In light of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein opinion to the High Court supporting private hechsherim, which would end the Chief Rabbinate of Israel monopoly on kashrus, Chief Rabbi Dovid Lau Shlita asked Weinstein to permit the Chief Rabbinate to hire an outside attorney to present its case to the High Court. Weinstein on Tuesday, 23 Iyar rejected the chief rabbi’s request.
Weinstein explained that while he understands the sensitivity of the matter at hand, as attorney general he alone is entrusted to represent the state and not any other attorney.
Weinstein explains in his letter to Rabbi Lau that the Supreme Court will hear one opinion and not some kind of “shteiblach of different versions. This orchestra has only one conductor…”
Chief Rabbinate officials expressed sorrow over the attorney general’s position and is probing how it will present “the true position of the Chief Rabbinate to the Supreme Court”.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
6 Responses
If there is one thing that stands out as representing the status quo agreements going back to 1948 – and actually going back to 1935,
It is thus..
kashrus will remain solely in the hands of the rabbinate
If they are somehow entitled to abrogate their side of the pact…
The government rabbis seem to be forgetting who is buttering their bread. By agreeing to work for the government, they agreed that in matters of halacha to be bound by the decisions of the government rather than be governed by Daas Torah. They agreed to the Hokei Yesod fo Medinat Yisrael, rather than the Hukim that are the yesod of Klal Yisrael.
The Hareidim are the big winners since they are the leading “private” hecksherim, and the ones that consumers are looking for. Those wanting un-frum hecksherim really don’t want a hecksher at all and won’t pay for it with their consumer shekels.
how can Weinstein say his opinion is the opinion of the gov’t when it is clearly against existing law???
Probably by the time this comment is posted a new article will appear but in case it doesn’t, the Supreme Court has already ruled against the AG and said that the rabbanut will be able to present their own attorney and he will be given time to prepare his case.
#1, you’re right, if status quo on kashrus is not part of the Basic Law(substitution for a constitution), I don’t know what is.
Can’t wait for a new appointment to this guy to be appointed.
Akuperma, please enlighten us, what is an un-frum hechsher? It seems that R. Lau has also consulted with gedolei Totah such as R. Chaim shlit”a. Doesn’t he have Da’as Torah ? Could it be that he is trying to prevent others from issur? And, who are you to judge others’ sincerity? Mind you, I buy exclusively from the “frum” hechsherim, but there’s hechsherim on bein odom lchaveiro also. Maybe these hechsherim don’t have a noticeable emblem but in shomayim, they count those mitzvos (and aveiros) also.
Info:
This case was not about “private” hechsherim, which certainly can be added to the regular State hechsher, but about cases of Reform hechsherim, for establishments that don’t meet rabbanut standards.