The court ruled that that it was illegal for the Chief Rabbinate to allow Yechiel Ya'acobovitz, Chief Rabbi of Herzliya, to deny kosher certificates to restaurants, hotels and other food-serving venues that sell vegetables that were grown in Jewish-owned soil inside the borders of the Land of Israel during the shmita year. Instead, Ya'acobovitz, a haredi rabbi who adopted a stringent interpretation of Jewish laws governing shmita, must either provide kosher certificates himself or allow more lenient rabbis to do so.There are other important details in the article, so please read that as well.
This has incredibly far-reaching consequences, from a secular court determining an issue that is wholly that of the religious courts, to chumrot [good or bad] being forced upon people or not, to how policy is made... this is going to be messy and crazy.
Arguments can be made for mistakes on all parties here. Heter mechira was and is done for purposes that are both noble and important. Whether some of those reasons are less applicable now is a question worthy of debate (are squatters truly going to get away with taking land today?), but to try and force it on people seems both unwise and unfair. Clearly, many rabbonim have felt and do feel that this heter is valid, so why should those who hold by it be punished?
Forget heter mechira for a moment, and apply this mode of thinking to any subject. Should a Rabbinical Council of any sort be permitted to force chumrot on the rest of the public? It's hard to disagree with the Court's reasoning on this:
But the High Court rejected the chief rabbinate's policy of encouraging more stringent kosher supervision methods arguing that it was an unjustified infringement on non-haredi individuals' rights.Of course, the Rabbinate could have avoided this whole issue by not using such methods to carry out their wishes. Understandably, they wished that people would not rely on a heter that many do not think is valid, and were, according to the article, simply trying to encourage people not to rely on the heter. [Which is also an interesting debate.] However, they likely should have just forced an addition to the kashrus certificate noting that they're relying on heter mechira, which would allow consumers to decide whether they wished to rely on the heter or not, rather than forcing it on the store owners.
On the other hand, it seems strange for the Court to be wading into an area where they seemingly should not be. Having the secular court intervene in a religious matter does not seem like a good precedent for the future. In this case, the reach is limited to stating that charedim cannot force an overreaching charedi viewpoint on the rest of the community. But what does this allow? Can someone who is not religious complain that their own individual rights are violated by some religious standards?
This is terrible precedent... and in this case, it is the charedim who have brought it upon us, not the secular. The secular Court simply took advantage of a huge blunder by the charedi community.
Again, this is huge... and not good.
Actually, stores and restaurants already state whether their products are heter mechira or not. And, the Rabinate is a government organization, so the Supreme Court does have the right to rule on it. Also, you should read the judgment more carefully. The court wasn't getting into the Halachic debate, b/c it's not their place to discuss it. They were ruling on the procedures, and the ruling was that the Rabinate did not follow the correct procedures, and, therefore, they over-ruled it.
ReplyDeleteBut, you're 100% right. This was on the Rabinate. It's not their place to force a Chumra on the general population. The overwhelming majority of the Rabinnical society here has ruled time and time again that heter mechira is valid, and those that don't accept it and take on the Chumra DO HAVE ALTERNATIVES. Turning the Chumra into the mainstream is wrong and dangerous. It's like the OU coming out and saying that they will only give a hechsher to Chalev Yisrael milk b/c they ruled independently that that's the only Halachically valid way to make milk Kosher. The only difference is that OU would get away with it b/c they're a private company. The Rabinate is part of the government. They don't have the right or the jurisdiction to do that.
-OC
Actually, stores and restaurants already state whether their products are heter mechira or not.
ReplyDeleteFunny, because I thought I saw that when I was in Israel - thanks!
And, the Rabinate is a government organization, so the Supreme Court does have the right to rule on it.
I don't disagree that they can't; simply that they shouldn't. It's like the SCOTUS overreaching here in the US, which has happened recently.
I didn't say they were getting into the Halachic debate; I'm just saying that it's close. I didn't see anything about procedures...
As for the rest, amen. Great comment.
If this was not an attempt to enforce a chumra but an attempt to enforce normative Jewish law (which may be true here!), what would you say then, Ezzie?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I'm going to address the normative Jewish law question. Seeing as how many poskim have without a doubt been using this heter for over a century, including the Rabbinate, and *still* do, it's hard to argue this is normative Jewish law.
