Feed aggregator

Knesset Legal Adviser Sagit Afik has sharply criticized the legislative process surrounding the proposed Basic Law: Limud HaTorah, warning that the bill was advanced through the wrong committee and that the procedural defects could undermine the legislation as it moves forward.

In a formal letter issued following a heated meeting of the Knesset House Committee, Afik argued that the proposed Basic Law should have remained under the jurisdiction of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee rather than being transferred to the House Committee.

Afik warned that routing the legislation through a different committee could create significant legal and procedural problems.

The controversy stems from a House Committee meeting held on June 22, during which members considered a request by the chairman of the Constitution Committee to transfer the bill to his committee. Instead, the House Committee voted to recommend that the legislation remain under its own jurisdiction, a recommendation that was approved by the Knesset plenum later that same day.

In her letter, Afik made clear that she had advised lawmakers that the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee was the only appropriate body to deliberate on a new Basic Law.

“I made clear that my position was that the committee authorized to discuss the bill was the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, as originally determined,” Afik wrote.

She cautioned that “transferring the bill to another committee would create significant difficulties that would further complicate and cast a shadow over the continuation of the legislative process.”

Afik also rejected the argument that the Constitution Committee’s heavy workload justified moving the legislation elsewhere.

“Workload considerations in the authorized committee are not grounds for transferring the bill, particularly when the Knesset is approaching the end of its term, and especially when we are dealing with a new Basic Law,” she wrote.

Responding to questions raised by MKs during the committee debate, Afik noted that legal guidance for the legislation would nevertheless be provided by Dr. Gur Bligh, the legal adviser to the Constitution Committee, because of “the expertise required in formulating a new Basic Law and his familiarity with the subject.”

At the same time, she stressed that assigning the Constitution Committee’s legal adviser to the bill does not eliminate the underlying procedural concerns.

She wrote that doing so “does not lessen the fundamental difficulty created by holding discussions on the bill in a committee that lacks jurisdiction,” adding that “the continuation of the legislative process must meet an especially high standard of procedural integrity.”

Afik further revealed that after the Knesset approved transferring the legislation, she learned that the House Committee intended to conduct an accelerated series of marathon discussions on the proposal.

She noted that the Constitution Committee is already engaged in deliberations on several major and complex legislative initiatives being handled by Dr. Bligh. Because of that workload, attorney Esther Chen from the Knesset Legal Department will be assigned to assist in the deliberations.

Concluding her letter, Afik urged committee leaders to ensure that the remainder of the legislative process adheres to the highest procedural standards despite the political decision to transfer the bill.

“You will have to exercise even greater care to ensure a legislative process of an especially high standard, both with respect to hearing invited guests, outside representatives, members of Knesset, and diverse viewpoints, as well as regarding the manner in which the meetings are conducted and their frequency… This is necessary in order to remedy the defect and the harm to the legislative process that I pointed out during the House Committee discussion.”

{Matzav.com}

Amid growing public interest and numerous inquiries, Israel’s Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi, Rav Kalman Meir Bar, has published a comprehensive halachic essay addressing the kashrus status of various types of whiskey, clarifying the significant differences between American, Scottish, Irish, and Canadian whiskeys and explaining the halachic concerns surrounding barrels previously used for non-kosher wine.

The detailed article, published on Rav Bar’s online shu”t website, examines the widespread practice of aging whiskey in barrels that once contained stam yeinam, a subject that has long been discussed by contemporary poskim.

Rav Bar distinguishes between the various categories of whiskey based on the production regulations governing each country.

Regarding American bourbon, he writes that there is generally little cause for concern because U.S. law requires bourbon to be aged exclusively in new oak barrels, eliminating the issue of previously used wine casks.

The primary halachic concern, he explains, involves Scotch and Irish whiskeys, whose producers commonly age their products in used barrels that previously held wines such as sherry and port in order to impart distinctive flavor, aroma, and color.

Canadian whiskey, Rav Bar notes, raises an even greater concern because Canadian regulations permit the addition of flavoring agents that may, in some cases, include actual wine.

The Chief Rabbi then explores the halachic analysis in depth, presenting numerous grounds for leniency cited by leading poskim, including the Minchas Yitzchak and Igros Moshe. Among the issues discussed is the principle that wine absorbed into the walls of a barrel may become batel in a ratio of six—or according to other opinions, sixty—parts whiskey.

He further explains that the objective of barrel aging is not to impart the flavor of the wine itself, but rather to soften the harsh qualities of the wood. As such, the absorbed wine is not considered an ingredient intentionally added for flavor (avid l’taama). Rav Bar also discusses an additional basis for leniency regarding whiskey aged in second-fill and later-use barrels, since much of the absorbed wine has already been extracted by the first spirit aged in the cask.

Beyond the issue of wine casks, Rav Bar cautions that certain industrial additives used in whiskey production—such as blending agents—may contain non-kosher ingredients and therefore warrant careful scrutiny.

He also raises the separate concern of chametz she’avar alav haPesach in the case of distilleries owned by non-observant Jewish proprietors.

In his conclusion, Rav Bar writes that although there are substantial halachic arguments supporting leniency with respect to many whiskeys, “the one who fears the word of Hashem should not, l’chatchilah, rely on these grounds for leniency.”

Accordingly, he urges consumers to purchase only whiskey that bears the certification of reliable kashrus agencies. Rav Bar adds that the Chief Rabbinate will continue its longstanding policy of withholding approval for the importation of alcoholic beverages unless they have undergone thorough kashrus inspection and received proper certification.