Supreme Court Upholds Age Limit for Kosher Slaughterers Over 80

Israel's Supreme Court has rejected petitions challenging a ruling by the Chief Rabbinate Council that prohibits kosher slaughterers over the age of 80 from continuing in their roles. The ruling applies to slaughterers both within Israel and abroad.

The challenge arose after the Rabbinate's overseas slaughter committee decided in 2024 to impose an 80-year age limit. While the Rabbinate Council initially agreed to a case-by-case review mechanism for slaughterhouse staff, the Chief Rabbi of Israel subsequently issued a halachic ruling stating that slaughter team leaders over 80 could not continue their duties. This decision was based on halachic and professional considerations, citing previous rulings and additional sources, which concluded that the kashrut (kosher status) of meat processed under the responsibility of an octogenarian leader could not be guaranteed. The ruling also barred individuals over 80 from other roles within a slaughter team.

The petitioners argued that the age restriction constituted age discrimination, infringing upon their rights to freedom of occupation, property, dignity, and equality. They contended that the decision was made without individual assessments of their physical and professional capabilities and without affording them a hearing.

The Chief Rabbinate countered that the demanding physical and mental nature of slaughter work justified the age limit, which was rooted in professional and halachic considerations within its regulatory authority over kashrut. Supreme Court Justice Alex Stein, joined by Justices Khaled Kabub and Yechiel Kasher, ruled that the petitions should be dismissed.

Justice Stein emphasized the Chief Rabbinate's broad professional and halachic discretion in matters of food kashrut, stating there was no grounds for judicial intervention. He determined that the age limit did not violate equality principles or constitute prohibited discrimination, as age is a relevant factor for competence in slaughtering due to the job's nature. The court also found the restriction to be a minimal infringement on freedom of occupation, limited in scope and specific.

As a gesture of goodwill, the judges decided not to impose legal costs on the petitioners, expressing appreciation for their extensive work despite their advanced age and wishing them health and longevity.