Court: Local rabbinates have no independent say over shmita sales

If the Rabbis had said that produce is permitted only to those who use 'heter mechira' then we wouldn't have gotten into this mess. There are Rabbis like Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef who permit. therefore the Rabis could say that even though they don't believe in 'heter mechira' could say that they give the heter 'al daat Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef.

All organised religions have power structures, sets of rules, and exemptions from these rules when it suits the people at the top. All the big ones were set up long ago and have to bend the rules pretty far to make them fit todays's world. Pretty hard to reconcile 1st century thinking in the 21st century.

The High Court's arrogance wasted a golden opportunity to demonstrate compatibility of secular and religious law. Instead, they couldn't resist the temptation to tell the Rabbinate precisely how to suck eggs. They could have achieved a more a just result simply by ruling that the Chief Rabbinate must set a consistent standard applicable to the country, and not abbrogate its responsibility. The Rabbinate can set one way to comply or set multiple ways to comply. Once set, individual Rabbis must certify any of the acceptable standards set by the Rabbinate. Instead, the High Court picked the standard it wanted and directed the Rabbinate to go find Rabbis to "enforce the loophole" - rather than to enforce whatever standard the Rabbinate set.

Judaism is not just a set of laws given on high that we are to obey. Judaism is the interaction between God and man. In fact, it represents the struggle between God and man. There is a law "on the books" that a wayward, rebellious son was to be put to death. The rabbis tell us that no one was ever put to death in accordance with that law. Does that mean there has never in Jewish history been a rebellious son? No, it means the rabbis found that particular law, given to us by God Himself, impossible to accept! And just as God gave us the original law, God gave us the legal system to "get around the law" when necessary. This is why Judaism, observed as it should be, is far from a fundamentalist religion.

Well, not exactly. Jewish tradition has no equivalent of a legislative body. Accordingly, changing a given law or making new laws is technically not possible. What is possible, however, is judicial activism. It is in the best of Jewish tradition for rabbinical courts and scholars to interpret the law in such a way that it is favorable to a desired outcome. This then leads to disagreements among jurists as to which interpretations are "inside" or "outside" acceptable norms. This discussion is never ending and is, in and of itself, quite healthy. But at the end of the day decisions must be made and they are rarely easy.

Jay advocates separation of church and state with an eye towards a better Rabbinate. Unfortunately, what is good for the Rabbinate, might not be good for the nation as a whole. At the end of the day, some legally designated body is going to have to adjudicate national standards regarding marriage, divorce, shabbat, kashrut, conversion, etc. This is unavoidable and has enormous implications for the nation as a whole. So if not the Chief Rabbinate, then who? As much as I despise many aspects of the present institution I don't advocate abolishing it. I simply want to see reforms that reflect the idea that rabbis are supposed to MEDIATE the tension between tradition and modernity and not EXASPERATE it.

As an outsider looking in at this issue it seems that you do not take the law seriously. I believe God looks at your heart and your intentions. #18 is correct is saying a law is a law and either follow it or get rid of it. Aren't Rabbis supposed to see that the law is fulfilled? It seems they make a mockery of the law. Again, I am just an outsider looking in. This makes it very hard to take these guys seriously.

Some might argue that the Chief Rabbinate should not be reviewd by the High Court of Justice. They should not be held to the same standards as other Administrative bodies. After all, they are the final arbiters of Halacha and should be outside restrictions that are imposed upon ordinary mortals such as we. Years ago, I would oppose that conclusion. Today, I fervently support it. Let the Chief Rabbinate and all its associates fall outside the purview of the High Court and the rest of Israel. Let them be financially supported by their supporters. Let them be Halachically followed by their followers. Let them merge with the Rabbi Elyashiv factions and we will re-establish a separate Rabbinical authority which will be based on actual and truthful Halacha. We did it years ago and there is no reason why we cannot do it again.

It is unfortunate that the HaAretz report on the High Court?s decision was ? as is usual when HaAretz deals with matters of tradition and religion ? grossly superficial. The High Court did not enter the realm of Halacha. It did not indicate a preference for one interpretation over another. The Court held that the issue was one of Administrative Law ? the Chief Rabbinate is an Israeli Administrative Body and is subject to Israel Administrative Law. Changes in long held standards are to be done in a proper procedure and not via informal wink the eye standards. Basically, it ruled that a policy that had been in effect for well over one hundred years in Israel could not be overridden by informal telephone conversations, supposed meetings that were not held, exchanges of opinions that were not exchanged and one Chief Rabbi (Amar) who was boycotted.

