Eating in a Vegetarian Restaurant

Kislev 5784

Answer: For the purpose of this response, several qualifications must be stipulated from the outset. First, the restaurant in question is entirely vegetarian. That is to say, it is not the case where the restaurant in question is non-kosher but includes vegetarian options or even a separate vegetarian menu. Second, it is not an emergency situation where there is no better alternative. And third, the restaurant is not owned by Jews. If the restaurant were owned by Jews, there would be serious concerns about the status of the cookware if food was cooked on Shabbat, or if the restaurant used leaven during Passover.

Jews have historically struggled to find ways to observe kashrut in challenging circumstances. Before the advent of hotel and restaurants, Jews travelling from place to place would sometimes seek room and board with Gentiles. Clearly, Jews could not eat non-kosher meat in a Gentile residence. What Jews could eat was also limited. Rabbi Solomon Luria ruled (cited in Turei Zahav, Shulhan Arukh, 91 subpara. 2) that Jews should not eat pickled herring on Gentile plates without rinsing the plates first and should not even eat pickles. However, sixteenth century Rabbi Moses Isserles writes (Torat Hatat, Sec. 16) that in an emergency, when, for instance, a Jew is lodged in a Gentile house, it is permitted. Early twentieth century Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein (Arukh HaShulhan 91:2) agrees that travelling is considered an emergency. Even so, Jews should either rinse the Gentile’s plates before use or not put the food directly on the plate. Instead, they should place the food on a bed of lettuce (literally, vegetable peels), for example. It would seem, then, that there is a halakhic allowance for eating vegetarian food in an unsupervised, non-kosher facility when there is no other option.

Apart from travelling, in the modern period, as Jews became more integrated and accepted into society, business relations necessitated attending meetings often taking place in restaurants. Also, Jews involved in charitable causes could not refuse being included in fund-raising dinners. Compromises were in order. Still today, even with the growth of the number of kosher restaurants in Britain, the practice of observant Jews to eat cooked fish in non-kosher restaurants persists. It is a practice I witnessed myself in my travels to London and the tenacity of the practice among the frum has been confirmed to me by British visitors to the United States and Canada.

Nowadays, eating vegetarian food is less an act of desperation but a chosen lifestyle. Recent estimates claim that 22% of the world’s population is vegetarian, with India at 38% registering the highest percentage. In the United States, there are an estimated 24,000 vegetarian friendly eateries with almost 1500 exclusively vegan. There are fifty-six entirely vegan restaurants in the city of Toronto alone, making it one the most vegetarian friendly cities in the world. And the number of such restaurants across the globe, reports Forbes magazine, is on the rise.

Vegetarian restaurants naturally seem attractive to Jews who need not worry about violating the prohibition against eating non-kosher meat. And, in places where no kosher restaurants are located, vegetarian restaurants seem to be a welcome option. Exploiting that option came in the form of rabbinic support. Writing in the halakhic journal Techumim (Vol. 39 [2019], pp. 490-502), Dror Fixler, a member of the faculty of engineering at Bar Ilan University and an Orthodox rabbi, published a controversial article in which he claimed that effectively, all vegetarian restaurants are to be considered kosher, even in the absence of any rabbinic supervision, with the proviso that diners avoid any wine or vinegar. The reaction was swift and severe. Israeli Chief Sephardic Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef scolded Rabbi Fixler for failing to consult with the recognized authorities (gedolim) before publishing his article. Interestingly, criticism of the content of his article was absent. In 2023, the Conservative movement added to the controversy. A responsum authored by Rabbi Avi Reisner was accepted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards by a vote of 19-1. The carefully worded conclusion was that “eating in an unsupervised vegan or vegetarian restaurant (or a café or bakery that assures you it uses no animal products) is within the halakhic parameters of the observance of kashrut and of mitzvot more generally…” with the provisos that the restaurant is not frequented on Shabbat, or Saturday night, or for two weeks after Passover.

Before joining in the chorus of approval, four concerns need to be addressed: the rationale for prohibiting foods cooked by non-Jews, the danger of no rabbinic supervision, hidden worries, and public perceptions. Each will be considered in turn.

Foods cooked by non-Jews fall into the category of bishul akum, literally, the “cooking of idolaters.” The second chapter of the Mishnah Avodah Zara mentions a number of Gentile foodstuffs that are prohibited, including wine and vinegar (Mishnah 3), fish stew and cheese (Mishnah 4), milk, bread, oil, and vegetables boiled or pickled in wine or vinegar (Mishnah 6). Over time, the rabbis treated the bread baked by Gentiles with leniency on two grounds. First, the prohibition did not spread universally. And second, the ingredients in bread are obviously and invariably kosher (cf. Arukh HaShulhan, Yoreh De’ah, 112:31 and 113:2).

