Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger and the Chief Rabbinic Council said yesterday that their refusal to require municipal rabbis to approve as kosher fruit and vegetables produced under the halakhic loophole of heter mechira, or the "sale permit" system, stemmed from considerations of halakha.
In their response to High Court petitions against them, their first comment about the now-monthlong crisis, the rabbis said that kashrut was a matter of a minimum threshhold, while shmita was either completely treif (ritually unfit) or not. Among the petitioners are produce wholesalers from Moshav Yanov and the Plant Marketing Board. The rabbis rejected the claim that widespread import of produce from abroad would cause Israel's farmers to lose their local market, calling it "speculative."
They also argue that they are operating based on a High Court decision allowing local rabbinic councils independence in matters of kashrut. The rabbis argue that allowing local rabbis to make their own decision constituted "pluralism in each and every community."
The state prosecutor's office has refused to defend the Chief Rabbinate's position, which a month ago allowed municipal rabbis to decide independently whether to issue kashrut certificates to grocers abiding by the sale permit. Local rabbis could not be forced to recognize as permissible what they considered unfit, the council said in a statement submitted to the court. The High Court is to consider the petitions today.
Palestinian Authority Agriculture Minister Mahmoud Habash recently approached his Israeli counterpart, Shalom Simchon, through a third party, requesting him to revoke Israel's embargo on importing farming produce from Gaza during the fallow year.
Simchon met with National Religious Party leaders earlier this week, and launched an attack on the ultra-Orthodox establishment, saying they had "declared a cultural war on Israel" and "attempted to yield profit on the back of ordinary citizens."
He urged the NRP to join his initiative to amend the Chief Rabbinate law to enable nonaligned rabbis to grant Kashrut permits to agricultural produce which had been disqualified by ultra-Orthodox rabbis.
Simchon said that the problem goes beyond the substantial losses to the industry (NIS 2 billion, according to the Agriculture Ministry figures) and the steep rise in retail prices.
The NRP leaders told Simchon that they would back his efforts to forestall outstanding imports as long as the Chief Rabbinate refuses to grant Kashrut certificates to businesses and institutions that buy local agricultural produce from farmers who had obtained a special permit.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Tragic infighting among Jews.
"this is a democracy and the charedim can eat whatever they want" Agreed, but then I want the right to eat,sell and buy wathever I want. You can't have a two way democracy!
Is this not exactly the same as the orthodox "selling" their chumatz to non-jews for passover so they no longer "own" it for the week? Why is one okay and the other is not. Either both should be abolished as outdated and impractical or both should be followed and live with the consequences. Demanding that ancient rules be followed while at the same time looking for ways to circumvent them is nothing but a waste of time and hypocritical.
The point is not whether Shmitta should or should not be followed and it is not what form Shmitta should or should not take. The point is whether a public body (the Rabbinate), having made a decision, can avoid the carrying out that decision by passing it on to others.
In siberia during the war, we ate them raw
The article states,"Local rabbis could not be forced to recognize as permissible what they considered unfit". If this is the case, why don't local rabbis of the Rabbinate eat the meat that they give Hashgacha to?
This is an old law, not anymore required by the Thora. Only Some rabbinic ayatollahs insist for demonstrating their power. The ultraorthodox in Israel damage with their shortsighted views of Halakha Israel and diaspora jews financially, socially and politically. D Hirod, yiddishe yingele, how do you eat your sparrows, baked, grilled or steamed?
Talk about manners! Dont you realise that your inane ranting against torah law upsets haredi readers? If you'd have something sensible to say it would a less offensive, but your ignorant drivel is simply insulting. So dont get upset when people retort in kind.
Please try to find out at least the basic facts before writing. A sparrow is a kosher bird and always has been. However, talmudic law requires that even birds known to be kosher have a tradition - or to have been permitted by a torah authority. Because of its size, no one ever bothered to consider a sparrow until that famine. The authority who permitted it was right in doing so. Since then, several communities preserved the custom of publicly slaughtering a sparrow each year in order to preserve its 'tradition'.
to kooky we have always followed the torah and always will am yiroel chai
Once Israel is member of the OECD, how is Shmita manageable? Or is it possible to bend this law? Like in Frankfurt in the Middle Ages, when the local Rabbi permitted to eat Sparrows during a famine? And locust in Northafrica? And 100 years ago the booming Zwi Tal Society, a haredic money machine?
Oy Oy, I am flabbergasted about your know-how, Chapeau! But your manners are a bit lowlevel, typically dossi behaviour. Fie, fie! Shmita is ok for a Torah law, but impracticle for the modern state Israel.
Rav Kook's original Heter Mechira, which had the support of halachic giants, was a once off ruling that needed to be reconsidered every seven years. It was not a blanket dispensation. Today Shmitta is 'only' Rabbinic and not a Torah Law, but it is very important just the same.
you brought up those two points regarding shabbes - now justify your ignorant position. With regard to the laws of shemittah: There is a dispute dating back 400 years regarding produce farmed on land belonging to non jews (i) it may be used (ii) it may not be used. The custom accords with (i) but a later scholar who's word holds great sway in some sectors accepted (ii). The trick of selling off jewish land was thought up by someone who is absolute nonentity in comparison to the aforementioned but his opinion was accepted out of political expediency by the state. Judaism does not recognise such reasons. This IS a democracy and the haredim will exercise their right to buy and eat what they want.
Your wisdom is great but you do not understand. The problem is Shmita and the Rabbinic Junta in Israel.
Explain which Shabbat laws use of an elevator violates. Explain your issue with a Shabbat elevator. Explain which Shabbat laws carrying violates. Explain your issue with carrying a hanky around the wrist. Until you can do that, you cannot even begin to give a useful opinions on what Halacha means.
Too many laws can be simply circumvented. Examples are the Shabbat elevator and carrying a hanky around the wrist. But public transportation is not permitted and oy wawoy if you carry the hanky in your pocket! The emphasis on Shmita is enormous, much more then on social matters.
For once I agree with the ultras. You either follow a Torah Law and live with it (and this one is d'orayta !)or not. If you don't want to keep it than abolish it but don't be a "pious" hypocrit and try to weasel your way around it. I have no respect for the hypocrits who think they can fool God by having their cake and eat it, too. Reform Jew
2-3000 thousand years ago Shmitawas a good idea. The soil could recover beacuse fertilizers were parctically not existing. With all my respect and love of the Thora, today Shmita causes a financial and logistical burden. It only helps the Rabbinic Junta in Israel.