A law is a law, period. There are only two options - either keep it or abolish it. Don't knead it and shape it into a pretzel so you can make believe it's a kosher pretzel. It's not and the all-knowing Almighty know what hypocrits the pretzel-bakers are ! Reform Jew

I don't believe it is about this "medieval religious absurdity", it's about pick and chose religion. You don't agree with something, you just find a loophole and carry on as if situation normal. As a Christian, it appears that you can sin all week as long as you go to confession on Sunday. I guess that is why attendence in church is dieing off. Pretty hard to reconcile 1st century thinking in the 21st century.

In the Jewish State, the Rabbinate must deal with the economic and social implications of halacha, and find halachic solutions that take these elements into account. Halacha can't be decided in isolation. If observing "shmita l'chumra" will result in Jewish farmers losing their livelihoods, restaurants and hotels deciding to forego kashrut supervision entirely, and consumers being forced to pay much higher prices for Palestinian (!) or imported produce, the most religiously appropriate thing to do would seem to be to make use of the halachic tool available: heter mechira.

Sorry for intruding upon your private grief, but I just couldn't resist the comment. Seriously, though, how do you square your claims to be a Western democracy with this medieval religious absurdity?

The High Court's decision is NOT about Halacha! Rather its about the role of the Chief Rabbinate in setting national Halachic standards. If we want each town and community to set its own Halachic standards then we DON'T NEED a Chief Rabbinate. In other words, the Hight Court acknowledges the fact that there are conflicting rabbinical opinions and simply says that the Chief Rabbinate cannot stand on the sidelines saying, "we don't want the responsibility of deciding what to do." The Chief Rabbinate must declare "yay" or "nay" or it defaults on its main function of setting national standards. If the Chief Rabbinate does not want this job then their jurisdiction is irrelevant. Let each town or community appoint its own rabbis and make their own decisions. In my opinion the High Court is rightly demanding that its Rabbinic counterpart be the supreme authority it is intended to be lest much chaos and social division set in

The postings started off being quite sensible, then quickly degenerated into insults. Physicist's 'clarifications' were very informative, though I didn't quite understand some of the technical terms he/she used (what is kedushat Shevi`it ?).

Maybe the NRP can get the rabbinate to perform homosexual marriages once we're at it. I mean wouldn't that be a "victory for sanity" over ancient antiquated laws?!?

How wonderful our platonic fathers are in their touching concern for my welfare. How nice to know that yet again the "high" court is attempting to sever the last traces of Israels connection to their Father in heaven. Perhaps they would in turn be touched to know how much I pity their arrogance and spit on their concept of "justice".

I've never heard such hypocricy in my life. 1)The very same Bible which the NRP use to claim their ownership and divine rights to the land of Israel, is the very same bible and Divinty which says that the land should lay fallow in the seventh year. 2)The 94th commandment in the old-testament says that Jews should not give away the land of Israel to Non-Jews. It is the Ultra-Orthodox NON-ZIONISTIC rabbis who should be lenient in this area and NOT the RIGHT WING (BEGINNING OF THE REDEMPTION) N.R.P. Hypocricy, hypocricy and hypocricy.

If not for the ULTRA ORTHODOX RABBIS creating the TEMPORARY EMERGENCY ALLOWANCE of the sale, similar to driving to a hospital on shabbat, there never would even be a discussion in the courts in the first place. The allowance itself stands on the PSAK/DECISIONS of ULTRA-ORTHODOX RABBIS, and if it no longer applies then go do your own thing. But don't blame the Orthodox Rabbi's for taking back something that's theirs in the first place.

Hello, D Hirod: As someone who has not yet taken on the mitzvah of Yishuv BaAretz, I suggest that you do not yet have an ethical right to pontificate about piskay halacha that concern Mitzvot Teluyot BaAretz. Here's a suggestion: Make aliyah first. You can then weigh-in with your opinion. Till such time as you "pay your membership dues", I respectfully suggest that you stand on the sidelines and let those of us who have taken on the joyful halachic obligation to live in the Land deal with this on our own.

