that recently was issued from the bowels of the CJLS. I’m sorry that I got scooped on this because it’s a long standing argument that I have been having with my teachers (whom I respect very much, despite our disagreements) for years now. First of all, here is the URL for the actual tshuvah. I recommend reading it.
Secondly, I want to give kudos to Rabbi Jill Jacobs’ and Rabbi Jason Miller’s comments on the post at jspot. Both of them note that there need to be more social supports put in place for people to have children, Rabbi Jacobs noting:
–Would rabbinical students be more willing to have kids while in grad school if the rabbinical schools offered on-site child care?
–Would it be easier for Jewish women professionals (and men) to participate in professional conferences (such as the RA, from which I just returned, and where I bumped into a few poor women trying to nurse on the floor of the bathroom), if these conferences offered nursing rooms, child care, or other accommodations? (a shout out to the Wexner Foundation for being a leader in this regard)
–Would Jewish women professionals be able more easily to “have it all†if more Jewish institutions offered flex time, family health insurance, on-site child care, and paid for child care when the mom or dad is on the road?
And Rabbi Miller adding:
— not just for the women. As a 26-year-old rabbinical student whose wife was working full-time, I often felt the challenge of sitting in a class while bottle-feeding my baby son. An on-site day-care facility at JTS would have been an important resource.
He also on his own blog made some comments.
(Although I do want to note that I can’t imagine why any women were nursing on the floor of the bathroom, since the hotel in question is luxurious to the point of ridiculousness, and the WC had an anteroom with, I’m told, quite comfortable chairs and, I’m told by a nursing friend, the heat turned way up so that it was a perfectly comfortable place to strip down and nurse if necessary. Of course, the very luxuriousness of the hotel was apparently rather a sore point amongst the many, many Conservative rabbis who lack large convention stipends or, indeed, any, such as those who aren’t pulpit rabbis, or who are, but whose pulpits are more modest, say, under 500 members. A sore point indeed).
More »
Filed under
According to Reuters, a new study from researchers at McGill University, published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, have revealed what lots of people have known all along: circumcision has no effect on sexual sensation.
There’s lots of things I could say here, but the truth is, this study doesn’t much matter. For those who are determined to stop circumcision, this won’t make any difference - they’ll go on touting the flawed studies they’ve been using (one big problem that I noted a while back with those studies- they relied on men circumcised as adults, and also several of them on men who were unhappy with their circumcisions. Um, durr) and for those who are commanded to circumcise, well as they ought, they’ll go on circumcisiing. Because in the end, that’s the reason one does it. Not because it’s healthier for their sexual partners, or because it lowers the (relatively miniscule anyway) risk of penile cancer. Circumcision for Muslims and Jews is because God commanded it. That’s it. Move along now.
Filed under
According to the Jpost, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called Sunday on religious and secular cabinet ministers to reach a compromise on legislation that would expand Rabbinic Court jurisdiction in divorce cases. “Feminists,” which apparently means any women with a grain of sense, are protesting this bill as discriminatory against women.
It seems to me that this is somewhat of an understatement. The Rabbinic Courts have long been er, discriminatory against women; that is to say, they tend to arbitrate in favor of the husband, and extort money (that is, money that would normally be part of her financial rights in the divorce, such as child support) from a woman before granting her release from her husband. That is, in cases where he will grant her a divorce at all, since by and large the religious courts don’t much force the issue (there have been a few exceptional cases where the husband has been jailed for failing to give a get, but by and large, this problem - which could be halachically solved, and has been by the Masorti movement, and will not be, by the Orthodox, because the options that they once considered acceptable were adopted by the Masorti movement, making them treif by association- remains an enormous one for Orthodox women, in which the courts demand that she submit to all sorts of craziness in order for them to pressure the husband to give her a divorce).
According to the JPost article
Rabbinic Courts Administration spokeswoman Efrat Orbach said the proposed legislation would simply maintain the status quo.
“The Supreme Court recently overturned decades of precedent during which the Rabbinic Courts litigated in monetary matters connected with the divorce process, even after the husband gave his ex the divorce writ,” Orbach said.
“This bill simply anchors in law what has been common practice for a long time now.”
Because Israeli law needs to have more religious control. the hegemony not being yet complete. This is a terrible idea. The status quo is not such a beautiful thing that it needs to be “anchored in law.” To the contrary, the status quo is quite broken and needs to be fixed.
Filed under
You know you want to enter Boris Jackson’s contest. Maybe it’s because you wish you’d thought of it first or maybe it’s because you did think of it first. Or maybe because the entries so far are kinda lame. In any case, those electric spinning dreidels suddenly appear to be more useful than I thought…
Filed under
How disappointing. In the midst of Hitchen’s new book, the NY Times best seller god is not Great, (specifically on page 55), I read the following line with dismay:
Orthodox Jews conduct congress by means of a hole in the sheet, and subject their women to ritual baths to cleanse the stain of menstruation.