ReplyDeleteBut really, that's the problem. Because the Charedim basically "blew" it in this case by overstepping their bounds (or certainly going about it the wrong way - see OC's comment), they're not putting at risk a situation where it IS normative Jewish law. And then what will happen? How will people distinguish? Will it all go private? Will every group start creating its own set of rules? Sure, it could all work out fine, but I don't think that's a great system. The groups in Israel are much more extreme than they are here in the US.
Bob makes a good point. Conceptually there is no difference between Shmitta and Gerus and religious marriage laws, except that the former is more open to debate Halachically. If the issue is imposing on the community, then I don't really see a difference.
ReplyDeleteI haven't really followed the issue closely, but I thought a a major problem was that the Rabbinate officially supports Heter Mechira, but allowed individual Rabbinates under their authority to decide for themselves. If the Rabbinate is going to have any use it must be a centralized institution (I never thought I'd hear myself calling for more government centralization). Otherwise, why not just disband the Rabbinate completely and let each group decide the Halacha for itself?
I lost you in the beginning, Nephtuli. I don't see why any of them should be a difference in terms of their ability to impose... so long as it's across the board agreed halachically. This isn't.
ReplyDeleteI agree, that for it to have any use, it needs to be centralized. And for it to be centralized and carry weight, it also can't cater to extremes that are unnecessary or arguable interpretations of the halacha.
Otherwise, it SHOULD disband and let each group decide for itself... but I think that's ripe for problems, as noted above.
So you believe Halacha can be imposed on a majority secular population as long as there is wide agreement over its dictates, but not if there are legitimate disagreements over the contents of a specific Halacha?
ReplyDeleteI don't really understand why that would matter. If one believes that Halacha should be the law in some cases, it should be up to the Rabbinate to decide the Halacha. In those situations the courts and other government bodies should defer unless the Rabbinate's decision is unconscionable (or unreasonable if that's the test you want). If the Rabbinate decided to eliminate Heter Mechira, I'd have no problem with that because they have that right and the decision is reasonable.
Whoa, define "imposed". This is different from a rule forbidding people to do something.
ReplyDeleteBut to some extent, assuming that we're allowing a Rabbinate to have some kind of sway, then yes - when halacha is universal, that halacha can be the 'final ruling', so to speak. I don't think that we should be stopping people from cooking on Shabbos, but I don't see why a Kosher certificate can't be withheld from someone not keeping a Kosher store.
If one believes that Halacha should be the law in some cases, it should be up to the Rabbinate to decide the Halacha. In those situations the courts and other government bodies should defer unless the Rabbinate's decision is unconscionable (or unreasonable if that's the test you want). If the Rabbinate decided to eliminate Heter Mechira, I'd have no problem with that because they have that right and the decision is reasonable.
[confused] I agree with all of that. The problem here is that the Rabbinate did NOT eliminate Heter Mechira... presumably because it's a valid method according to many poskim.
Should the Rabbinate have paskened that in fact there IS no heter, then the Court would never have been involved. I can't say what I'd feel then because my knowledge of the halachos of heter mechira are limited. [I'm basing my understanding that it's a chumra on the Rabbinate's own split on the matter, and the listing of Rabbonim who are okay with it.]
Should the Rabbinate pick some chumra that is clearly such and accept it as halacha, you'd probably find a post decrying the acceptance of chumra as halacha for all.
You are all missing a crucial point here.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forced to have a hasgacha. There are plenty of restaurant, and fewer supermarkets, that do not have one. No law in Israel says you must have one.
The law does say that only the local rabbinate can issue hasgochos -- a law ignored by the various badatz's who do give hasgochos.
The Chief Rabbinate allowed local rabbinates to determine the issue themseleves. So let's say the Chief Rabbit of Herzliya decides he does not hold of hetter mechira -- his local hasgocho will not do so. No one is forced to take that hasgocho -- just operate without.
This ruling means that the Supreme Court can dictate religious standards. Suppose a local Sephardi Chief Rabbi decides that all "kosher" meat sold under his local hasgocho has to be completely glatt -- as required by the Beis Yosef and followed by most Sephardim. The Supreme Court can now say -- sorry, you cannot do that, you have to give hasgocho to meat that you consider non-kosher, because Ashkenazim consider it kosher.
The religious community in Israel will rue the day this decision was given.
(For the record, one cannot say that not relying on hetter mechirah is a "chumroh." The hetter is and was hotly debated among halakhic decisors over the last 100 years and more.)
Perhaps a compromise -- albeit one which sounds very American -- is to allow two levels of hasgocho, hetter mechira, and non-h-m, just like some local rabbanuts had mehadrin and non-mehadrin.
Whoa, define "imposed". This is different from a rule forbidding people to do something.
ReplyDeleteDifferent in degree but not in kind. But I agree it's less problematic than the Rabbinate's control over marriage.
But to some extent, assuming that we're allowing a Rabbinate to have some kind of sway, then yes - when halacha is universal, that halacha can be the 'final ruling', so to speak.
Who decides if something is "universally accepted?"
[confused] I agree with all of that. The problem here is that the Rabbinate did NOT eliminate Heter Mechira... presumably because it's a valid method according to many poskim.
I agree. The biggest problem was with the inconsistency. But I'm bringing up a broader issue relating to when and if the Rabbinate can impose Halacha on the masses.
Sounds to me like this is a classic example of the lack of separation of church and state "hurting" the religious. If they were a private organization, they would be well within their rights (unless some sort of monopoly rule existed, which it might.) Because they are part of the government, though, they're subject to its rule.
ReplyDeleteTal - To sell food, particularly produce, in Israel, it is MUCH better to have a hashgacha than not. In a restaurant and supermarket [huh? why would that need one?] that does not have a hechsher, they're generally selling food that is not kosher - so they have something drawing people that's not going to be found elsewhere. But if you're selling produce, why would anyone choose your product over someone else's? It's the same food! But you lose out on all those people who require a hechsher, which is a sizable percentage.
ReplyDeleteAs noted above, it doesn't make much sense for each local hechsher to hold by its own standards, particularly in a case like this.
And I agree with the problem of the SC butting in, and the 2 levels, as noted in the post.
Nephtuli - Who decides if something is "universally accepted?"
ReplyDeleteWhen the Chief Rabbinate says officially that it is, which isn't the case here.
But I'm bringing up a broader issue relating to when and if the Rabbinate can impose Halacha on the masses.
Right. It's a difficult question in general.
JA - Basically, exactly right, except that it's not *supposed* to be a secular State. It's a Jewish one, so one would think that Jewish guidelines can be used within reason; at LEAST when it comes to religious issues.
ReplyDeleteWhen the Chief Rabbinate says officially that it is, which isn't the case here.
ReplyDeleteI agree but then the issue isn't chumros and everything but the central authority of the Rabbinate. And the Rabbinate is never going to say that it's taking a machmir position, so in reality if the Rabbinate makes a decision which binds its subsidiaries, it will always portray the decision as something universal.
But basically we both agree that the Rabbinate is not serving its function as long as it allows each city to make these decisions.
The haredim are "fighting the previous war" - and we will all lose because of it.
ReplyDeleteThis is the culmination of a long, bitter drive to wrest control of the Rabbinate from the Religious Zionist camp.
It is also the last in a chain of short-sighted deals/positions taken by haredim that basically betray/alienate the secular Jews.
The haredim continue to pursue a "circle the wagons" policy as if the secular Zionist machine is still around, still in force.
But it isn't. And many secular-by-default Israelis are open to more Judaism in both public and private life. Many already have BTs among their family or frieds. Many would very much like for their kids to get AT LEAST as much Jewish values/history education as they received.
Instead the haredim can't break free of the old script of mutual disdain.
They cut deals that benefit their own school systems while totally ignoring the diminished Jewish content of the secular system.
They dig their heels in on chumrah-level issues like this - the entire concept of Shmittah observance in our times is Rabbinical.
And the unmistakable message of not caring for fellow Jews comes through loud and clear.
We will reap many tears from this generation of "haredi empowerment".
"I don't see why a Kosher certificate can't be withheld from someone not keeping a Kosher store."
ReplyDeleteUh, yeah, but a store can be perfectly kosher, just not choose to keep the chumra of Badatz's conception of shmitta. This chumra has far reaching nationalist and economic implications, so the Supreme Court has every right to overrule the rabbinate on this one.
They would not have the right to walk into stores and restaurants with Edah Charedis hechshers and tell them how to buy vegetables. But they have a right and duty to forbid one government agency from engaging in unreasonable coercion and causing undue economic hardship on businesses that are in every other way abiding by the accepted halachic standards of kashrut.
Until you live here, you really can't comment cogently on these issues.
