Today, just a few hours before the proposal was set to be voted upon, the Habayit Hayehudi party filed an appeal on the proposal and put a stop on it. The law will not be voted on today, and most likely will have to be changed from its current format to have any chance of being passed.
There are a few interesting points in this matter.
1. MK Uri Orbach said the reason Habayit Hayehudi stopped the proposal is because allowing it to be passed in its current format will cause many more restaurants toopen on Shabbos. This is a problem from a number of perspectives - the character of Shabbos in the public sphere, employees rights - both religious and secular, the harm the Rabbanut will suffer as potential clients run to the private organizations instead of the Rabbanut, etc.
Orbach said that the law has benefits as well, so they want to come to an agreeable solution with the proposer of the law (MK Stern) regarding finding a way to improve the kashrut situation while not causing mass openings of restaurants on Shabbos.
2. Because of the stop placed by Habayit Hayehudi, MK Stern accused Habayit Hayehudi of being too extreme, being representative of the most extreme elements of Judaism, of going against their election campaign about making Judaism more appealing to the people by actually making Judaism more hated.
It is a funny accusation. Normally they are accused of being too lenient on Judaism - accusing them of being too extreme is funny. Also, just because they dont agree with the current format doesnt make them the most extreme representative of Judaism. They didnt alternatively propose some extreme proposal. The law that has existed for decades until now will continue just a bit longer until the text of the new law can be worked out satisfactorily.
Why is it always anybody who doesn't agree with me is an extremist? can't people legitimately have a different opinion?
3. MK Stern explained the point of his proposal, and I find it very interesting. Stern said that the law will require the Rabbanut to give kashrut certification only based on kashrut considerations and not on anything else. The law mandates that the giving of kashrut certification only take actual kashrut concerns into consideration. In practice, the Rabbanut takes other things, like Shabbos observance into consideration. Other examples are events that are immodest or inappropriate, ceremonies not according to Jewish law, etc. And, these restaurants, that want to open on shabbos, have no option of getting kashrut certification, despite the food being kosher.
The truth is, opening the restaurant on Shabbos means the proprietor is no longer trustworthy (if he was before), and cannot be relied upon at all for kashrut issues that may come up. That is mostly the reason people point to when talking about places open on Shabbos regarding kashrus. the owner cannot be trusted if he is open on Shabbos. But in truth, that is what the kashrut organization is there for - because the non-religious owner cannot really be relied upon (religious owners too). The entire system of kashrut certification is because we dont want to, or cant, trust the owner, so we trust the certifying agency instead. His opening on Shabbos isnt changing anything - we already dont trust him.
There is definitely a big problem of causing more restaurants to open on Shabbos. We don't want to encourage more chilul shabbos. But does that make the food not-kosher? It seems Rav Ovadiah Yosef had paskened in the past that one could buy from a place that is open on Shabbos, as long as he is confident the food is 100% kosher. If necessary, they can form partnerships with a non-Jew. it might be a bit complex as to how that should be done properly, but it is doable, and the it isnt even considered chilul shabbos for the restaurant to be open on Shabbos - as long as the Jewish partner isnt working there. Still, it might be harming the public atmosphere of Shabbos, as more restaurants are open, even if they technically found a way for it to be ok.
Just my musings on the matter...
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
There is a difference between the level of supervision needed for a Mumar LeTeiavon vs. a Mumar Lehachis (if they can be supervised at all). Being flagrantly open on Shabbos would move the restaurant owner closer to the second category.
ReplyDeleteWait, did Rav Ovadia permit eating at restaurants open on Shabbat (like a Burger Ranch) or buying food from a makolet open on Shabbat?
ReplyDeleteum, what about the mashgichim? They will be required to work on Shabbat as usual? If not, then how do we know that the food is kosher?
in the USA mashgichim work on shabbos to take a look in Dunkin DOnuts and other establishments with a hechsher that are open on shabbos.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that does not have to be the biggest impediment.
the bigger problem is the chilul shabbos it will cause, in the sense of more open restaurants
to anonymous - why is this any different than all the restaurants today (whether rabanut or badatz hechsher) whose owners are not personally shabbat observant?
ReplyDeleteto josh - i understand that the hechsher will only be for weekdays and the place will be open on shabbat without a hechsher and using different pots and dishes.
But
in general - the main problem with the law is not the small question of halacha (yes there probably is a way of allowing it halachikly) but the issue is whether the authority to decide halacha is in the hands of the Rabanut or the Kenesset.
This is just another one in the list of laws that are being pushed (for example conversions and segregation at the kotel and women issues) to take away all authority from the Rabanut (the "orthodox" in their eyes) and have the Kenesset decide the "Jewish" flavor of the state rather than the Rabanut.