A High Court of Justice ruling on Monday, 29 Iyar supports the Chief Rabbinate of Israel kashrus delivered a blow to the so-called alternative kashrus organizations trying to debunk the Chief Rabbinate’s exclusive hold on state kashrus.
The court was petitioned by the ‘Hashgacha Pratit’ kashrus organization that was launched by Rabbi Aaron Leibowitz of the Nachlaot neighborhood of Jerusalem. Rabbi Leibowitz explains on the hashgacha’s website that the kashrus is based on trusting the store receiving supervision. His lack of experience and methodology has been attacked by the Jerusalem Rabbinate and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Together with the stores that he provides kashrus for, they took their case to the High Court in the hope of ending the Chief Rabbinate of Israel’s monopoly on kashrus after the Chief Rabbinate’s Kashrus Enforcement Unit fined them for signing up with the private kashrus.
While former Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein tried to undermine the position of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein rebuked Weinstein for not presenting the position of the Chief Rabbinate in the state’s response. The Rabbinate’s position was subsequently presented to the court, citing Rabbi Leibowitz, his organization and the stores advertising as “kosher” were operating illegally.
Chief Rabbi Dovid Lau Shlita praised the court’s ruling, which states the alternative kashrus organizations may not give a store a teudat kashrus, citing there is a state agency for this purpose, the Chief Rabbinate and its local religious councils nationwide.
The court has given backing to the Chief Rabbinate’s position and therefore the so-called alternative kashrus organizations are now illegal.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
The Chief Rabbinate does NOT have a monopoly on kashrus. If it did all the hareidi hechsherim would be illegal.
Is it possible that this suit is a “stalking house” by the government which plans to close down all the hareidi (non-zionist) hecksherim?
The “BaDaTZim” are allowed to give te’udot, but that is because “mehadrin” kashrus is not under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate, partially because they maintain a higher standard. If the “alternative” kashrus would likewise be of a higher level, the courts would likely not have an issue. Proof enough that the “alternative” is no alternative.
What does the Eida Hacharedis and other non Rabanut hechshereim do?
All approved non-Rabbanut hashgachos are legal because they provide Mehadrin supervision and not “stam” kosher supervision. The state kashrus was founded on the desire to provide kosher food at affordable prices. That means that most leniencies which would save money will be adopted. Stringencies which are more costly, would not be adopted as policy. Also, since it is a government run agency, any Rabbanut from across the country must be accepted by any other local Rabbanut regardless of the standards or policies of that local Vaad.
BaDaTZim are not likewise controlled, precisely because they are not a government agency, and are providing a higher standard of kashrus (e.g. mashgiach temidi, shmita l’chumra, bishul Beis Yosef, etc. to name a few possibilities).