What makes this so disappointing is that so much of the book is well-written, articulate and compellingly argued. I’m not an atheist. In fact, I associate myself with the religion he claims has sex through a sheet hole. Yet until this point, I read with interest and an open mind. So it’s a shame that Hitchens had to eradicate all of his credibility by putting in a false, cheap shot. Particularly, it makes it difficult to trust him when he takes hits on other religions.
Hitchens, next time use a fact checker.
Filed under
This week’s parsha, Naso, includes instructions for dedicating oneself to YHWH as a Nazir. And just to show you how good that can look, straight outa Kingston comes Zahra Redwood, the new, dreadlocked, Rastafarian Miss Jamaica! Betcha Haile Selassie is rising in his grave!
Filed under
Dear OU,
I know we’ve had words in the past. Well, at least, I know you and Kelsey have had words in the past and that I published them. But I digress. It’s very important you listen to me just this once, and that you listen clearly:
If you don’t want Jewish kids to shtup before they’re married, don’t lie and tell them that the reason they shouldn’t is because condoms are ineffective. You’re spreading dangerously false information that can actually increase the likelihood of Jewish kids contracting sexually transmitted diseases, which can pose a serious risk to their lives.
If they’re going to have sex — and trust me, they’re going to, whether you like it or not (whereas abstinence education is a proven failure) — you should encourage them to do it safely, otherwise you won’t only be dealing with a problem of promiscuity, but with an even bigger STD problem in the Jewish community than that which already exists.
Furthermore, if you’re serious about fighting intermarriage and promoting Jew-on-Jew coupling, you’re going to have a really hard time doing so when you’re scaring Jewish kids off from being intimate with one another. The Jewish establishment is spending millions annually to encourage Jewish kids to sleep with each other. Michael Steinhardt alone has spent a fortune trying to encourage Jewish kids to jump in the sack. Do you really want to counteract all their efforts by making sex with your fellow Jew a terrifying proposition? (Actually, now that I think about it, if you really want to stem the tide of unwedded sex in the Jewish community, wouldn’t you be better off keeping your kids home instead of sending them on trips to Israel?)
You’re sending mixed messages. Kids are confused enough as it is. Don’t make it more confusing. Lead by righteous example.
Honestly, if such a path is truly emesdik (truthful), you can make a case for tzenuah (modesty) and being shomer negiah (not touching the opposite sex) without promoting lies in the process. It’s unethical and it constitutes lifnei eiver (placing a stumbling block before the blind).
Frankly, I think your campaign would be more successful if you tell kids how much kinkier it is to wait. Tell ‘em how dressing modestly is more erotic because it leaves more to the imagination, seeing how the mind is the most erogenous zone. Tell ‘em how being shomer negiah and observing the laws of niddah (ritual purity) are really hot because it builds up the tension, making your partner’s most minor touch even more explosive. Show ‘em the parallels between the frum approach to sexuality and sado-masochism. Hell, give ‘em some incentive!
But don’t lie. Because they know you’re lying. Your kids probably know more about this stuff than you do (thanks, Internet!). And if they know you’re lying about this, you can be sure they won’t believe you about much else you have to say.
Sincerely,
Mobius
Filed under
Today: Priests and beasts.
