However, it should be noted that after the Netanya Magistrate's Court ruled that the provisions of the bylaw regarding a general prohibition of the sale of pig meat in all areas of the city were contrary to the Basic Law: Freedom of Occupation should have required the temporary provisions detailed above, according to which conflicting statutory provisions, which were in force prior to the commencement of the Basic Law, would remain in effect, and only to examine the interpretation of the general prohibition in the spirit of the Basic Laws, and this was not necessary.
In practice, the difference is not great, since the interpretation "in the spirit of the Basic Laws" must be made in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Laws, and accordingly the compliance of the bylaw with the conditions of the limitation clause, which are identical in the two Basic Laws, regarding the compatibility of the overall prohibition therein with the values of the State of Israel, must be examined, since it is intended for a proper purpose and to an extent that does not exceed what is required, and I have noted this only in order to put the legal situation on its toll. However, in addition to this, it can be said, in light of the aforesaid, that in order to cancel the prohibition on the sale of pig meat, the violation of the Hiss and D laws must be more severe and extreme, since according to the provisions of the time the law itself is in force and must only be interpreted in the spirit of the Basic Laws. Therefore, in order to determine that the prohibition on the sale of pork in general in all areas of the community is null and void, the violation of the Basic Laws must be more severe.
Therefore, prima facie, there was no choice but to enter into the question of the compliance of the bylaw with the conditions of the limitation clause, as was done in all the judgments mentioned, and this is what I meant when I said at the beginning of the judgment, that matters of religion and faith are difficult. There is no doubt that the prohibition of eating pork has a special significance and central weight in the Jewish religion, as noted by the trial court and my colleagues Vice-President Y. Pilpel, and it is sufficient to quote the words of Justice Silberg in the Lubin case [7], at p. 1067, that "the Israeli legislature gave the Enabling Law, which apparently clearly equated against it the 'special attitude' that a person from Israel has towards the impurity of the pig" and in the words stated in the judgment in the case Gorenstein [6], at p. 622, regarding "the deep aversion of the majority of the inhabitants of the country to the pig, which in ancient times served as a symbol of impurity and hatred of Israel," quoted by my colleague Vice President Y. Pilpel, and there is no need to elaborate, and this also derives the prohibition on the sale of pig meat. Admittedly, I do not believe that the fact that the prohibition of eating pork has not only a religious character but also a national character, as my colleague Vice President Y. Pilpel believed, has decisive weight, since even with regard to Tisha B'Av, in respect of which it was determined in the Lapid case [5] that the national aspect is not inferior in weight to the religious aspect, and therefore there was authority to prohibit the opening of businesses on that day. Ultimately, a special authorization law was enacted, the Law for the Prohibition of Opening Pleasure Houses on Tisha B'Av (Special Accreditation), 5758-1997 – similar to the Certification Law regarding the prohibition of the sale of pork, after it can be assumed that it was thought that the national aspect was insufficient and therefore a special authorization law was needed. Hence, if with regard to Tisha B'Av, the ordinance for which it is explicitly stated that it is "a day of mourning for the Jewish people over the destruction of the Temple," which emphasizes the national aspect, then even if the prohibition of eating pork has a national character, it should not be regarded as overweight, since even the existence of this character does not exempt from a special authority in the law, but one way or another, there is no doubt about the centrality and power of the prohibition of eating pork in the Jewish people.