BySARAH BEN-NUN

JULY 12, 2026 14:34

Updated: JULY 12, 2026 14:35

Tzohar petitioned the High Court of Justice on Thursday to dismiss the government's effort to nullify its recently awarded permit to function as an official kashrut authority. It contended that the primary argument from the state conflicts with evidence and prior court decisions.

The filing came after the state claimed last week that the permit resulted from a defective procedure since the Chief Rabbinate Council was not consulted beforehand, contrary to legal mandates.

A court session is set for November 2.

The conflict revolves around the permit issued to Tzohar on July 1 by the kashrut reform enforcer, even though the Chief Rabbinate's legal advisor asserted afterward that the required consultation with the council did not occur.

Tzohar maintained that the state seeks to convert an existing petition, which led to the permit, into a fresh challenge against the permit's legitimacy.

“The petition cannot turn into a case questioning the validity of a license already properly issued,” the group stated.

'Chief Rabbinate Council never got to express its position,' the State argues

The state's key point is that the Chief Rabbinate Council lacked a chance to voice its stance prior to the permit's issuance.

Tzohar dismissed this as “factually incorrect,” presenting multiple points.

First, it referenced a July 7 letter from Chief Rabbinate director-general Yehuda Cohen, who approved the permit, noting that during prior court cases, all submissions from the Rabbinate's legal team were prepared “in close cooperation” with the president of the Chief Rabbinate Council.

Per Cohen's letter, the council was a respondent in earlier petitions on Tzohar's licensing bid, and it raised no objections to the permit on kashrut issues.

Tzohar said this contradicts the state's assertion that the council never considered the matter.

Tzohar also noted that the High Court's November 2025 decision directed the Chief Rabbinate Council to determine if Tzohar qualified for a license based on current criteria.

This decision, according to Tzohar, prevents the council from claiming ignorance or lack of invitation to review it.

The group added that its previous petitions listed the council as a respondent and included the licensing request, so the council received the documents formally.

Apart from challenging the facts, Tzohar pointed out that the law offers a distinct process for revoking or suspending a permit after issuance.

This requires proper procedure, such as a hearing.

“What is occurring here breaches all standards and decency,” the response declares.

The organization further argued that under the law, the Chief Rabbinate Council's function is restricted to objecting on kashrut reasons within the set timeframe. Absent such objection, the law assumes agreement to the permit.

Even assuming an administrative flaw, Tzohar claimed the relative nullity principle should block retroactive invalidation of the permit, given reliance by the organization and businesses.

The document indicates Tzohar has already provided certifications, started operations, and begun business talks, with hundreds of food venues potentially impacted by revocation.

Tzohar also charged the state with prolonging the licensing for months and then trying to cancel it post-issuance, suggesting the action stems from legislative moves to undo the kashrut reform rather than real procedural issues.