Last week, in what seems to be a most bizarre kashrus case, news media sources reported that Scott Morrell, the owner of one of Long Island’s largest catering companies, has been accused of seriously violating kashrus law by having workers prepare non-kosher food in their kosher kitchens. Morrell Caterers is a glatt kosher caterer with numerous patrons in the Five Towns.
The Five Towns Jewish Times sat down with Scott Morrell and spoke both with his lawyers as well as the firm representing the accusers.
The allegations come from the former chef and general manager of Morrell Caterers, who claim they were instructed to prepare non-kosher meals in one of three kitchens operated by the company. Former chef Michael Savitsky and former general manager Tom Cataldo claimed in court papers that starting in September 2010 the company expanded to serve non-Jewish clients. Savitsky and Cataldo say they were told by Morrell to prepare non-kosher foods such as shrimp, lobster, and pork using the same facilities, plates, and utensils used for kosher foods. Morrell vigorously denied these allegations and claimed that these two employees had made these arrangements behind his back and without his knowledge in a purposeful attempt to smear him.
Initially, it was unclear as to which of the Morrell establishments Savitsky and Cataldo were accusing. One of their facilities, the Woodbury Jewish Center, is under the supervision of the Vaad HaKashrus of Flatbush, while the other two are under the supervision of a Reform rabbi in Long Island. Morell Caterers also caters out of Temple Israel of Lawrence.
After further clarification with both parties, it was established that none of the accusers were questioning the Woodbury facility. The Vaad HaKashrus of the Flatbush Vaad HaRabbonim released a letter to that effect on Friday as well.
In a videotaped interview with the Five Towns Jewish Times, Scott Morrell and his lawyers explained that Morrell had previously filed a lawsuit against his former family lawyer who had defrauded him for $1.1 million. The current lawyers produced a “smoking gun” letter from the attorneys for the accusers that said the kashrus lawsuit will be dropped if Mr. Morrell drops the lawsuit against the former family lawyer. The total amount that the former lawyer has allegedly defrauded from all victims is $19 million.
The accusers did not return phone calls to the Five Towns Jewish Times nor did the law firm wish to address questions on record.
But while it may be true that Mr. Morrell is being blackmailed into dropping his lawsuit to recover his funds, is there any truth to the kashrus allegations about the two facilities not under the Vaad of Flatbush?
In a videotaped interview with Mr. Morrell and his legal team, the Five Towns Jewish Times did determine that Mr. Morrell was aware that one of his employees was purchasing non-kosher food for outside catering events and that he had arranged for that to occur. He explained that this employee did so for a separate fourth company that he only partially owned. Mr. Morrell explained that he was unaware that this was a violation of Jewish law. Mr. Morrell explained that if the violations of kashrus did occur at the other two facilities, it was done by these two former employees.
What was the local reaction to the kashrus aspect of all this? At first some of the Five Towns rabbis sent out a warning to their congregants by e‑mail. Others sent out a letter that they stand behind the supervision of the Vaad HaKashrus of Flatbush. Certainly, over the weekend, the Five Towns was in a tumult because of the accusations of these two former employees.
How Does Jewish Law View Their Testimony?
All this, of course, brings up the issue about the way Jewish law views the testimony, statements, and allegations of gentiles and non-Sabbath-observing Jews in regard to matters of halachah. Does halachah give weight to such accusations? Are there times when such accusations do come under consideration? When and under what circumstances?
It should be noted that these are issues of halachic protocol. Just as there are certain protocols in regard to secular matters such as legal documents, hospital settings, and laboratory requirements, so too does this exist in matters of halachah. For example, if a translation of a legal document was not performed by a certified translator, the document is not deemed legal in most courts.
The mainstream view. The Rashba (Vol. I #243) writes in a response that, with the exception of testimony regarding a woman whose husband’s whereabouts are not known, we do not find that the Torah granted admissibility to a gentile’s testimony regarding halachic matters, even to prohibit that which was initially considered permitted.
There does seem to be a dissenting view, however. Rabbi Shlomo Luria (Yam Shel Shlomo, Chulin 8:65) writes that a gentile is believed to say that a vessel being sold to a Jew was still in use that day (and therefore has more stringent laws associated with it). This seems to indicate that, to a certain degree, even on a biblical matter, a gentile is believed to forbid something with a previously accepted status. At first glance, it would seem that the accusers might be able to point to this Yam Shel Shlomo for some backing.