The sages offer two reasons for the prohibition against food cooked by Gentiles. In the first place, eating with Gentiles may lead to such close fraternization that it can lead to intermarriage (hatnut). In the second instance, the worry persists that non-Jews may add actual non-kosher ingredients to the food. Most authorities accept the former reason. RaShI, however, accepts both (compare Avodah Zara 35b, s.v. “v’ha-shlekot” with A.Z. 38a, s.v. “miderabanan”).

In its discussion of the Mishnah, the Gemara (A.Z. 37b-38b) comes to three important determinations. Any item that can be eaten raw is not subject to the prohibition, even if cooked by Gentiles. The prohibition only applies to foods suitable to be served to royalty, what Rabbi Jacob Cohn (The Royal Table, p. 125) calls a “delicacy.” And if a Jew had a role at any time in the cooking, the prohibition does not apply. All these determinations have been accepted as law (Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 113). Accordingly, eating “live,” that is, uncooked food in a vegan restaurant complies with all the relevant particulars. However, eating cooked food in a vegetarian restaurant remains problematic. It depends on what kind of food a Jew chooses from the menu. Since Jewish authorities generally consider eating meat as the most delightful way to observe Shabbat (cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Sabbath 30:10) and the happiest way to celebrate holidays (cf. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Resting on the Holidays 6:18), vegetarian food might be considered of lesser importance, unfit to be served to royalty, and therefore not subject to the prohibition of bishul akum at all. However, vegetarian food available today could meet with the gastronomic approval of gourmands anywhere, served in the most creative and elegant ways. Accordingly, vegetarian food cannot be so simply dismissed as outside the purview of the rabbinic prohibition.

Rabbi Reisner takes a global approach to the question. He looks to the reason for the rabbinic prohibition against bishul akum, arguing that the worry of intermarriage does not apply to gentile food served to Jewish patrons in a restaurant. Since the reason for the prohibition is no longer applicable, the prohibition is no longer in effect. (Halakhic literature is rich in discussion on the subject of batel ha-ta’am batel ha-gezerah, whether or not a law is still in effect when the reason for the law is no longer applicable. A full discussion of the literature would take us a far afield and is not essential for resolving this question.) Furthermore, Rabbi Reisner contends, history shows that some social decrees atrophy over time and go out of practice, like the prohibition of gentile bread. The same should be said about the prohibition against bishul akum.

Interestingly, Rabbi David Golinkin, also a Conservative rabbi, demurs. It is Rabbi Golinkin’s contention (Responsa in a Moment, Vol. 14, No. 7, February 7, 2020), that the underlying reason prohibiting gentile foods is not a fear of intermarriage, but a fear that, unsupervised, non-Jews may intentionally or unintentionally, add prohibited foodstuffs to the dish they are preparing. This is not only RaShI’s opinion, it is also the view of his grandson Rabbi Shmuel ben Meir (quoted in Or Zaru’a, Avodah Zara, 191), and Hagahot Asheri (on Rabbenu Asher, Avodah Zara, Chap. 2, para. 28, folio 83a), and that of Rabbi Moshe of Vienna himself (Or Zaru’a 192). Rabbi Golinkin, holder of a Ph.D. in Talmud, president of the Schechter Institutes, former chairman of Law Committee of the Masorti movement in Israel, consequently writes: “I believe that [RaShI’s] interpretation is the correct one” because the reason of intermarriage is not attached to the prohibition of gentile cooked foods in the printed editions of the Talmud (A.Z. 36b) nor in the Munich Manuscript or the Spanish manuscript of Avodah Zara published by Professor Shraga Abramson. This would also explain why two important rishonim (Rabbinical authorities who lived between 1040 CE and 1565 CE) emphasized that the prohibition against gentile cooked foods is not because of intermarriage [(Rabbeinu Gershom, quoted in Sefer Ha’oreh, Part I, paragraph 111*, ed. Buber, pp. 142 ff.; and Teshuvot Rabbeinu Gershom Me’or Hagolah, ed. Eidelberg, No. 20; and the Mordecai in the 13th century (A.Z., paragraph 830)]. This being the case, it would appear that the reason for the prohibition – fear of contamination from prohibited foodstuffs – is still very much apropos, especially when the vegetarian restaurant lacks kashrut supervision.

Having consulted with a notable author and rabbi ordained by Ner Israel who supervises two vegan restaurants, I learned that the absence of supervision would certainly be a substantive worry. Without supervision it is unclear if green leafy vegetables are given careful enough examination to ensure that they are void of insect infestation (See Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 84). The same is true for strawberries and other fruits and vegetables where the likelihood of finding insects these days is high. And if they are infested, proper and effective washing and/or soaking must be assured.

