The CHK and Rabbi Weismandel Spar in Leaked Email Exchange Over Perceived Kashrus Issues At the AgriStar Plant

The following email exchanges were leaked between the CHK and Rabbi Weismandel following the release of a letter from Rabbi Weismandel lambasting the CHK for making Kashrus claims against AgriStar.

Due to the nature of the email exchange we will simply post them in their entirety in the order that they were sent.

From Rabbi Kirszenberg of he CHK directed to Rabbi Weismandel

Erev Shabbos Parashas Vayakhel 5784

Dear Rabbi Weissmandl Shlita,

We are writing to you privately regarding the letter you recently publicized where you questioned the
motives of our Beis Din in discontinuing the supervision at AgriStar.

From the outset, the Rabbonim chose not to engage in a public dispute and sought to avoid conflict.
Therefore, they did not detail the various issues in their letter. Normally, we would not respond to such a
letter. However, due to והייתם נקיים we cannot overlook a situation where a letter is publicly circulated
(this without prior discussion with the Rabbonim) stating that there is “no kernel of truth” in the letter of
our esteemed Rabbonim shlita. We strongly urge you to retract your statement.

Your letter came as a great surprise to us, as we are sure you are aware (or should be aware) of the
happenings at the plant. Respectfully, we will limit this email to a few examples of issues that you would
have been aware of that contradict your assertions that the motivations are not related to Kashrus and
that “the owners have never mixed in to the Kashrus.”

היאך החי יכול להכחיש את החי when just a few days ago, Rabbi Weissmandl shlita called in our local
kashrus representative in Postville and informed him that our demand for proper supervision at the
salting station cannot be implemented?

You should also be aware that your representative, Rabbi Shlomo Fried, received an email just this past
Monday from our local kashrus representative.

The email states, among other things, that

“last week a new shochet was brought down without prior confirmation from CHK,” and

“on several occasions, I have given instructions, but they were not implemented,” or

“please ensure that I receive daily copies or pictures of the melicha forms. It seems like they were not being filled out.”

This email concludes:

“I understand that some of these concerns are not because of you. You have been very helpful. If there’s
any problem with your superiors in these matters, please inform me so we can resolve this in the best
possible way.”

Above all, you must know of the email dated December 29, sent from CHK to Agri, copied to you as well.
The email, although lengthy details a discussion between the Vaad Hakashrus and Beis Din with AgriStar management who were resisting the implementation of the instructions of CHK and includes the following quotes:

“the vein in the chuck under the first rib toward the neck, discussed in the meeting, must be removed and the dried blood in the channel of the back of the chuck must be properly cleaned. If fat in that area is bloody it must be removed”;

“three properly spaced, horizontal cuts must be made across the vein in the back of the tail”;

“staff must be instructed to open the back of the tongue and remove (not cut) the whole blood vein”;

“This was the practice in Agristar until recently. The change back to another method was a serious breach of the trust we place in you”;

“The ‘pillars’ that will carry our hechsher must be cleaned on both sides”;

“The fat and membrane between the 12th and 13th rib must be completely removed”;

“We are troubled by the pushback from the plant even on some of the (by your own numbers), less costly measures, which we requested”;

“they had been rolled back without approval or even any notification to the hechsher”;

“This type of behavior, is a serious breach of kashrus protocol…”

Are you not aware of the subsequent email from Rabbi Weismandl shlita dated Jan. 1 to the CHK?

The email stated:

“I personally called up rabbi Greenberg that everything is on review but agri was not willing at the time to implement”.

The final straw was the conversation Rabbi Weissmandl shlita had this week with one of our representatives, where he asserted that he is the ultimate kashrus authority. (Indeed, this is for us a serious issue. The CHK cannot in full conscience maintain our certification of a place when someone
else decides what our kashrus standards should be, and we no longer have the ability to make kashrus
decisions as we see fit. This is even more telling in your recent letter. While you are certainly entitled to
keep your certification as you see fit, it baffles us that when a kashrus agency decided to remove certification from a plant due to kashrus issues, you come out with a public statement stating that what
our Rabbonim said is not true. Only our Rabbonim have the authority to decide what they think is a
kashrus issue for the CHK clientele).