Both the Shach and Taz, however (YD Chapter 122 subparagraph 4), take issue with this Yam Shel Shlomo. Also, the Yam Shel Shlomo himself limits the case to where there is another prohibition in existence anyway—the fact that the gentile’s vessel was not exactly kosher in the first place. Here, we are assuming that what Cataldo and Savitsky were discussing was assumed to be kosher (at least in the Woodbury establishment), so there they may not be believed, but regarding places where Shabbos violation and bishul akum may be taking place (such as in, we are assuming, the other two Morrell establishments), it could be they are believed according to the Yam Shel Shlomo.
Notwithstanding the opinion of the Yam Shel Shlomo, it seems that most authorities reject or severely restrict his position. One can therefore assume that the normative view is the one espoused by the Rashba mentioned earlier.
If one trusts them. There is another case, however, which sheds further light on our case. There is a Torah prohibition in slaughtering two animals on the same day where one is the offspring of the other. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 16:11) discusses a case where a gentile informed a Jewish purchaser that the two animals that were just sold were actually related. Generally speaking, the statement would not have halachic significance, unless one has a special relationship with the seller and believes him. If he does believe him, the Shulchan Aruch rules that it is, in fact, forbidden. The term used by the author of the Shulchan Aruch is “Ee mehemin lei—if he believes him.”
The operative factor here is the special relationship. Otherwise, they would not be believed. Here, however, not too many people in the Jewish community know Savitsky or Cataldo, so the “Ee mehemin lei” is not existent.
Incidental conversation. Another issue that plays a central role in the believability of gentiles in Jewish law is the idea of masiach lefi tumo—where information comes out in incidental conversation. While, generally speaking, a gentile is not believed even if the information came out in incidental conversation (see Shach, YD 98:2), the Vilna Gaon (EH 17:125) explains that according to some authorities, when the information comes out incidentally, a gentile is believed to forbid something, but not to permit it. Here, in our case, the information from the accusers did not come out incidentally; it was purposefully presented in a lawsuit.
What if the gentile is incurring a loss through his statement? Is his statement more admissible? The Taz (YD 316:4) writes that it is. The Taz cites a long case where a gentile entered into negotiations concerning the sale of a cow and would have certainly gained more money had his statement not been believed. The Taz explains that the reason he is believed is not because of his statement, but rather the additional indication to the veracity of his words that is entailed in the fact that he is losing money. Here in our case, both Savitsky and Cataldo seem to be possible five percent owners in the firm. Normally, this would indicate a believability, but let us recall that the Taz only stated his words regarding incidental conversation, and this case is not incidental but purposeful.
Circumstantial evidence. There is also something in halachah known as raglayim le’davar —legs, or further indication to the matter. The Maharam Lubin, in a response (#66), writes that when there is raglayim le’davar, or further evidence or indication to the matter, the gentile is believed. For example, if a gentile has just examined the stomach of a cow and finds a nail, when he approaches the Jew with the bloody nail in hand, he is certainly believed that he found it there. In our case if the circumstantial evidence is there, then there is certainly room to consider the accusations. One must, of course, be very careful to ensure that the circumstantial evidence was not merely placed there to throw suspicion upon the owner because of some side feud or motivation. On the other hand, care must be taken not to quickly believe an explanation that may not be true.
Expert chef. In previous times (see Chullin 97a), we relied upon the testimony of an expert chef to tell us whether a non-kosher or a dairy item was inserted into a mixture. Nowadays, however, this has fallen into disuse, perhaps because there is a debate as to whether the expert is only believed in incidental conversation or in general.
Rabbinic issues. All this up until now discusses the admissibility of a gentile’s word regarding a Biblically forbidden matter. When we are discussing rabbinic matters, there is a debate as to whether a gentile is believed in incidental conversation. The Trumas HaDeshen and the Shach rule that he is believed, while the Pri Chadash rules that he is not.
Another factor, of course, is that the Vaad HaKashrus of the Vaad HaRabbonim of Flatbush supervises Morrell of Woodbury in the Woodbury Jewish Center. Rabbi Tsvi Goldberg reports, “At Morrell of Woodbury, it is full-time glatt kosher with a mashgiach temidi, often more than one. They also have video access which they can rewind at any time. There are also nine cameras.” When we have the word of two gentile workers against the word of a Sabbath-observing, kosher witness working for a well-regarded kashrus agency, there is certainly no contest.

The author can be reached
at Yairhoffman2@gmail.com.