More critically, there are no uniform and universal standards to which vegetarian restaurants must comply. According to the Vegetarian Resource Group (On-line Newsletter, February 19, 2019), there is no legal definition of “vegan” in the United States. Restauranteurs can “feel free to use the term as they wish.” Further, different certifying agencies to which a vegetarian restaurant may subscribe have differing standards. And there is no governmental body that oversees vegetarian restaurants or inspects for compliance. The only thing that might prevent cheaters from deceiving the public is the possibility of being sued for fraud, but only if the deception is ever discovered.

Despite all this, Rabbi Reisner (p. 15) claims that “it seems reasonable to assert that gross violations of vegan and vegetarian claims by the serving of identifiable meat dishes would not be in the interest of a restaurant, therefore it would not be the choice of a restauranteur to be in flagrant disregard of his or her obligations in this regard.” Readers will note how Rabbi Reisner prejudiced his argument by injecting the word “identifiable.” It is the unidentifiable additions that speak to the need for supervision. Moreover, the only “obligations” a vegetarian restauranteur has are self-imposed and subjective. And further, if the argument is contingent on the best interests of the owner, it may very well be the case that using ingredients that lower his or her costs but are not completely vegetarian may indeed be in his or her interest. Of course, the likelihood of cooks substituting more expensive meat for less expensive tofu, for instance, is remote. But there are some meat substitutes that are equally costly and less flavorful. The possibility of the intentional use of meat or meat by-products in a vegetarian restaurant is real. Relying exclusively on the honesty of the owner is wishful thinking.

Besides, there is the matter of hidden ingredients. Chemical additives for flavor enhancement and prolonged shelf life, some of which are derived from non-kosher meat sources, are insinuated in almost every commercial food product, and often not required to be labeled. These are hidden worries. Emulsifiers like mono- and diglycerides, often derived from animal fats, are in margarine, ice cream, mayonnaise, salad dressings, baked goods, and even peanut butter. In fact, Rabbi Reisner (p. 15) admits that: “It is this concern about the inadvertent presence of unkosher ingredients despite the proprietor’s effort to shut out all meat-based products that remains the paramount obstacle to eating in any restaurant absent a hekhsher.” These hidden chemical ingredients may not bother all vegetarians but are problematic in matters of kashrut.

A final concern is that of public perception. Writing for the Panel of Halakhic Inquiry of the Union for Traditional Judaism, Rabbi David Novak took up the question of “Eating in a Non-Kosher Restaurant” (Tomeikh KaHalakhah, Vol. II, p. 41) and concluded: “As for covering the head in such places, one should be careful to avoid creating any potential misconception (mar’it ayin) which might arise when a person with a kippah on his head eats in a non-kosher establishment. Therefore, one would be well-advised to keep available a hat or other type of head-covering for such situations…” The same would apply for eating in an unsupervised vegetarian restaurant.

The fundamental problem that inheres in the responsa of both Rabbis Fixler and Resiner is that both give blanket permission to eat in vegetarian establishments irrespective of the particular circumstances of any specific restaurant. Circumstances, however, differ. Standards of operation as well ingredients vary. That is why Rabbi Saul Wagschal (Practical Guide to Kashrut, p. 83) writes that “although some vegetarian food may in fact be kosher, this cannot be taken as a general rule.”  Consider the status of “vegan cheese.” Vegan cheese is made with a milk-substitute (from cashews, almons or soy) to which a bacterial culture is added and supplemented with oils, emulsifiers, and thickeners. The thickeners can be tapioca, pea flour, arrowroot, or agar from seaweed: all reliably plant-based. But oils – and especially emulsifiers – can be problematic. And while Mozzarella cheese requires no rennet or citric acid, it does require vinegar which can also be problematic.

Kosher-observant patrons need to ask pointed questions rather than assume that every vegetarian establishment is suitable. Both Rabbis Fixler and Reisner demonstrate that the halakhic principles of kashrut are effective in successfully addressing issues related to food preparation and service. But the burden remains on the patron to ensure that non-kosher foodstuffs, hidden or overt, are not on the menu.

An addendum: Rabbi Isaac Klein, z”l, published a lengthy and well-researched responsum on the kashrut of cheeses in 1970 (Responsa and Halakhic Studies, pp. 43-58). For those who are inclined to follow his permissive ruling, they have many renowned authorities on whom to rely: Rabbi Yehiel Michel Epstein (Arukh HaShulhan, Y.D. 87:42; Rabbi Eliyahu Henkin, Hapardes, Iyyar 5722, p. 9 and Edut L’Yisrael, pp. 173-177; Rabbi Pesah Tzvi Frank, Responsa Har Tzvi, 82; Rabbi Isser Yehudah Untermann, Or Ha-Mizrah, Tevet 5717, p. 9; and Rabbi Yehudah Leib Graubart, She’elot u-Teshuvot Havalim Banimin). For those who are disinclined to follow these rulings and be stricter, may they receive a special blessing.

Rabbi Wayne Allen for the Panel of Halakhic Inquiry