RSS Feed
Ashdod, Israel - Rabbis Not Surrendering to Court's Missionary Bakery Ruling |
|
| |
Text Size
|
Photo credit VIN News JJ
Three weeks ago, a panel of three High Court judges decided in favor of a motion by Penina Comforti, a messianic Jew and active missionary, and ruled that the Chief Rabbinate and the Rabbi of Ashdod must rescind their refusal to grant kashrut certification to the 'Penina' pie bakery that she owns, (as was reported here on VIN News).
Rabbi Yosef Sheinin, Ashdod’s Chief Rabbi, subsequently sent a letter to Rabbi Zalman Melamed of Beit El, asking how to proceed after the High Court ruling.
In a response which was also sent to Justice Minister Yaakov Ne’eman and religious parliamentarians, Rabbi Melamed said that the High Court ruling came as no surprise. “High Court rulings are driven by a non-Jewish outlook, and undoubtedly judges who share a religious viewpoint would decide completely differently,” the rabbi wrote.
“In my opinion, there is no halachic (Jewish legal) dispensation to grant kashrut [kosher certification] to the above premises, and one should stand by this even after the High Court’s decision. All rabbis must stand firm as a wall against the attempt to interfere with halachic matters. This is a principle that one must embrace without compromise,” Rabbi Melamed continued, adding that “one must be prepared to sacrifice his life – even more so one’s entire assets – for such coercion.”
Rabbi Melamed also urged that the law be changed as soon as possible to only grant kashrut certificates in accordance with Jewish law and without court intervention. He called for all religious parliamentarians and religious parties to act to change the law.
Meanwhile the anti-missionary Yad L’Achim organization is distributing flyers throughout Ashdod, telling residents to stay clear of the missionary bakery.
Yad L’Achim’s Rabbi Shalom Dov Lipschitz explained that a kashrut supervisor could only certify the food of an establishment if there was a relationship of trust with the establishment. The chairman of the veteran anti-missionary organization explained to Israel National News that the missionaries' petition is an act of deception. “Why do missionaries need this? In order to ‘prove’ that they are just as Jewish as everyone else," he said. "If they lack credibility, kashrut is nothing to them.”
He also stated that the High Court has overstepped the bounds of its jurisdiction. “The High Court thinks that kashrut is merely a technical issue. But they must know that it’s impossible to interfere with the Rabbinate, and the Rabbinate didn’t invent the issue.”
More of today's headlines
“Roosevelt, NJ - Attorneys for Yeshiva Me'on Hatorah and the borough of Roosevelt went back and forth at Planning Boards meeting at a packed Borough Hall, as the...” Roosevelt, NJ - Yeshiva and Borough go Back and Forth on Appeal
Jerusalem - Charedim Claim That Psychiatrist says 'starving mother' Mentally Healthy
Total30
Read Comments (30) — Post Yours »
1
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:20 PM Anonymous Says:
"They must know that it’s impossible to interfere with the Rabbinate"
Guess what...not only is it not impossible but it has happened many times in recent memory and will happen again here. This Rav Melamed is "no Melamed". There are appropriate limits on when and to what extent the civil courts should interfere in matters of halacha. In this case, Melamed obviously does not realize that the Kenneset has used its discretion to delegate to the chief rabbinate the determinaton of which establishments satisfy the requirements of kashruth. Inherent in that delegation is the notion of due process and not engaging in arbitrary rulings. In this case the court found that BOTH of those elements were violated and correctly decided that the certificate should be granted. If Melamed can't understand that then the government will simply find someone who does.
2
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:37 PM Anonymous Says:
“ "They must know that it’s impossible to interfere with the Rabbinate"
Guess what...not only is it not impossible but it has happened many times in recent memory and will happen again here. This Rav Melamed is "no Melamed". There are appropriate limits on when and to what extent the civil courts should interfere in matters of halacha. In this case, Melamed obviously does not realize that the Kenneset has used its discretion to delegate to the chief rabbinate the determinaton of which establishments satisfy the requirements of kashruth. Inherent in that delegation is the notion of due process and not engaging in arbitrary rulings. In this case the court found that BOTH of those elements were violated and correctly decided that the certificate should be granted. If Melamed can't understand that then the government will simply find someone who does.
”
Your supposition is that it is upto to the knesset to determine what is kosher. That is obviously a rediculous idea. Kashrus is based on halacha and halacha is not at all based on the knesset in Israel or the government in any other country. The idea that the government can determine a religion's rules is crazy. What I do not quite understand is how aiberal like you is not screaming about the separation of church and state.
Besides the court is complicit in consumer fraud in this case by trying to label a non kosher entity as kosher.
3
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:36 PM Anonymous Says:
Melamed is digging a hole for himself. There is an old concept in halacha (adopted from the gadolim China) that says when one is stuck in a deep hole,, STOP DIGGING. Melamed seems to believe this is a good case in which to take a stand as a matter of principle and challenge the Bagatz. As PM Netanyahu recently stated:
"We are a nation of law, and the role of the Supreme Court is to be the cornerstone for maintaining the rule of law in the nation, and we cannot allow this important and central institution in the existance of the nation, to be harmed."
He added that, "we must act with respect to both the institution of the Supreme Court, and to the person who stands at its head."
4
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:31 PM Anonymous Says:
“ "They must know that it’s impossible to interfere with the Rabbinate"
Guess what...not only is it not impossible but it has happened many times in recent memory and will happen again here. This Rav Melamed is "no Melamed". There are appropriate limits on when and to what extent the civil courts should interfere in matters of halacha. In this case, Melamed obviously does not realize that the Kenneset has used its discretion to delegate to the chief rabbinate the determinaton of which establishments satisfy the requirements of kashruth. Inherent in that delegation is the notion of due process and not engaging in arbitrary rulings. In this case the court found that BOTH of those elements were violated and correctly decided that the certificate should be granted. If Melamed can't understand that then the government will simply find someone who does.
”
obviously your are non-jewish with no concept to halacha. unless there is a masgiach temidi , no rabbi can give a hechsher .a yisroel mumar can not be trusted
5
Jul 22, 2009 at 07:49 PM Anonymous Says:
“ obviously your are non-jewish with no concept to halacha. unless there is a masgiach temidi , no rabbi can give a hechsher .a yisroel mumar can not be trusted ”
Actually, I'd like to believe I am as much a shomer of torah and mitzvot as you are. I happen to think that the rav's decision is wrong as a matter of civil law. Even if this ruling stands, the religious courts could still establish their own parallel kashruth certification. You are entirely missing the point on the question before the court.
6
Jul 22, 2009 at 08:29 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Actually, I'd like to believe I am as much a shomer of torah and mitzvot as you are. I happen to think that the rav's decision is wrong as a matter of civil law. Even if this ruling stands, the religious courts could still establish their own parallel kashruth certification. You are entirely missing the point on the question before the court. ”
You are oviously not. And you aremissing the point. Even if the rabbinate is selected by the knesset, that does not give the courts right to determine a halachic decision. It is way more appropriate for the rabbinate battei din to over rule the court system than it is for the israeli court to attempt to decide what is kosher and what guidelines have to be followed.
7
Jul 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM Charlie Hall Says:
“ obviously your are non-jewish with no concept to halacha. unless there is a masgiach temidi , no rabbi can give a hechsher .a yisroel mumar can not be trusted ”
Ok, I don't understand the halachic problem. There are many bakeries in the New York area that have been, or currently are, run by non-Jews or by non-observant Jews, with only spot-checks by machgichim, with hechshers deemed reliable. Are kashrut laws different in Eretz Yisarel?
8
Jul 22, 2009 at 10:03 PM Anonymous Says:
“ You are oviously not. And you aremissing the point. Even if the rabbinate is selected by the knesset, that does not give the courts right to determine a halachic decision. It is way more appropriate for the rabbinate battei din to over rule the court system than it is for the israeli court to attempt to decide what is kosher and what guidelines have to be followed. ”
I won't debate with you who is a more ehrlich yid....I will disagree on the underlying point of whether the government should have delegated kashruth to the rabbonim, whether the rabbonim should have accepted that delegation of a commercial regulatory responsibility and whether they followed the right procedures.
9
Jul 22, 2009 at 10:20 PM me Says:
The bottom line is trust. Do we trust the person to keep the torah laws of Kashruth? If the Person is actively engaged in recruiting for Torah describes as avodah zorah, the person is not faithful to torah precepts and is not trusted The same way it could be understood that the rabbinate should not grant a kashrus certificate to a whorehouse even with a mashgiach timidi, it should also not grant a certificate to a bais avoidah zora, even with a mashgiach timidi. Please feel free to use and repeat the example I gave.
10
Jul 22, 2009 at 11:14 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Ok, I don't understand the halachic problem. There are many bakeries in the New York area that have been, or currently are, run by non-Jews or by non-observant Jews, with only spot-checks by machgichim, with hechshers deemed reliable. Are kashrut laws different in Eretz Yisarel? ”
Yes...in NYC we accept the reality that many groceries and bakeries are run by goyim but the hashgacah is adequate (especially in the case of chasideshe hashgacha). In EY the Vaads expect yiddeshe ownership and management of food supply and restaurants.
11
Jul 23, 2009 at 02:04 AM Milhouse Says:
“ Ok, I don't understand the halachic problem. There are many bakeries in the New York area that have been, or currently are, run by non-Jews or by non-observant Jews, with only spot-checks by machgichim, with hechshers deemed reliable. Are kashrut laws different in Eretz Yisarel? ”
They're not run by mumrim, let alone mesisim umedichim. No rov will give a hechsher on a brothel; this bakery is even worse.
12
Jul 23, 2009 at 02:02 AM Milhouse Says:
“ Actually, I'd like to believe I am as much a shomer of torah and mitzvot as you are. I happen to think that the rav's decision is wrong as a matter of civil law. Even if this ruling stands, the religious courts could still establish their own parallel kashruth certification. You are entirely missing the point on the question before the court. ”
Who cares whether the rov's decision is "wrong as a matter of civil law"? He wasn't paskening civil law, he was paskening the halacha, that the rov of Ashdod must not comply with the Bagatz order. If that contradicts the civil law, then so much the worse for the civil law.
13
Jul 23, 2009 at 02:00 AM Milhouse Says:
“ Melamed is digging a hole for himself. There is an old concept in halacha (adopted from the gadolim China) that says when one is stuck in a deep hole,, STOP DIGGING. Melamed seems to believe this is a good case in which to take a stand as a matter of principle and challenge the Bagatz. As PM Netanyahu recently stated:
"We are a nation of law, and the role of the Supreme Court is to be the cornerstone for maintaining the rule of law in the nation, and we cannot allow this important and central institution in the existance of the nation, to be harmed."
He added that, "we must act with respect to both the institution of the Supreme Court, and to the person who stands at its head."
”
Ah, it's our friend Mr "gadolim" again. This commenter is not an orthodox Jew. He is a sheigetz and does not belong on this site. There is no such concept in halacha as "stop digging"; on the contrary, there is a concept "yikov hadin es hahar", and "yehoreg ve'al ya'avor". When a government presumes to interfere in halacha, the Tashbetz rules that it is sh'as hashmad, and one must not give in under any circumstances.
None of us care what Netanyahu said; he and the whole Bagatz, with the witch Beinish at its head, can all go to hell, and the Torah will remain. We are a nation of Torah, ki am kodosh atoh laHashem Elokecho, and we spit on any law that contradicts the Torah; and that applies in Israel just as much as it does in Russia or Rome or anywhere else.
14
Jul 23, 2009 at 03:24 AM YY Says:
“ I won't debate with you who is a more ehrlich yid....I will disagree on the underlying point of whether the government should have delegated kashruth to the rabbonim, whether the rabbonim should have accepted that delegation of a commercial regulatory responsibility and whether they followed the right procedures. ”
The problem with your position is that the delegation is not one of a hierarchy, in which the Rabbinate needs to answer to the Courts or Knesset in the subject matter. It is rather a allocation or transfer of jurisdiction FROM the secular courts TO the Rabbanut. In which case the Rabbanut's decisions in these matters cannot be scrutinized or litigated in court. Such as the court cannot make its own laws, but the Knesset, this matter was never handed over to the courts discretion.
This ruling opens up another can of worms, for if it stands, each time a Rav or Hechsher decides to remove there certification, it will likely be challenged in court, likely in the most unorthodox way. This simply cannot have been the intention of the Knesset by their delegation of the Kashrut supervision laws and regulations to the Rabbanut.
15
Jul 23, 2009 at 01:23 AM AuthenticSatmar Says:
And this is what the Rabbonim have warned about when they said not to take gov't money.
Being that their Rabbinut is established under the authority of the state, it remains the states right to determine the rules for issuing a kashrus certificate, and the right to leave halacha out of it.
If the Badatz or Rabbi Landau refused, the court would not have ruled the same way.
We have seen such similar examples in the govt role of curiculum in frum schools, as well as admittance policies. This is not unique to Israel as there is a similar recent story un England where a school could not refuse a child of a jewish father/goyishe mother.
So now we have a real life example of govt intervention in torah, I hope you will start to see how right the Satmar Rebbe and others were.
16
Jul 23, 2009 at 04:38 AM Anonymous Says:
it is up to the rabbonim to determine what is kosher and what is not
in most cases i would not agree with something like this but i don't feel that frum yidden hanging out here, having lunch here or buying pies here will have good affect.
these people are evry persuasive and we have enough messianic jews
17
Jul 23, 2009 at 06:21 AM Anonymous Says:
Wow. The inteligence level in this thread far exceeds what one is accustomed to seeing on this blog. Hopefully this trend will continue. I agree that in this case the Rabbanute's decision should not have been subject to judicial review, given the proprietor's persuasions. But should there never be redress for someone who feels that denial of certification by a state funded organization was arbitrary and capricious, or worse, discriminatory or retalitory?
18
Jul 23, 2009 at 06:50 AM Charlie Hall Says:
“ Yes...in NYC we accept the reality that many groceries and bakeries are run by goyim but the hashgacah is adequate (especially in the case of chasideshe hashgacha). In EY the Vaads expect yiddeshe ownership and management of food supply and restaurants. ”
So it is a policy matter rather than a kashrut halachah matter?
19
Jul 23, 2009 at 06:42 AM Anonymous Says:
“ "They must know that it’s impossible to interfere with the Rabbinate"
Guess what...not only is it not impossible but it has happened many times in recent memory and will happen again here. This Rav Melamed is "no Melamed". There are appropriate limits on when and to what extent the civil courts should interfere in matters of halacha. In this case, Melamed obviously does not realize that the Kenneset has used its discretion to delegate to the chief rabbinate the determinaton of which establishments satisfy the requirements of kashruth. Inherent in that delegation is the notion of due process and not engaging in arbitrary rulings. In this case the court found that BOTH of those elements were violated and correctly decided that the certificate should be granted. If Melamed can't understand that then the government will simply find someone who does.
”
If you are Jewish, and observant, there's something really wrong with you. you portray a full goyishe view with no smell of torah or halacha, no trace of yidishkeit.
20
Jul 23, 2009 at 06:23 AM Milhouse Says:
“ And this is what the Rabbonim have warned about when they said not to take gov't money.
Being that their Rabbinut is established under the authority of the state, it remains the states right to determine the rules for issuing a kashrus certificate, and the right to leave halacha out of it.
If the Badatz or Rabbi Landau refused, the court would not have ruled the same way.
We have seen such similar examples in the govt role of curiculum in frum schools, as well as admittance policies. This is not unique to Israel as there is a similar recent story un England where a school could not refuse a child of a jewish father/goyishe mother.
