Ashdod, Israel – The High Court of Justice on Tuesday ordered the Ashdod Rabbinical Council to provide documents proving that the kashrut terms demanded of a Jews for Jesus baker were identical to those demanded of the Jewish bakers in the city.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
The decision came at the end of a hearing on a contempt-of-court petition filed on behalf of Pnina Conforty, a Jews for Jesus follower whose kosher certification had been revoked in 2006 because of her religious affiliation.
Last June, the High Court ruled that the rabbinate could not withhold a kashrut certificate from Conforty as long as she obeyed the laws of kashrut, and that it could not demand of her conditions more strict than those required of Jewish bakers in Ashdod.
Nine months later, the rabbinate has still not granted the certificate.
“Court rulings must be obeyed,” Justice Ayala Procaccia told the state’s representative, attorney Hani Ofek, at Tuesday’s hearing.
Ofek asked the court for more time, explaining that the rabbinate and the State Attorney’s Office were conducting an “institutional dialogue” and looking for a “practical solution” to the High Court’s order.
“There is a problem here,” replied Procaccia. “The High Court handed down a ruling. I have never heard of a case in which the court handed down a clear ruling and the rabbinate is looking for a ‘practical solution.’ We specified the solution.”
Ofek said there was not a single rabbi who would sign a kashrut certificate for a member of Jews for Jesus. She added that the court ruling had “fomented a storm in the rabbinical world.”
“I am asking for some time, some oxygen, to conduct this ‘institutional dialogue,’” she said.
The judges were not satisfied.
“These things happen too often,” said Supreme Court Deputy President Eliezer Rivlin. “The government must understand that when there is a ruling, it must be carried out. The State Attorney’s Office is not conveying this message.”
But the thrust of the hearing changed when the Ashdod Rabbinate’s attorney, Eyal Nun, got up to speak after Ofek.
Nun informed the court that there were eight bakeries in Ashdod that baked their goods on the spot. All of them were required to fulfill the same conditions, which included the presence of a kashrut supervisor at all times when goods were baked, and a “trustee,” a religiously observant employee, who would be on site throughout the day.
“We asked for a list of the kashrut conditions required of all the other bakeries, and they were exactly the same as those required of Conforty,” said Nun.
During the three years in which the petition was heard, Nun had never made this claim. On the contrary, the Ashdod Rabbinate had explained that precisely because Conforty was not Jewish and therefore not fully trustworthy when it came to observing the kashrut laws, she required a trustee to oversee the bakery.
Nevertheless, Rivlin asked Conforty’s lawyer, Eliad Shraga, whether his client was willing to fulfill all the conditions, including up to five hours of kashrut supervision and a full-time trustee.
Shraga, obviously angry at Nun’s claim, refused.
“These are the same conditions they demanded of us in 2006,” he told the court. “It was exactly these conditions that the court rejected in its final ruling.”
Procaccia said, “We asked for a list of the conditions in all the bakeries in Ashdod that bake their own goods. If what the attorney for the Ashdod Rabbinate says is true, we cannot allow your client to do less.”
Shraga accused the rabbinate of lying. He said it had prepared the new requirements for the other bakeries only in the wake of June’s ruling.
He also demanded to know what the kashrut conditions were for bakeries throughout the country, and said he personally knew of some that did not have a kashrut supervisor for all baking and a full-time trustee.
Procaccia rejected this argument as well, saying that kashrut observance was the responsibility of each local authority.
The court demanded that Nun provide a list of all the bakeries in Ashdod and the conditions that each one was obliged to fulfill to receive kosher certification. It also demanded to know whether the Ashdod Rabbinate would grant Conforty a certificate if she promised to fulfill all of its conditions, assuming that they were the same as those imposed on the other bakeries.
Nun said it would.
Procaccia made it clear that if the rabbinate provided such a list and if, indeed, the conditions were as Nun had claimed, it would accept the document at face value, on the assumption that a public body would not lie to the court. This is standard practice for the Supreme Court, which cannot call witnesses to testify.
However, the justices also asked Nun to tell them when the current conditions for certification had first been imposed on the bakeries.
Conforty told The Jerusalem Post after the hearing that the rabbinate was lying. She said that when she first received a kashrut certificate in 2006 (before it was revoked), the rabbinate had not required her to hire a trustee and had told her that she must have a kashrut supervisor only half an hour a day.
“rejected this argument as well, saying that kashrut observance was the responsibility of each local authority”
finally they acknowledge the halachik legitimacy of the beis din!
The Rabbinate can simply say the truth on their Kosher-Certificate.
They can write on their certificate and publicize it to the entire city that the real personal opinion of the Rabbinate is that they are not Kosher for religious reasons but the certificate paper is being issued only because of being forced by the secular cart in therefore all G-d fearing Jews know exactly how to regard any certificate which is not by the free will of the Beis Din but only being forced by court.
By doing so this “certificate” will have no value because no yid will honor it, yet the bakery will have to pay full price for this worthless document.
I can’t Israel’s civil justice system. It doesn’t work anywhere else in the world. Whether to give a hechsher or not to any establishment must be at the absolute discretion of the licensee and the Rav HaMachshir shouldn’t have to justify himself.
In fact this was established in a famous case, Rav Abramski zt”l against a butcher who was married to a non-jewish woman. It was not disputed that the butcher kept all the rules of kashrus required by the Beth Din. The Rav argued that as the licensing authority it was entirely up to him what conditions besides kashrus an owner must meet in order to get a hechsher. The, non-jewish, judge agreed, decided against the butcher and ordered him to pay the costs.
In this case I should think it is obvious. How ever kosher an establishment might be you can hardly give a hechsher to a place whose owner effectively denies the very fundamentals of judaism.
The Rabbinate is state operated and therefor cannot set arbitrary requirements for Supervision and must use the same for all stores requesting a hashgocho.
I find it strange that after 3 yrs in court we find that every bakery has a mashgiach temidi.
This woman is seriously messed up. She violates all of Jewish law. And for business she wants to obey shulchan aruch? Why can’t she make up her mind. Either obtain a hechsher from the vatican, or conform her personal life to the shulchan aruch. It is so paradoxical.
why should someones religion be the bases for if u can get a hecsher. if this would be the case a few stores in bk would loose there hecsher. (dunkin donuts is one example or carvel )
I’m confused. Every day jews in the U.S. and EY eat food made by non-jewish companies and businesses and they have no problems getting hecshers. Start with Coke for an example. As long as there is a mashgiach, its gets a hechsher. There probably are more kosher food products made by non-jews and non-jewish businesses than by jews.
This is the chickens coming home to roost. The rabbis wanted to be part of the government, and they thought that would mean that the government would abide by all of their decisions and use its power to back them up. Now, they’ve figured out that it doesn’t really work that way in a republic with an independent judiciary. If the rabbis had any sense, they’d make kashrus a private affair, just like it is in the US.
There is a big difference in trusting a goyish company who has no religious axe to grind and wants to keep his Kashrus certificate, then trusting a Mumar who would enjoy misleading the public about the Kashrus. In the Bais Hamikdesh, because of the Tzedokim (sadducces) who misinterpreted the Torah , they watched the Kohne Godol (no less!) extra carefully on YK to make sure he was not a secret Tzedoki. Same here. Different level of Kashrus required- not because of discrimination- but because of the opposite religious beliefs of this person. The concept of Chazakah would not apply to her and thats what requires greater supervision.
Hashem Hu Malkeinu, v’Lo anu avadim
HaTorah HaKedoshah Hi Chukoseinu, u’bah anu ma’aminim
Hashem Hu Malkeinu, v’Lo anu avadim
HaTorah HaKedoshah Hi Chayeinu, v’lah anu meshubadim
B’Shilton HaKofrim ain anu ma’aminim, ain anu ma’aminim
U’b’chukoseihem ain anu mischashvim, ain anu mischashvim
B’Derech HaTorah Neileich, b’aish u’b’mayim
B’Derech HaTorah Neileich, L’Kadesh Sheim Shamayim – oy – L’Kadesh Sheim Shamayim!
Quite simply!
How does the place do any business at all? Who would knowingly eat the bread of idolaters……..is at that cheap, that good, or the only bakery around?
The article states over and over again the rabbonim are lying and that they imposed the additional conditions AFTER the litigated started to lend some legitimacy to their position. If it turns out to be a fabrications, than they should be prosecuted for attempting to decieve the court. If true, than their original position was false. Either way, this whole episode reeks.