166. “A mamzer shall not enter the congregation of God; even the tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of God.” (Deuteronomy 23:3) = someone born into an illicit relationship can’t marry another Jew
167. “No one whose testes are crushed or whose member is cut off shall enter the congregation of God.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
168. “You shall not do this in your land.” (Leviticus 22:24) = castration
169. “A widow … [the high priest] shall not marry.” (Leviticus 21:14)
170. “…and he shall not profane his offspring among his kin.” (Leviticus 21:15) = the high priest can’t have sex with a widow even if they’re not married
171. “[The high priest] shall marry a woman who is a virgin.” (Leviticus 21:13)
172. “[Priests] shall not marry a woman divorced from her husband.” (Leviticus 21:7)
173. “A woman who is a prostitute … [priests] shall not marry.” (Leviticus 21:7)
174. “A woman who is profaned, [priests] shall not marry.” (Leviticus 21:7) = born into one of the relationships forbidden for priests (e.g. #169, #172) and thus forbidden to marry a priest
175. “None of you shall go near anyone of his/her own flesh to uncover nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:6) = any of the forbidden relationships, even if there’s no sex per se
176. “These are the creatures that you may eat from among all the land animals: any animal that has true hoofs, with clefts through the hoofs, and chews its cud — such you may eat.” (Leviticus 11:2-3) = examine mammals to distinguish between permitted and forbidden
177. “You may eat any clean bird.” (Deuteronomy 14:11) = examine birds to distinguish between permitted and forbidden
178. “These you may eat of all that live in water: anything in water, whether in the seas or in the streams, that has fins and scales — these you may eat.” (Leviticus 11:9) = examine fish to distinguish between permitted and forbidden
179. “These you may eat among all the winged swarming things that walk on fours: all that have, above their feet, jointed legs to leap with on the ground.” (Leviticus 11:21) = examine insects to distinguish between permitted and forbidden
180. “The following you shall not eat:” (Leviticus 11:4) = any mammals that don’t both chew their cud and have split hoofs
Filed under
Today: More sex
151. “Do not approach [your father's brother's] wife; she is your aunt.” (Leviticus 18:14)
152. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law.” (Leviticus 18:15)
153. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife.” (Leviticus 18:16)
154. “Do not marry a woman as a rival to her sister and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime.” (Leviticus 18:18)
155. “Do not lie with a beast.” (Leviticus 18:23)
156. “A woman shall not stand before a beast to mate with it.” (Leviticus 18:23)
157. “A male do not lie the lyings of a woman.” (Leviticus 18:22) = there are many interpretations of this verse, but the Rambam understands it as prohibiting sex between any two men
158. “Your father’s nakedness … you shall not uncover.” (Leviticus 18:7)
159. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother.” (Leviticus 18:14)
160. “Do not lie with your neighbor’s wife.” (Leviticus 18:21)
161. “Do not approach a woman during her menstrual impurity to uncover her nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:19)
162. “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” (Deuteronomy 7:3)
163. “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of God” (Deuteronomy 23:4) = to marry Jews
164. “You shall not abhor an Egyptian, for you were a stranger in their land. Children born to them may be admitted into the congregation of God in the third generation.” (Deuteronomy 23:8-9)
165. “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for they are your kin … Children born to them may be admitted into the congregation of God in the third generation.” (Deuteronomy 23:8-9)
Filed under
Today: SEX
136. The procedure for the sotah [woman suspected of adultery] (Numbers 5:11-31)
137. “No oil shall be poured upon it…” (Numbers 5:15) = on the meal-offering brought on behalf of the sotah
138. “…and no frankincense shall be laid upon it.” (Numbers 5:15)
139. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your mother.” (Leviticus 18:7)
140. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife.” (Leviticus 18:8)
141. “The nakedness of your sister — whether your father’s daughter or your mother’s, whether born into the household or outside — do not uncover their nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:9)
142. “The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter … do not uncover her nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:11)
143. “The nakedness of your son’s daughter … do not uncover their nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:10)
144. “…do not uncover their nakedness, for their nakedness is yours.” (Leviticus 18:10) = your son’s daughter (#143) and daughter’s daughter (#145) are mentioned more explicitly, but that goes for your own daughter too.
145. “The nakedness of … your daughter’s daughter — do not uncover their nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:10)
146. “Do not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter…” (Leviticus 18:17)
147. “…nor shall you marry her son’s daughter…” (Leviticus 18:17)
148. “…or her daughter’s daughter.” (Leviticus 18:17)
149. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister.” (Leviticus 18:12)
150. “Do not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister.” (Leviticus 18:13)
Filed under
Rabbi Einat Ramon’s article in this week’s Washington Jewish Week continues to emphasize her position as a student of her teacher Rabbi Joel Roth, as opposing ordination for gays and lesbians at Machon Schechter, the Masorti seminary in Jerusalem.
In this article, as before, she stresses what she considers to be the difference between allowing women public positions of authority and participation, and allowing such positions for homosexual men and women:
Whereas there are no precedents for homosexual marriages or homosexual unions in Jewish sources, there are quite a few precedents for female religious and even legal leadership in the Torah and in the Talmud (Deborah, Hulda, Miriam, Bruriah, etc.).
Discrimination against women in the written and oral Torah often reflected the surrounding cultures, and was less severe than in other cultures. For women to teach, preach and rule on Jewish Law were never a religious problem. Thus, it is not surprising that all Jewish legal changes involving the broadening of women’s participation in the synagogue have been based on clear and documented precedents.
While I’m perfectly happy to grant that there may be halakhic difficulties with homosexual acts following a traditional reading of texts, somehow her entire approach strikes me as, at best, tendentious.
