Rabbi Shmuel David argues that both former minister Matan Kahana’s kashrut reform and the new kashrut law contain useful elements and serious flaws, and says the best solution is to combine them through competition, transparency, and recognition of legitimate halakhic disagreement. He says the main problem in both models is their sweeping, rigid approach, which ignores the existence of different rabbinic opinions and practical alternatives.
David says competition is essential for a good public service, including in rabbinical and religious council systems. He cites Tzohar’s work in wedding officiation and marriage registration as examples of services that improved once another provider entered the field. In his view, kashrut should work the same way, because under Kahana’s law a business could turn to another local rabbi or to an organization such as Tzohar if a municipal council or chief rabbi imposed overly strict rulings, illegal fees, or excessive supervision hours. Under the new law, he says, the business is effectively captive to the local rabbinate.
He also criticizes the objection that a northern rabbi could not issue kashrut in Eilat, saying the idea can be limited by distance, such as 50 kilometers, while still preserving competition. He says hotel owners pushed for Tzohar’s kashrut because they felt pressured by inspectors who came with extended family visits at the hotel’s expense during Shabbat or Passover, and local complaints went nowhere because there was no competition.
David further says the Chief Rabbinate’s guidance has become increasingly strict, and should allow different levels of kashrut as long as the certificate clearly states the relevant details, such as non-Israel milk or cheese. He says wine producers seek Tzohar certification because rabbinical officials require a strict view that wine touched by a non-Shabbat-observant person becomes forbidden, despite major halakhic authorities who disagree. In his view, the Chief Rabbinate should supervise and set rules, but allow each kashrut provider to set its own halakhic standard with full disclosure.
On enforcement, David backs removing the dependence of inspectors on business owners, but says inspectors should also be barred from taking free food from the places they supervise. He questions why municipal religious councils should pay inspectors directly, suggesting staffing through a labor company or a central manpower system to reduce bureaucracy and corruption. He warns that the new law still has major unanswered questions and should be corrected now, before practical problems emerge.
