Tzohar asked the High Court of Justice on Thursday to reject the state's attempt to invalidate its newly issued license to operate as an official kashrut-certifying body, arguing that the state's central claim is contradicted by both the facts and the court's own previous rulings.
The response was filed after the state argued earlier last week that the license was issued through a fundamentally flawed process because the Chief Rabbinate Council had not been consulted before the authorization was granted, as legally required.
A hearing in the case has been scheduled for November 2.
The dispute centers on the license granted to Tzohar on July 1 by the official responsible for implementing Israel's kashrut reform, despite the Chief Rabbinate's legal adviser later claiming that the statutory consultation process with the Chief Rabbinate Council had not taken place.
In its response, Tzohar argued that the state was attempting to transform a petition that had already resulted in the issuance of the license into a new legal challenge against the validity of the license itself.
“The petition cannot become a proceeding about the validity of a license that has already been lawfully granted,” the organization argued.
'Chief Rabbinate Council never got to express its position, ' the State argues
The state's main argument is that the Chief Rabbinate Council never had an opportunity to express its position before the license was issued.
Tzohar rejected that claim as “factually untrue,” advancing several arguments.
First, it pointed to a July 7 letter written by Chief Rabbinate director-general Yehuda Cohen, who signed the license, stating that throughout the earlier court proceedings, every submission prepared by the Rabbinate's legal department had been drafted “in close cooperation” with the president of the Chief Rabbinate Council.
According to Cohen's letter, the council was itself a respondent in previous petitions regarding Tzohar's licensing request, and the council never objected to granting the license on kashrut grounds.
Tzohar argued that this directly contradicts the state's position that the matter had never reached the council.
Tzohar also argued that the High Court's November 2025 ruling had explicitly instructed the Chief Rabbinate Council to decide whether Tzohar was entitled to receive a license under the existing legal criteria.
That ruling, it said, made it impossible for the council to argue that it had been unaware of the issue or was never asked to consider it.
The organization further noted that both of its earlier petitions named the council as a respondent and attached the licensing request itself, meaning the council had formally received the relevant material.
Beyond disputing the factual basis of the state's position, Tzohar argued that the law provides a separate statutory mechanism for suspending or revoking a license once it has been issued.
Such action, it said, requires due process, including a hearing.
“What is happening here is the violation of every norm we have and every sense of decency,” reads the response.
The organization also argued that, under the relevant statutory provision, the Chief Rabbinate Council's role is limited to objecting on kashrut grounds within the prescribed period. If no such objection is made, the law treats the council as having agreed to the license, it said.
Even if an administrative defect had occurred, Tzohar argued, the doctrine of relative nullity should prevent the license from being retroactively invalidated because the organization and businesses had already relied on it.
The filing states that Tzohar has already issued certification documents, begun operating under the license, and entered commercial negotiations with businesses, while hundreds of food establishments could be affected if the authorization were revoked.
The organization also accused the state of delaying the licensing process for months before attempting to invalidate the license only after it had finally been granted, arguing that the move was driven by parallel legislative efforts to repeal the kashrut reform rather than by genuine administrative concerns.