It's not in any way like scotus overreaching. It's scotus making sure that the laws of the land are fairly and adequately enforced, which is exactly their job.
Is SCOTUS overrulling a lower courts judgements overreaching? Absolutely not. That's their job.
As for the charedim overstepping their bounds- the charedim are out to destroy the rabbinate. Which is why their "man", Yona Metzger, a joke of a rabbi with a shady history who hadmn't spent a minute on any beit din before he became a chief rabbi, was "installed" into this position. He's basically destroyed any ounce of dignity and respect that was left in the position that was created by Rav Kook, ztz"l. So, this is hardly surprising in light of the political background of our "respected" chief rabbi.
Why is disbanding the rabbinate ripe for problems? Every other coutnry manages just fine with private kashrut orgainizations.
Supermarkets need hashgachot on the produce for orla, trumot and ma'asrot (and shmitta, this year)
Uh, yeah, but a store can be perfectly kosher, just not choose to keep the chumra of Badatz's conception of shmitta. This chumra has far reaching nationalist and economic implications, so the Supreme Court has every right to overrule the rabbinate on this one.
ReplyDeleteThey would not have the right to walk into stores and restaurants with Edah Charedis hechshers and tell them how to buy vegetables. But they have a right and duty to forbid one government agency from engaging in unreasonable coercion and causing undue economic hardship on businesses that are in every other way abiding by the accepted halachic standards of kashrut.
Do you believe that it's the job of the Israeli Supreme Court to decide what are the "halachic standards of kashrut?" Would that be better left to the Rabbinate, the branch of the government that specializes in Halacha?
Is SCOTUS overrulling a lower courts judgements overreaching? Absolutely not. That's their job.
Depends on the circumstances. If SCOTUS overruled a district court's decision because it disagreed with its determination of the facts, SCOTUS would be overeaching.
But either way the Rabbinate is not a lower court. I'm not saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have any say at all, but it should not be up to them to decide what is and isn't normative Halacha.
The rabbinate did decide normative halacha- they approved the heter mechira. Once they choose to do this, it is their job to uphold this ruling. They cannot make a ruling and then let individuals pasken for themselves. That's not a rabbanut, that's a free for all.
ReplyDeleteIf an individual member of the rabbanut cannot abide by the heter mechira, he shouldn't be working for the rabbanut.
So, the supreme court isn't deciding halacha; it is forcing the rabbanut to uphold its own halachic decisions.
The rabbinate did decide normative halacha- they approved the heter mechira. Once they choose to do this, it is their job to uphold this ruling. They cannot make a ruling and then let individuals pasken for themselves. That's not a rabbanut, that's a free for all.
ReplyDeleteIf an individual member of the rabbanut cannot abide by the heter mechira, he shouldn't be working for the rabbanut.
So, the supreme court isn't deciding halacha; it is forcing the rabbanut to uphold its own halachic decisions.
I agree. I just want to make clear that if the Rabbinate decided to reject Heter Mechira as an official policy, I don't think the Supreme Court should overrule that decision unless it is egregious.
I agree but then the issue isn't chumros and everything but the central authority of the Rabbinate.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, however, it was the push to chumros by some that caused the problem. I think we're basically agreed, though.
Ben David - There was an excellent post recently by R' Horowitz noting that a central problem among the Charedim is their need to make everything as important as everything else... no matter how trivial.
Abbi - I'm not disagreeing that the Court *can* overturn it, I just think it's not a good precedent.
ReplyDeleteUntil you live here, you really can't comment cogently on these issues.
I don't see why not.
Why is disbanding the rabbinate ripe for problems? Every other coutnry manages just fine with private kashrut orgainizations.
I don't see it being as successful in Israel, with all the extremes. It will be extremely costly, particular, and ripe for extortion or bribery because of that.
As for the rest of N and A's comments, agreed.
ReplyDeleteThe reason why you shouldn't be commenting is that
ReplyDeletea) you don't even understand how the system works: that all businesses make it clear whether they are heter mechira or foreign produce or otzar beit din.
b) you really don't understand the politics underlying the relationship between rabbinate, the government, dati leumi and charedim. Without that background, it's hard to make, let alone express, an informed opinion.
Abbi-
ReplyDeleteI think that's exactly it. Sometimes someone who doesn't live here and live with all the politics can see things more clearly than the israeli public. The preconceptions and the resentment get in the way plenty of times.