The High Court of Justice on Sunday issued a temporary order freezing the scheduled January 6 election for Tel Aviv-Jaffa’s chief rabbi, citing procedural shortcomings in the consultation process between the Religious Services Ministry and the city council over the composition of the body tasked with selecting the rabbi.
The decision, authored by Supreme Court President Isaac Amit, places the court at the center of an intensifying dispute over municipal autonomy, religious authority, and political influence in the appointment of city rabbis – an issue that has drawn mounting scrutiny amid broader debates over the balance of power between local governments, ministries in Jerusalem, and the judiciary.
In his ruling, Amit stopped short of resolving the merits of the petition, but pointed to gaps in the process that preceded the planned vote. He pointed out that additional information relevant to the ministry’s proposed representatives was conveyed only after the city council had already discussed the matter, and that even the ministry acknowledged that certain aspects of the process still required further examination.
The case was brought by a cross-faction group of Tel Aviv-Jaffa city council members, who argued that the Religious Services Ministry effectively reduced the legally mandated consultation process to a formality by submitting its slate of representatives on short notice and without sufficient background information to allow for meaningful deliberation.
The petition, filed about two weeks ago, forms part of a wider challenge to the rules governing municipal rabbi elections and the growing influence of the Religious Services Ministry over what were historically local appointments.
The heart of the dispute
At the heart of the dispute is the electoral assembly responsible for choosing the city rabbi – a statutory body composed of ministry appointees alongside municipal and public representatives. The petitioners contend that the ministry pressed ahead with the election process despite the city council’s decision not to approve the proposed representatives, undermining the council’s role under the law.
In a preliminary response filed by the state, the ministry argued that the petition and request for interim relief should be dismissed. At the same time, however, the response acknowledged that new information had been shared with the parties after the petition was filed and that certain elements warranted additional review – a concession Amit cited as part of his reasoning for intervening at this stage.
Against that backdrop, Amit directed the ministry to consider a short postponement of the election to allow the city council to hold a supplemental discussion based on the updated material. When it became clear that the compressed timetable would not permit such a discussion before the January 6 vote, the court ordered that the election be postponed until at least January 31.
The court emphasized that its intervention was grounded in practical considerations and the need to ensure that the consultation process prescribed by law is carried out meaningfully. Amit expressed confidence that the Tel Aviv-Jaffa Municipality would convene a further council debate on the ministry’s proposed representatives before the new deadline.
The decision comes amid heightened political sensitivity surrounding religious appointments at the municipal level. The petition coincides with a period of political reshuffling, in which Justice Minister Yariv Levin assumed responsibility for the Religious Services portfolio following the resignation of ultra-Orthodox ministers earlier this year, intensifying concerns over the centralization of authority in the appointment process.
The Israel Democracy Institute has previously warned that regulatory changes enacted in 2024 expanded ministerial control over city rabbi elections, potentially weakening the connection between local communities and their rabbinic leadership. The Tel Aviv case has become a focal point in that debate, highlighting tensions between pluralistic urban centers and a national religious bureaucracy increasingly shaped by coalition politics.
Rabbi Seth Farber, chairman and founder of ITIM – The Jewish Life Advocacy Center, which represents the petitioners, said that the court had made clear to representatives of the Shas party that they “cannot continue conduct that ignores the letter of the law while erasing the voices of public representatives.”
“This is yet another example in which the court was forced to remind party officials that they cannot run city rabbi selection processes as if they were their private playground,” Farber said, adding that ITIM would continue to monitor rabbinic elections nationwide “to ensure that the process is conducted lawfully and that the position of public representatives is heard.”
Under the court’s order, the state is required to submit a further update by January 28, after which the High Court will decide how to proceed.