So now we have a real life example of govt intervention in torah, I hope you will start to see how right the Satmar Rebbe and others were. ”
You don't know what you're talking about. The case in the UK had nothing to do with taking government money. The court's "psak din" applies to all schools, and it must be fought and resisted at all costs.
21
Jul 23, 2009 at 07:34 AM Anonymous Says:
“ Ah, it's our friend Mr "gadolim" again. This commenter is not an orthodox Jew. He is a sheigetz and does not belong on this site. There is no such concept in halacha as "stop digging"; on the contrary, there is a concept "yikov hadin es hahar", and "yehoreg ve'al ya'avor". When a government presumes to interfere in halacha, the Tashbetz rules that it is sh'as hashmad, and one must not give in under any circumstances.
None of us care what Netanyahu said; he and the whole Bagatz, with the witch Beinish at its head, can all go to hell, and the Torah will remain. We are a nation of Torah, ki am kodosh atoh laHashem Elokecho, and we spit on any law that contradicts the Torah; and that applies in Israel just as much as it does in Russia or Rome or anywhere else. ”
You obviously have a distorted view of the law in Eretz Yisroel As shomrei torah and mitzvot we follow the torah. As citizens of EY we follow civil law. Where the two conflict, we need to find ways to reconcile the conflct without engaging in the hyperbole you seem to find difficult to avoid. That is why we elect political leaders who hopefully have the proper respect for yiddeshkeit even if they themselves are not frum The large percentage of MKs and Judges in EY going back to 1948 have been either secular or MO and they have generally found compromises on these kinds of hot button issues and will do so again here. Unfortunately, there are too many bomb throwers (on both sides) to whom "compromise" means defeat and they simply try to escalate every issue into confrontation.
22
Jul 23, 2009 at 09:24 AM Rippin Pinchas Says:
"Rabbi Melamed said that the High Court ruling came as no surprise. 'High Court rulings are driven by a non-Jewish outlook, and undoubtedly judges who share a religious viewpoint would decide completely differently,' the rabbi wrote."
Unbelievable. Rabbi Melamed is a leader of the Mizrachi movement, one that used to preach the medinah first and halachah second. It is refreshing to see someone from that movement criticize the bagatz, an arm of the government, as being non-Jewish in outlook.
Similarly, the whole government is non-Jewish in outlook. Then we see these people tell us how we should support the government. Intersting.
23
Jul 23, 2009 at 09:48 AM Yehuda Says:
“ Melamed is digging a hole for himself. There is an old concept in halacha (adopted from the gadolim China) that says when one is stuck in a deep hole,, STOP DIGGING. Melamed seems to believe this is a good case in which to take a stand as a matter of principle and challenge the Bagatz. As PM Netanyahu recently stated:
"We are a nation of law, and the role of the Supreme Court is to be the cornerstone for maintaining the rule of law in the nation, and we cannot allow this important and central institution in the existance of the nation, to be harmed."
He added that, "we must act with respect to both the institution of the Supreme Court, and to the person who stands at its head."
”
Divrei harav v'divrei hatalmid lmi shomim. Kashrus & the granting of kashrus certificates has nothing to do with government or courts. Especially where the court is non-religious and does not really care about kashrus.
24
Jul 23, 2009 at 09:57 AM vestin Says:
Missionaries specifically look to disguise themselves to show that, I look like you, but I can believe in this other religion, its all a sham to hook someone in. The core basis on which they operate is one of deception. I've never heard of any kosher establishment in america, run by someone who's openly involved in missionary activity. How can someone who operates with a core basis of deceiving and tricking people, be believed that everything in their establishment really is kosher, how can you trust them, they're openly out to hook in, everyone they can. They might even purposefully put in not kosher ingredients, just to get people to eat not kosher.
Besides, what does a missionary care to have kosher certification, its irrelevant to them, its possible, that the whole point of the bakery and the kosher certification is to be able to hook people in.
Having kosher certification (a hechsher) is not an obligation, its a right which must be earned. How can you oblige someone to certify an establishment as kosher if they dont really believe it to be so? And, if they give the certification, the question becomes how can you trust those giving the kosher certification in other instances, you will never know what pressure was put on to get the certification.
