08 Jul CAN AI BE A MASHGIACH?

I. AI and Video
Supervision
As artificial
intelligence (AI)
makes its way into
the workforce, it
is worth asking
whether it can serve as a mashgiach, a
kosher inspector. While in the future there
may be AI robots that can visit restaurants
and factories, we do not have to look
ahead to consider this question. Already
today, many factories and restaurants are
equipped with video cameras that enable
remote supervision. During Covid, the
use of such surveillance became even
more widespread.
One problem with video surveillance
is that it requires someone to watch
the camera feeds, which can become
a significant challenge as kosher
supervision cameras proliferate. AI may
offer a solution to this problem. Can AI
be trusted to inspect the camera feeds
and certify that nothing improper occurs
at the establishments under supervision?
AI technology paired with live video

feeds has already become a valuable
tool in general surveillance. It monitors
activity, detects anomalies and provides
real-time data on temperature, movement
and workflow. In fact, it can also monitor
other electronic information about food
production, such as ingredient ordering
and delivery schedules. AI can even
reduce human error or alert to suspicious
behavior. However, kosher inspection
involves more than monitoring.
A mashgiach must be aware of the
broader context: how ingredients are
sourced, how utensils are maintained
and how personnel follow halachic

restrictions. Nothing can replace an in-
person inspection. A simple conversation

with employees reveals a lot about
the professionalism of the operation,
unexpected changes that have happened
or are about to happen, and general
information about personnel and
processes. Additionally, cameras can be
manipulated and visual access may not
capture essential details.
Be that as it may, there still is room for
AI to serve as the video mashgiach that
works alongside human inspectors. Is AI

halachically trusted for this
work?
II. Mashgiach: Testimony or
Trust?
Very often, a mashgiach is
not permanently stationed at
a factory or restaurant. He
comes and goes periodically
(yotzei ve-nichnas),
conducting spot checks. The
halachic mechanism that
allows yotzei ve-nichnas is
the concept of mirsas, fear. Namely, the
workers do not violate proper procedures
because they fear being caught by the
mashgiach on a spot check or on a video
stream. This fear serves as a deterrent
and ensures compliance.
When a mashgiach affirms a factory’s
procedures, is he testifying to the kosher
status of the food? If he has not witnessed
the food’s production, it is not clear
whether he can testify to that. Perhaps the
concept of mirsas enables the mashgiach
to testify even when he does not see
the entire production. Or, alternatively,
it eliminates the need for testimony
altogether, allowing the mashgiach to
simply report facts on the ground. Put
differently, is the mashgiach testifying
about the food or is he serving as an
agent of the supervising rabbi who
testifies about the food? As long as the
mashgiach verifies the food production
to the satisfaction of the supervising
rabbi’s halachic requirements, the
supervising rabbi – whose name
appears on the kosher certificate – can
testify that the food is kosher. If so, AI
can serve as a mashgiach.
On the other hand, if a mashgiach is
considered a witness, then the laws of
testimony for forbidden foods apply.
Only an observant Jewish adult can
serve in such a capacity. A gentile,
a child or someone lacking halachic
competence is disqualified. AI, which
lacks personhood and obligation in
mitzvos, would certainly be excluded
on these grounds.
III. Women and AI
The question of AI as a mashgiach can
be informed by the halachic discussion
about whether women can serve
in kosher supervision. Rav Moshe
Feinstein (20th cen., US) argues that a
woman may serve as a kosher supervisor
(Igros Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 2:44). Rav
Feinstein addresses two concerns: 1)

is a woman’s testimony accepted in
complex kosher matters? To this, he
answers yes. 2) Can a woman serve in a
communal position of authority? To this,
Rav Feinstein answers no but suggests
that she appoint a supervising rabbi to
formally issue the kosher certificate
while she serves as the kosher inspector.
Can this model work for AI also? It
seems not, because Rav Feinstein still
requires the woman inspector to testify
to the supervising rabbi about the food’s
kosher status. However, Rav Feinstein
opens the door to a different framework.
In the directly preceding responsum (op
cit., 43), he writes that in many practical
areas of kashrus, we rely not on formal
testimony but on ne’emanus – the
halachic assumption of trustworthiness.
When someone is known to be honest
and trustworthy, halachah allows
reliance on their word even without the
structure of testimony (Igros Moshe,
Yoreh De’ah 2:43). If so, then maybe
even AI can be relied upon even if the
mashgiach testifies to the food’s kosher
status. A well-trained AI, thoroughly
tested and validated, may be even more
trustworthy than a human because it has
no personal interests or distractions that
might compromise its judgment.
If so, it seems that when it comes to
monitoring video feeds, AI can serve as a
kosher inspector that provides important
information for the consideration of the
supervising rabbi. This is true assuming
that the AI has been tested and verified as
an accurate inspector of videos. This also
assumes that a separate inspector makes
site visits to review other pertinent
information.
Potentially, AI is a powerful tool of
kosher supervision. It can inspect
important parts of the kosher food
production process. However, currently
it cannot replace the site visit and merely
supplements the visit with the monitoring
of electronic surveillance.