4

There is this food/drink product that has a Christian symbol and other associated things, and yet there is also a hechsher.

Assuming the hechsher is accepted to be reliable etc., may one consume (i.e benefit) from such an item in general (i.e one that has an idoltarous image?)

Note: This food item is seemingly no different in any other way (i.e not with an apparent designation for idolatrous practices etc.)

The image is on the package, not the food itself.

  • To get some clarity, does the food item itself have the image, or is it the packaging? If it's just the package, I can't see any problem assuming that the hechsher itself is reliable. WHat I mean by that, is that a reliable hechsher woule have probably accounted for any possible problems that might be caused by the image on the packaging and / or the food item itself. – DanF Jan 21 '16 at 16:00
  • Adding to @DanF, see the link below. If by any chance you're speaking of a crucifix shape, it seems that it would be allowed anyway, as it is not considered to be related to avoda zara. judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/67299/… – Cauthon Jan 21 '16 at 16:46
  • 1
    Please clarify: Are you talking about foods like Bragg Apple Cider Vingegar, where the label includes the Christian fish symbol and a verse from the New Testament? Or are you talking about foods like Pepperidge Farm Chessmen Cookies, where crosses are baked into the cookies in bas-relief, but the product has no overt connection to Christianity aside from depicting chess pieces?... – Fred Jan 21 '16 at 20:05
  • 1
    @Fred the former (i.e promotion of an actual idol-worship/heretical ideology). – jj2 Jan 22 '16 at 0:12
  • 2
    @jj2 Interesting. I suggest you edit this clarification into your post. To clarify further: Does the label imply that the product is for people who believe in religion X? Does the label not imply this, but still praise religion X? Or worse, is there reason to suspect the product is meant for 'avoda zara (e.g. communion wafers)? You may want to include an example for additional clarity. – Fred Jan 22 '16 at 1:04
3
+50

I will try to briefly around the issue

        **Make it clear that I am not allowed to decide**

1- You need to clarify if today a christian symbol as a cross is an avoydo zoro, סוגיא של שיתוף ושל האמונה שיש כיום. יש גם ע"ז שביטלו אותה

2- You need to clarify if the food itself has this form or the package.

3- The object is an offering to an idole or an Idole? An offering that has not been offering yet, that was manufactured by an idolatrous is prohibited. In the guemoro (masseches Avoda zara, and a litle in Rosh Hashana) some ustensiles with drawings. if there are not honorific are not prohibed.

4- there is a difference if the form is in relief or not.

All this was an invitation to explain the case.

But if it is with a Kashruss, all the questions are probably resolved.

Following the comment,I feel I understand that the case is as follows:

1- the problem is In package. The packaging is certainly not a recipient of great value. Moreover the image is printed and certainly not embossed.

-->In Shulhan Aruch Yoreh Deah 141 sayf 3, If there are utensils with drawings of idols, and these are not honorary utensils (package is intended to be thrown in the trash and is certainly not designed to be used for worship.). The package can be used because the drawings are only decorative.

2 - the symbol is christian fish symbol, plus a verse of new Testament.

---> In Shulhan Aruch (YD 141-6), the permission is clearly mentionned, embossed too.

--> This specific fish is not the object of worship, but tells a (supposed) miraculous event.

3 --> A verse of New Testament is not an Avoda Zara. It is not holly following the halocho. But not an object of A.Z. There is a problem with sifrey akum (Yoreh Deah 139). But it is almost certain that it is not relevant here.it is not forbidden for a bookbinder to work on such books

  • The food is empty of self problem.

    But I understand Your sense of unease.

Nevertheless I wish you good appetite.

------> It is perfectly kosher; is it tasty?

  • updated the question for #2. for #1, lets supposed it is. for #3 its printed, but I think it might be considered honorific since it is decidedly "religious" – jj2 Jan 29 '16 at 6:01

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .