Outcry as Court Ruling on Haredi City Was Issued During Shabbat

District Court Judge Michael Karshen issued a decision in a sensitive petition against the Haredi city of Elad just one and a half hours before sunset. The Judiciary responded to criticism: "It may have been due to lack of attention".

Tension in the judicial system and the Haredi sector: District Court Judge in Lod Michael Karshen drew sharp criticism after issuing a judicial decision in the middle of last Shabbat, as part of a sensitive administrative petition filed against the Haredi municipality of Elad, journalist Tuvia Yeglnik reported on Galei Tzahal.

The decision in question was issued about an hour and a half before the end of Shabbat and dealt with a petition filed by Elad City Council member Yitzhak Hala against the municipality. The petition itself concerns complex claims of improper governance and extreme lack of transparency in the conduct of the local authority, but people close to the case questioned the extreme urgency that supposedly required the judge to act דווקא during Shabbat.

Despite the desecration of Shabbat involved in issuing the decision in the Haredi city, the Elad municipality has for now chosen not to file an official complaint against Judge Karshen to any of the relevant bodies.

"Not something that requires a decision in the middle of Shabbat". The uproar over the "vacation" of senior Bnei Brak city officials in Nazareth at a cost of half a million shekels. Hazi Stern | 11:54

This incident joins the already existing tension between the Haredi sector and the judicial system, especially in light of the fact that only recently the Ombudsman for Complaints Against Judges harshly criticized High Court justices, following a similar case in which a judicial decision was delivered during Shabbat.

People familiar with the details stressed that this is a clearly administrative matter, and certainly not an urgent issue or one defined as pikuach nefesh that would justify issuing a decision in the middle of the day of rest.

The Judiciary said in response: "This is a technical decision in a case, and it may have been due to lack of attention that the decision was issued shortly before Shabbat ended."