I am not an orthodox Jew. However this schmitta year idea I think is very good and should be observed by all. Why not give the land a rest, import our food and vegetables except fruit which grows on trees planted a long time ago and we will save tons of water, subsidies on this water and the farmers may go to college for one year and learn new farming methods. With all that water saved we could help to replenish the Dead Sea. Most farmers have cows and chickens too and they could receive a small stipend from the water subsidies saved? Anyone know how much those subsidies are per cubic meter? Regards.

The times we live in is a dispicable time, where israelis are more goy than the real goyim and more out of touch with their heritage than ever before. While it is true no one should be forced to buy shemita. Not performning shmita was THE reason stated why the first babylonian exile occured. So lets not joke around. This needs to be resolved in a way that 'prozbul' solved lending.

yaamoid kenny ben XXX to proclaim the orthodox position. Thank you o scholar and sage. Perhaps you forgot that the so-called 'supreme court' has the halachic status as a gentile court (which it is to all intents and purposes) and as such has no validity whatsoever. The halachic rights and wrongs are not the issue - a toiroh decision may not be taken before a gentile court. But then, the Israeli rabbinate was originally established by the atheist, zionist clique to provide an alternative to the existing orthodox rabbinate, just like the communist, atheist russian govt appointed a patriarch of the russian orthodox church. Given that, perhaps the rabbinate can have no claim to delivering a halachic decision anyway.....

As an orthodox Jew, I congratulate the Supereme Court on its sensible decision. If the Ultra orthodox are uncomfortable using the sale, they are free to impose this stringency on themselves and their families. But to attemptto arm-twist the public was a shameful act by the Chief Rabbinate. Hopefully this court case will lead to more changes, as the Chief Rabbinate is clearly out of touch with the times we live in.

As mentioned, 'sefichin' are vegatables grown during the Smittah year which are prohibited by rabbinical decree. The reason for this, was that (as usual) it is apparent there are people willing to abuse the system and go ahead to plough and plant vegetables throughout the Shmittah year (this ruse obviously cannot be done with fruit trees). Anyone claiming that "well, it's just a takanat rabanim, what the hell!" should underatand that cooking sefichin in a pot (e.g. vegetable soup) renders the pot trefe, requiring hagala (purging). SuThe pot in fact has the same status as a pot used for cooking strictly kosher meat which has not been salted (it is another rabbinical decree that blood that has been cooked is prohibited - the Torah only prohibits fresh blood).

...Otzar Beit Din allows Jewish produce to be distributed and sold as normal, with the proviso that all personnel in the harvesting and distribution chain are officially appointed as agents of the Beit Din and that the sale price is based on only the logistical costs of getting the produce to the customer; the customer does not pay for the value of the fruit. The main drawnack of OBD is that the produce, though it can normally harvested and distributed, still has kedushat Shevi'it. This requires that no edible parts of the fruit (includign peels) my be disposed of in a normal fashion. Remains must be carefully collected in a separate container and allowed to spoil naturally; only then may the remains be thrown away normally. OBD however does not work for vegeables, which are subject to the rabbinical edit of "Sefichin". Only those who observe Minhag Yerushalyim or Heter Mechirah may in principle buy and eat vegatables grown in Shemittah Year. To be continued...

Ovadiah Yosef probably is determining his lenient ruling on the Beit Yosef (of about 500 years ago) who rules that produce of land in biblical Israel owned by a non-Jew does not have kedushat Shevi'it. The Mabit (in a contemporary ruling) however says the produce still had kedushat Shevi'it, even if the land is owned by non-Jews. Even according to the Beit Yosef's ruling, it was never the practive of the communities of Eretz Yisrael to permit trading of non-Jewish produce excet in Jerusalem (Minhag Yerushalyim). This practice is observed by most Torah Jews to this day (so in Benei Brak, for instance sale of non-Jewish produce would be prohbited but in Machane Yehuda marlet it would ber permitted. Perhaps the most viable solution (for fruits only) is Otzar Beit Din (a.k.a Otzar Ha'aretz), which has its origins in the Tosefta (about 2000 years ago). To be continued.....