The Supreme Court has ordered the Chief Rabbinate to authorize rabbis who will issue Shemittah-year Kashrut certification.

The Rabbinate had earlier determined that municipal rabbis - the Chief Rabbis of the various cities and localities - may determine their own individual policies regarding Shemittah year produce. This led to a situation in which local rabbis who did not support the heter mechirah dispensation refused to issue Kashrut authorization to farmers, restaurants and other establishments that did.

In response, agricultural suppliers, the Flowers Council, and the Agriculturalists Union sued the Rabbinate in the Supreme Court, claiming that the sudden change in decades-long policy had caused them great damage. The suit specifically concerned the city of Herzliya, whose Chief Rabbi Yitzchak Yaakobovich announced last month that he would not honor the heter dispensation. He said at the time that the rabbinates in other cities, such as Jerusalem, Rechovot, and Petach Tikvah, were considering similar moves.

Shemittah Background

The Shemittah or sabbatical year is a Biblically-ordained, year-long period during which Jews are forbidden to work the Land of Israel.  It is observed once every seven years. Some 120 years ago, when Jews began to return to the Land of Israel after nearly two millennia of exile, they began farming the land for their livelihood.  When the first Shemittah year arrived, in 1889, leading rabbis ruled that the farm land could be sold to non-Jews for the Shemittah year, and could be then farmed almost as usual - with the condition that major agricultural activities such as plowing be performed by non-Jews.  This arrangement was known as the heter mechirah, literally, the "sale dispensation."  Other leading rabbis did not accept it, however - setting the stage for a century-plus of disputes on this issue.

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel had long accepted the heter mechirah as its official policy, despite the many opponents the arrangement has amassed over the years.  Now, however, the Chief Rabbinate has come under the control of more hareidi-religious rabbis, who have long opposed the heter, and policies have changed accordingly.

It is widely agreed nowadays that though Israeli agriculture suffers during the Shemittah year, the country's existence is not at stake as a result. The Chief Rabbinate has now decided that the time is ripe to shed its support for it.  In a telephone poll of the 16 members of the Chief Rabbinate Council this past August, 12 members agreed that individual local rabbis could refuse to issue Kashrut authorizations to establishments that relied on the heter.

The Ruling, and Religious-Zionist Response

The Supreme Court ruling, which was largely authored by Justice Elyakim Rubenstein, an observant Jew, stated that the Chief Rabbinate need not force any rabbi to act in opposition to his understanding of Halakhah [Jewish Law], but it must provide rabbis who do support the heter in order to provide Kashrut for consumers who wish to abide by it.

The Tzohar Rabbis Organization - a religious-Zionist group - welcomed the ruling, but expressed disappointment that the Rabbinate had to wait for a Court edict before taking this action.  The Tzohar rabbis are in the beginning stages of providing their own Kashrut certifications, based on acceptance of the heter, but they may stop this arrangement if the Chief Rabbinate takes over.

The Ruling in Detail

Justice Rubenstein wrote that the Supreme Court is not expressing a Halakhic (Jewish legal) opinion, but is rather dealing with the administrative validity of Rabbinate decisions: "The approach of the Rabbinate ever since it was formed during the British Mandate, and of its predecessor during Ottoman rule, was to find a way to enable Jewish agriculture to survive during Shemittah years... The Rabbinate's goal in recent decades was not to save Israel's economy... but rather to help and support Israel's agriculture and farmers."

The Rabbinate's new policy, however, does not meet the standards of administrative law, Rubinstein wrote: "Such a significant change, if necessary, must be made in a proper and serious manner, and must be reasonable and documented.  I fear that this was not the case...  For instance, it should not have been done by phone, and the farmers and Ministry of Agriculture were not given a chance to be heard."

Beinish Against Stringencies

Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch concurred.  Essentially saying that the Rabbinate need not be so stringent, her written ruling attempted to explain why the Court can intervene in the Chief Rabbinate Council's decisions:

"The Chief Rabbinate Council is, in fact, authorized by law to issue Kashrut certifications, and has the authority to decide Kashrut issues according to Jewish Law - but the judgment it has been granted is not absolute.  When it must decide its policy regarding Kashrut certification, its considerations must exclusively be those that clearly touch upon the heart of the Kashrut question.  As long as Kashrut laws are not abrogated, it must always keep in mind the need to prevent the abrogation of elementary civil rights more than is clearly necessary for the maintenance of the Kashrut laws.  When a Halakhic solution exists, the Chief Rabbinate is not authorized to expand and be more stringent beyond the Halakhic policies it has employed in the past, in a manner that worsens the harm to civil rights for a purpose other than the specific one for which it was given the authority in the first place."