25
Jul 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM Aryeh Says:
If the government ruled that chazir was kosher, would it be kosher?
26
Jul 23, 2009 at 11:24 AM Alan Says:
Would any reputable kashrus organization, give a hechshur to a restaurant that used only kosher ingredients in an acceptable way, that was otherwise filthy, with dirty restrooms, with (G-D forbid), naked dancers, or porn at an internet cafe? If the civil authorities feel that a "Jews for J..." a missionary group that many, even in the christian community feel operate on a fraudulent basis, has a "right" to a hechsur. why not a "Jews for Mohammad" group the promoted "we are all Palestinians" so no need for a Jewish state. Ultra liberals are so open minded that their brains have fallen out.
Even my grandmother, who proclaimed herself a Marxist atheist refused to be anti religious, on the grounds that no one had the right to humiliate another
27
Jul 23, 2009 at 04:45 PM Anonymous Says:
Rav Sheinin, Shlita of Ashdod is Talmud Chuchim of the highest degree. He is a man to be trusted and honored. I have know Rav Sheinin for over 20 years and he has fought to uphold Kashrus and Yiddishkeit in Ashdod. He has battled missionaries in Ashdod who attempt to convert unsuspecting immigrants. If Rav Sheinin refuses to give a Hechshar to an establishment there is very good reason..
28
Jul 24, 2009 at 12:45 PM Milhouse Says:
“ "Rabbi Melamed said that the High Court ruling came as no surprise. 'High Court rulings are driven by a non-Jewish outlook, and undoubtedly judges who share a religious viewpoint would decide completely differently,' the rabbi wrote."
Unbelievable. Rabbi Melamed is a leader of the Mizrachi movement, one that used to preach the medinah first and halachah second. It is refreshing to see someone from that movement criticize the bagatz, an arm of the government, as being non-Jewish in outlook.
Similarly, the whole government is non-Jewish in outlook. Then we see these people tell us how we should support the government. Intersting. ”
The Mizrachi movement never preached "the medinah first and halachah second"; that is a vile slander. It has always held that the medinah must subordinate itself to halacha, and that people should get involved in the medinah precisely in order to achieve that.
29
Jul 24, 2009 at 12:43 PM Milhouse Says:
“ You obviously have a distorted view of the law in Eretz Yisroel As shomrei torah and mitzvot we follow the torah. As citizens of EY we follow civil law. Where the two conflict, we need to find ways to reconcile the conflct without engaging in the hyperbole you seem to find difficult to avoid. That is why we elect political leaders who hopefully have the proper respect for yiddeshkeit even if they themselves are not frum The large percentage of MKs and Judges in EY going back to 1948 have been either secular or MO and they have generally found compromises on these kinds of hot button issues and will do so again here. Unfortunately, there are too many bomb throwers (on both sides) to whom "compromise" means defeat and they simply try to escalate every issue into confrontation. ”
You are the one with a distorted view. A man cannot serve two masters. (Yes, I do know who said that.) When civil law conflicts with the Torah there can be no question in a Jew's mind. nothing to "reconcile", or he is not a loyal Jew at all; the civil law must give way to the halacha. Divrei harav vedivrei hatalmid, divrei mi shom'in?
30
Jul 24, 2009 at 12:38 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Wow. The inteligence level in this thread far exceeds what one is accustomed to seeing on this blog. Hopefully this trend will continue. I agree that in this case the Rabbanute's decision should not have been subject to judicial review, given the proprietor's persuasions. But should there never be redress for someone who feels that denial of certification by a state funded organization was arbitrary and capricious, or worse, discriminatory or retalitory? ”
That's right. The independence of the rabbinate is too important. The Israeli judiciary has to learn to keep its nose out of other people's business. Aharon Barak's arrogant claim that "everything is justiciable" must be rooted out at all costs; it is the most dangerous of all the many dangerous ideas in the Israeli public square.