The Ramat Hasharon Municipality committed yesterday before the Tel Aviv District Court to enforce the municipal bylaw on businesses operating on Shabbat, in accordance with the enforcement policy document it presented during the hearing.

The commitment was given within the framework of a petition filed by the Hapoel Hamizrachi Histadrut, which sought to obligate the municipality to enforce the municipal bylaw prohibiting the opening of businesses on Shabbat. Following the municipality's commitment to act in accordance with the enforcement policy it presented, the legal proceeding concluded.

The practical significance of the commitment is that starting from the upcoming Saturdays, the municipality is expected to begin enforcement proceedings against businesses that operate contrary to the law. According to the enforcement policy presented to the court, business owners who open their doors on Shabbat face a fine of NIS 730.

The decision is expected to affect, among others, the businesses operating in the BIG Glilot complex, which in recent months has become the focus of the struggle surrounding the issue of commerce on Shabbat. Every Shabbat, about 45,000 visitors frequent the complex, and now business owners will be required to prepare for the possibility of municipal enforcement as early as this coming Shabbat.

The court obligated the Ramat Hasharon Municipality to pay the petitioners legal expenses in the amount of NIS 730.

Although the municipality committed in court to implement the enforcement policy and distribute fines to businesses that open on Shabbat, Mayor Itzik Rochberger welcomed the results of the proceeding and stated: "I welcome the court's decision. Ramat Hasharon will remain pluralistic, with freedom of religion and freedom from religion. We will continue to maintain the enforcement policy document as we declared."

Concurrently, the Ramat Hasharon Municipality continues to call on the Ministry of Interior to approve the amendment to the municipal bylaw. According to the municipality, several requests to update the law have been submitted over the years, but they have not yet been approved. Until its approval, the municipality is expected to act in accordance with the enforcement policy presented to the court.

In the decision of Judge Gilad Hess, it was written that: "As I noted above, the petition was filed over the sweeping non–enforcement of the bylaw, and in fact, the denial by Respondents 1–2 of the bylaw and the need to enforce it. Hence, on this matter, I believe it is clear that the petition succeeded and was accepted on this level, such that Respondents 1–2, Yitzhak Rochberger and the Ramat Hasharon Municipality, clarified in the pleadings, and Rochberger in his statement in court today, that there is room to enforce the old and existing bylaw and they intend to do so.

"Furthermore, not only did Respondents 1–2 declare that there is room to enforce the law, but they formulated an enforcement policy on how to enforce this law. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the petition in its substantive component has exhausted itself, as there is no longer any dispute between the parties that the law must be enforced, and specifically the old bylaw regarding the closure of businesses on days of rest."

The petition against the opening of BIG Glilot on Shabbat was filed in May 2025, over a year ago, and behind it stands a group of merchants from Ramat Hasharon, who claim that while they are required to comply with municipal bylaws and remain closed on Shabbat, the BIG Glilot complex enjoys selective enforcement and a significant commercial advantage. They were joined by the Hapoel Hamizrachi Histadrut, a workers' rights organization, which assisted in formulating and submitting the petition.

According to the petitioners, this is not only a struggle over the character of Shabbat, but also an issue of the rule of law and fair competition. "As long as the law is not enforced – many workers will be forced to choose between giving up their right to a day of rest and violating the law, and keeping their jobs," the petition claimed.

The petitioners describe a reality of "trampling the rule of law and harming the social fabric," while abandoning weak workers and creating a competitive advantage for a commercial complex operating on Shabbat contrary to municipal bylaws. According to them, other business owners in the city are required to pay the economic price of closing on Shabbat, while BIG Glilot enjoys the income of an additional trading day, without intervention from the municipality.

A central part of the petition deals with the conduct of the Mayor of Ramat Hasharon, Yitzhak Rochberger. According to the petitioners, Rochberger publicly "scoffs" at his duty to enforce the municipal bylaw, even after the municipality's legal advisor, Atty. Micha Blum, clarified to the city council that effective enforcement of the law must be carried out.

At BIG, they present a completely different picture. Sources close to the company claim that the timing at which the Director General of the Ministry of Interior responded to the Ramat Hasharon Municipality's request to change the municipal bylaw, so that it would permit the opening of businesses on Shabbat, just a few days before the hearing on the petition, is not accidental.

"Many businesses have been open in the area for years," they say there. "Cinema City, Arena Mall, Seven Stars Mall, and no one did anything. Moreover, there are no concentrations of ultra–Orthodox population in the area at all, so it is not really supposed to bother them. Whoever is paying for the petition, whoever is paying the lawyers, and whoever is funding the campaign against BIG are apparently the competitors. Someone has a financial interest, and it is difficult to see this move as an innocent act."

According to them, the timing of the Ministry of Interior's response also raises questions. "The Ramat Hasharon Municipality's request to change the municipal bylaw was submitted a long time ago, but only a few days before the hearing, the Director General of the Ministry of Interior suddenly remembered to issue the response precisely now, a response that could serve the petitioners."

The Ministry of Interior rejects the claims. Sources in the ministry tell Walla that this is a completely professional and technical procedure, unrelated to the petition or political considerations. According to them, it all began with the Ramat Hasharon Municipality's application to change the municipal bylaw, but professional deficiencies were found in the request that required attention.

They further state that in the absence of a serving Minister of Interior authorized to sign an amendment to a bylaw, it was not possible to advance the procedure as requested. "This is a completely professional response. The Ministry of Interior made a technical and professional move here. There is no political interest here."

There may be certain legal flaws in the request, as the Ministry of Interior claims, but the argument that the absence of a serving Minister of Interior prevented the advancement of the procedure raises question marks. According to regulations, in a situation where there is no serving Minister of Interior, the Prime Minister can fill the position for the purpose of exercising the required authority and even sign decisions of this type. Therefore, it is difficult to accept the argument that the very absence of a Minister of Interior was the reason for the delay in handling the Ramat Hasharon Municipality's request to change the municipal bylaw and allow the opening of businesses on Shabbat.