Her earlier memo on this topic noted, “Today in particular, when the traditional family is in trouble, it is especially important that we ordain modern rabbis who are devoted to this institution and identify with this worldview…” and said that, Judaism “regards the union between a man a woman who are sexually and emotionally different from one another as a complementary covenant of friendship and intimacy, which forms the basis for procreation and childrearing… This is why Jewish law has so fervently opposed sexual relations between members of the same sex …and why the heterosexual family has played such a vital role throughout the ages in the transmission of Jewish values and the survival of the Jewish people.”
Nothing personal but… how can I possibly take this seriously? More »
Filed under
Today: Mawwiage
121. “When you are at war in your land against an aggressor who attacks you, you shall sound short blasts on the trumpets, that you may be remembered before Adonai your God and be delivered from your enemies.” (Numbers 10:9) = public fasts in times of trouble
122. “When a man marries a woman…” (Deuteronomy 24:1) = to get married with ketubah and kiddushin
123. “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute.” (Deuteronomy 23:18) = no sex without ketubah and kiddushin
124. “He must not withhold her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.” (Exodus 21:10)
125. “Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:28)
126. “He shall write her a document of divorce.” (Deuteronomy 24:1) = to divorce with a get
127. “The first husband who divorced her shall not marry her again.” (Deuteronomy 24:4) = a woman who has been divorced and remarried, and the second marriage was terminated
128. “When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, … [the surviving brother] shall marry [the widow of the deceased].” (Deuteronomy 25:5) = levirate marriage
129. “If he insists, saying ‘I do not want to marry her’, his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: ‘Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house!’” (Deuteronomy 25:9)
130. “The wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family.” (Deuteronomy 25:5) = in a case of levirate marriage (#128), until the chalitzah procedure (#129) is carried out, or the surviving brother dies or is otherwise exempted
131. “If a man seduces a virgin … he must weigh out silver in accordance with the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:15-16)
132. “She shall be his wife.” (Deuteronomy 22:29) = similar case to #131, but this time force is involved
133. “Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:29)
134. “She shall remain his wife.” (Deuteronomy 22:19) = a man marries a woman and claims she wasn’t a virgin when they got married, and evidence is presented to the contrary
135. “He shall never have the right to divorce her.” (Deuteronomy 22:19) = same case as #134
Filed under
Joanna Angel was raised in an orthodox home, and is now making porn. She’s interviewed in Mr. Skin (by “Rabbi Mo Gaydau”), and discusses her religious upbringing, the relationship of her religion to her work, and Jewish views on sex in general.
May I publicly “out” you as Jewish?
Of course! I am not ashamed! I am proud to be one of the Chosen Ones.
Are you religiously observant?
Well, I don’t know. I mean, really no . . . I grew up religious, like didn’t use electricity on Saturdays, went to temple almost every week, etc., so yeah. I don’t do all that anymore, but I spend most of the Jewish holidays with my family, and they are observant, and I respect their rules when I’m there.
I wasn’t with my family this past year on Yom Kippur and I still fasted, and I don’t eat bread on all the eight days of Passover. It sounds like a bold statement, but I would venture to say I am the most observant Jewish porn star . . . but you know . . . compared to how I was raised I feel like the way I am now is pretty goy-ish.
[...]
Did the melodic voice of a cantor ever make you touch yourself in temple or just climax from the sheer power of faith?
My sister is a cantor in a synagogue in Indiana. And if you say something dirty about my sister, I will kick your ass.
OK, let’s change the subject. Are you into messy fun? Like what if I asked you to join me in a vat of schmaltz for a game of find the kosher salami?
I would tell you that I am a Sephardic Jew, not an Ashkenazi Jew, so I don’t speak Yiddish.
Filed under
TMZ reports,
The producer of an all-Israeli porn flick is under attack from rabbis who say his use of a food-certification symbol ain’t kosher.
Yesterday, Tight Fit Productions of Van Nuys, Calif., the purveyors of “Assraelis,” which was shot entirely in Israel with all-local talent, and in Hebrew (with, uh, English subtitles), received a cease-and-desist order letter from a lawyer representing Rabbi Yehuda Rosenbaum of KOF-K Kosher Certification, a New Jersey company that puts its stamp of approval on Kosher goods. Tight Fit’s DVD-cover claim of Israeli authenticity is accompanied by a Hebrew letter normally reserved for rabbi-ordained meats, grains, and other foodstuffs.
KOF-K’s lawyer says that Tight Fit is using the symbol “illegally” in violation of State and Federal Law, and plans to sue “if the situation is not rectified as quickly as possible.” Oren Cohen, the owner of Tight Fit, finds the action “funny,” but will modify the cover art before the film’s release next week — to satisfy what he calls the “very nice” rabbis.
No word from Cohen, who himself does not observe the Kashrut, on whether, despite their Kosher claims, meat and milk products were mixed during the making of “Assraelis.”
(c/o Jon G.)
Filed under
For more links, visit our Community directory.