Yet, in the same conversation Rabbi Weissmandel shlita indicated that if anything does not receive
approval from management, it will not be approved. This contradictory stance raises concerns about the
independence and integrity of the kashrus supervision.

These are but examples of the many issues. Our Rabbonim shlita are known for their insistence on
proper kashrus standards and prioritize kashrus over anything. They do not seek to be extra machmir,
but insist on following proper policies, even if, as in this case the discontinuance of supervision will result
in the significant financial loss to the hechsher. All of us need to examine whether financial concerns
(“Negiah”) can taint our view of Kashrus issues.

As mentioned in the public letter of the Beis Din, “trust and the human factor are the keys to kashrus.”
We understand the complexities involved in maintaining kashrus standards, but it is disheartening to
witness the prioritization of financial interests over halachic integrity. (In contrast to others, the Crown
Heights rabbonim have nothing to do with the financial side of things, and don’t sign checks). Above all,
it is troubling that certain decisions seem to be contingent upon management approval. This undermines
the integrity of the kashrus process and raises questions about the independence of the supervision.

Rabbi Yosef Kirszenberg
CHK Kashrus Director, in the name of the Vaad HaKashrus

From the son of Rabbi Weismandel, to Rabbi Kirszenberg of the CHK

גיט וואך

Although the email wasn’t sent to me directly, my name was mentioned, and I feel it’s necessary to clarify some points.

My response will be divided into two parts: the first I will address my personal involvement, and the second I will focus on Agri Star.

Personally, I supported Rabbi Zirkind by providing him with all the necessary tools. This included helping to implement procedures for mashgichim to complete paperwork on the kill floor and during salting. Rabbi Zirkind wanted two mashgichim at the salting stage, but I explained that having two mashgichim in the same place would not be effective, as they would rely on each other. I suggested adding another mashgiach at the evis line earlier if checking for צרורת דם was necessary.

All requested changes in nikur were implemented, including precise changes at Aron’s best to avoid mistakes.

Despite Rabbi Zirkind’s lack of experience in sakanim and shchita, as well as the overall system of running a slaughterhouse efficiently, he still had the right to ask a shochet to change a knife if he believed it wasn’t sharp enough. The shochtim respected him, and the same respect was given when he demanded a knife change due to a perceived שינוי.

However, I discussed his use of other shochtim to do “his” work, which created friction among the shochtim. Rabbi Zirkind thought that ********** was causing הגרמות , but when I observed with him, there were no הגרמות . He insisted that נתן המר should instruct *********** not to do הגרמות , a responsibility that only Rabbi Zirkind should have handled. If he felt uncomfortable letting a shochet know about their performance, he couldn’t rely on someone else, as it caused resentment and tension. In fact, Rabbi Segal’s primary responsibility was giving הערות for the shochtim, and I used to give him reports, after which he would call them from NY. Rabbi Zirkind didn’t do this, which I understood given his daily interactions with them, but he couldn’t assign his duties to others. The same issue arose when he instructed Fried to tell everyone to obey him; I reminded him that Fried is only a scheduler and lacks the authority to give such instructions.

But Despite these only challenge I fully cooperated with Rabbi Zirkind’s requests, with mashgichim filling out daily reports on the salt and kill floors. Numbering on the kill floor was changed, and nikur was updated. Any future changes would not be challenged as long as they didn’t conflict with my approach, a דוגמא such as having two משגיחים in the same place part 2, regarding the letter Rabbi kirshenberg wrote to Rabbi Abrams about the nikur, I don’t understand the relevance, as the changes were made. My response, along with Rabbi Greenberg’s, was “only” to clarify that the changes were not implemented at “the time” the letter was written.

With Regarding bringing in a shochet without approval, Rabbi Shtrok had previously worked with Agri and was on their list. If the instructions were not to bring in anyone without prior notice, that was a new rule, and the scheduler can’t be held responsible for not knowing.

I hope this gives some chloric clarifications for those seeking them.

A follow up response will come from my father shlita. I rest my case here and will no longer engaged them.

Rabbi M. Weissmandl

From Rabbi Weismandel Responding to Rabbi Kirszenberg of the CHK